Should We Leave the EU?

[TheKnightWho]

I agree.

It has taken decades to get where we are now and is that a good place to be (if you are not a politician in power or big business)?

The EU has set some good standards but there is nothing to stop us following these standards even if we are not in the EU.

I still need to take foreign currency if I go abroad but few counties now require visas so why would the EU?

I do not see what we gain by being in although I do hear big business likes the tax deals and breaks they get with little or no paperwork on shipping goods or money around.

Who was hit hardest when the big banks nearly failed? Do you really have confidence that the government will stand up for the little guy in the face of a recession?

 

[Gutfright]

You know, all of the ways we've historically encouraged more people to vote?

https://www.boundless.com/political...9/attempts-to-improve-voter-turnout-384-5669/

Sarcasm only works if you don't know b*gger all about a topic.

What about the non-voters, do they deserve a say?

If they do, then on a practical level, how do we ensure people who haven't voted are given a say?

Who was hit hardest when the big banks nearly failed? Do you really have confidence that the government will stand up for the little guy in the face of a recession?

And the EU government will?

 

[Spamcan81]

Well who'd have thought it? The MoS now backing remain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...tain.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

 

[ExRes]

Well who'd have thought it? The MoS now backing remain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...tain.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

That will be a nasty blow to Remain then

 

[Gutfright]

Newspaper owned by tax-dodging billionaire who lives in France backs remain shocker!

 

[Spamcan81]

Newspaper owned by tax-dodging billionaire who lives in France backs remain shocker!

Considering the Mail has been screaming "LEAVE" for ages, that is a surprising volte face.

 

[Senex]

Considering the Mail has been screaming "LEAVE" for ages, that is a surprising volte face.

Surely different editors, not a volte face on the part of one? And the Times and Sunday Times are shewing the same divergence of opinion.

 

[Spamcan81]

Surely different editors, not a volte face on the part of one? And the Times and Sunday Times are shewing the same divergence of opinion.

Given the reactions in the comments section, I'd say the MoS article is not what many readers were expecting.

 

[Johnuk123]

Considering the Mail has been screaming "LEAVE" for ages, that is a surprising volte face.

The Mail on Sunday has been Remain for ages it's the Daily Mail that is Leave.

 

[Howardh]

R/e voting, you have a choice of two; leave or remain. There's no third *don't know* option; and I reckon if there was, it would win hand's down. So if you genuinely "don't know", how do you register that?

Same at an election, if all of the candidates are not your choice - do you vote for your least-worst option? Is that the way to elect a government, the best of the worst?!!

Staying away doesn't mean not bothered - it could well mean "not satisfied with the options".

 

[anme]

I do not see what we gain by being in although I do hear big business likes the tax deals and breaks they get with little or no paperwork on shipping goods or money around.

Could you explain what "tax deals and breaks" "big business" gets when "shipping goods or money around"? Where did you hear about these deals? Are you in favour of more paperwork on the movement of goods and money? I thought leavers believed (quite wrongly) that the EU is the source of more bureaucracy, not less!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, you've answered your own question there. Travel between ROI and UK is immaterial* - travel within the UK does not require ID, even if it's strongly advised.
*Anyone worried about checks at Dublin which could prevent entry to the UK simply cross the border unmolested and cross the Irish sea from Norn.

Travel within the UK (except driving) does not require ID *today*. Who can say how that will change in the future?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why is Farage standing in front of posters that shows hundreds of migrants on the march?

That's a very good question, which I suggest you ask him. The picture on his poster was actually taken in Slovenia.

 

[Muttley]

Make it mandatory to vote but have a 'None of the above' option.

How can you have a none of the above when it's a binary yes/no ?

 

[317 forever]

I hope we stay in the EU for several reasons.

It enables free trade with EU countries. This benefits us for exports such as tourism and imports such as food. Travel to and from other EU countries is simpler and probably cheaper too.

The Irish favour the continued open border between the Republic and Northern Ireland.

Working with other countries in the EU helps us to protect the environment and defence, especially against other superpowers such as Russia, China & America.

It also means better relations with other European governments and citizens generally. It makes us look more tolerant to the world in general. We have also had some good employment rights from Europe such as the maximum 48-hour week apart from essential services, 20 days paid holiday a year and paternity rights.

 

[anme]

How can you have a none of the above when it's a binary yes/no ?

Exactly. And in general, "none of the above" is just cop out and an abdication of responsibility. No candidate will ever be perfect - there will always be an element of choosing the one you consider to be "least bad".

 

[Domh245]

Exactly. And in general, "none of the above" is just cop out and an abdication of responsibility. No candidate will ever be perfect - there will always be an element of choosing the one you consider to be "least bad".

Surely that is why (at least in elections rather than referendums) there should be a reopen nominations option. I know that a lot of elections, for example in Student Unions have this option already. If everyone really is that dire that you can't bring yourself to vote for any of them, you can force another vote, hopefully with better candidates.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What about the non-voters, do they deserve a say?

I suppose that you cannot accept the fact that the only way of "having a say" was to be officially registered to enable you to cast a vote....then actually casting that vote.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Newspaper owned by tax-dodging billionaire who lives in France backs remain shocker!

Is the billionaire officially registered in order to be able to cast his "one man/one vote"? That is the only way that he can make his voice heard is then to actually cast that vote.

I am not exactly short of "a penny or two" as many on this website are aware and I am officially registered to be able to vote and I most certainly will be casting my vote.

 

[deltic]

Well who'd have thought it? The MoS now backing remain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...tain.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

There is a separate campaign between the editors of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday who seem to deliberately take opposing sides on many issues and alledgely hate each other - Private Eye provides endless examples every fortnight of how each appears to spike each other's position.

 

[northwichcat]

There was a Referendum Campaign Broadcast for 'Vote Leave' on last night but wasn't scheduled in the TV listing - I'm guessing it was postponed from Thursday or Friday. I found that to be on the same level as a BNP one I saw by accident a couple of years ago - talking down to viewers and repeating the same poorly researched point.

If all the money sent to the EU is instead spent on the NHS then that would mean huge cuts in spending for other areas like redevelopment and infrastructure as there would be no EU funds and the 'saved' money from not being in the EU would apparently all go to the NHS.

 

[zuriblue]

There was a Referendum Campaign Broadcast for 'Vote Leave' on last night but wasn't scheduled in the TV listing - I'm guessing it was postponed from Thursday or Friday. I found that to be on the same level as a BNP one I saw by accident a couple of years ago - talking down to viewers and repeating the same poorly researched point.

If all the money sent to the EU is instead spent on the NHS then that would mean huge cuts in spending for other areas like redevelopment and infrastructure as there would be no EU funds and the 'saved' money from not being in the EU would apparently all go to the NHS.

I saw an interesting graphic (I'm going to put it in but if it's against the rules then mods please delete) which shows that the £350m alleged by the Leave campaign (it's a lot less as we all know) to be sent to the EU amounts to 0.37% of UK expenditure. Health spending is 13.71% so £350m a day isn't going to build a lot of hospitals.

Interestingly Overseas Aid (another UKIP/Daily Mail obsession) accounts for 0.67% so if we cut both of those we would save less than 1% of Government expenditure.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If all the money sent to the EU is instead spent on the NHS then that would mean huge cuts in spending for other areas like redevelopment and infrastructure as there would be no EU funds and the 'saved' money from not being in the EU would apparently all go to the NHS.

Perhaps I may have misheard a comment made by someone from the "Leave" sector, but that comment that the quoted figure of the "saved £350 million" that all that side of the debate started off by stating "would be spent on the NHS" has suddenly become "may be spent on the NHS".

There is a very wide gulf between the implications of those two statements.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I saw an interesting graphic (I'm going to put it in but if it's against the rules then mods please delete) which shows that the £350m alleged by the Leave campaign (it's a lot less as we all know) to be sent to the EU amounts to 0.37% of UK expenditure. Health spending is 13.71% so £350m a day isn't going to build a lot of hospitals.

I'm not quite sure where those figures come from. What is meant by 'UK expenditure'? As far as I can make out, the correct figure for net EU contributions is £8bn/year. Set against that, whenever I've checked UK Government expenditure (sorry, I don't have a link to hand), I've come up with a figure of between £700 and £800 bn/year. That suggests net EU contributions add up to around 1% of total Government expenditure. To be clear, that doesn't qualitatively change your main argument that EU expenditure is, in relative terms, tiny (and most economists seem to agree that the money spent repays itself several times over in economic benefits leading to increased tax receipts). But I'd like to know how the figures in that chart - and the 0.37% - is reached.

 

[northwichcat]

Perhaps I may have misheard a comment made by someone from the "Leave" sector, but that comment that the quoted figure of the "saved £350 million" that all that side of the debate started off by stating "would be spent on the NHS" has suddenly become "may be spent on the NHS".

There is a very wide gulf between the implications of those two statements.

Apparently the £350m figure is wrong and it's actually £110m to £135m: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ave-s-nhs-leaflet-and-so-should-a7043681.html

With some Brexit campaigners now claiming it'll be £100m extra going to the NHS (not that they are admitting there's over £200m a week less than they were claiming)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450749

 

[Gutfright]

Is the billionaire officially registered in order to be able to cast his "one man/one vote"? That is the only way that he can make his voice heard is then to actually cast that vote.

Owning several UK newspapers read by millions of Britons is in my opinion a much better way of having your voice heard than casting one measly insignificant vote.

 

[JohnB57]

Both sides have cited numerous "facts", both sides have tried to scare the bejasus out of us and the vast majority of us are both confused and sick of the whole thing. However, there seem to be two "facts" that actually stack up.

1. Remaining as members will give us some continued influence within Europe
2. Exiting Europe will give us complete control over our own affairs

Anything else seems to me to be pure conjecture, based on opinion, vested interest and guesswork - on both sides.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Owning several UK newspapers read by millions of Britons is in my opinion a much better way of having your voice heard than casting one measly insignificant vote.

Are you really expecting me to believe that the "millions of Britons" you make reference to will actually cast their "measly insignificant" single votes (to borrow your phrase) just because a newspaper tells them the way their vote should be cast? Have these voters no mind capacity of their own that will enable them to use their own judgements in matter such as this

Incredulity can only be stretched so far, before reality is totally seen to be departing stage left...:roll:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Both sides have cited numerous "facts", both sides have tried to scare the bejasus out of us and the vast majority of us are both confused and sick of the whole thing. However, there seem to be two "facts" that actually stack up.

1. Remaining as members will give us some continued influence within Europe
2. Exiting Europe will give us complete control over our own affairs

I would say even your number 2 fact is not correct. It's impossible in today's interconnected world to have complete control over one's own affairs. Even outside the EU, we would still be legally restricted by all sorts of international treaties that we have signed up to or will sign up to (NATO, climate change, all sorts of trade agreements, agreements on tax havens, on extraditing criminals, etc. etc.). And in practice, even without all those treaties we would also be heavily restricted by the realities of living in a World in which so many things take place on an international level. There are many things that we might notionally be free to do, but where in practice we would not really be free to act because doing those things would just cause businesses to move away from the UK, or prevent trade with the EU, etc. etc. This idea of taking back control that the Leave side keep peddling is to a large extent an illusion.

Anything else seems to me to be pure conjecture, based on opinion, vested interest and guesswork - on both sides.

That's not quite true. A lot of the other predictions - especially on the economy - are based on forecasting and modelling by people who are experts in that field, and are likely to be applying fairly rigorous methods. (But of course, the a problem can emerge when those impartial results get filtered through the mouths of politicians and campaigners who do have vested interests).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you really expecting me to believe that the "millions of Britons" you make reference to will actually cast their "measly insignificant" single votes (to borrow your phrase) just because a newspaper tells them the way their vote should be cast? Have these voters no mind capacity of their own that will enable them to use their own judgements in matter such as this

It's more than that. If you own a newspaper, you can control what news that newspaper reports of an extended period of time. Over some years, you can have that newspaper selectively report facts or news, or even have it deliberately distort or mislead over certain events, in such a way as to reinforce your own opinions, with the result that many of your readers come to agree with you, when in all likelihood they would not have done so if they had been given a more impartial/accurate version of the news. In the case of the EU, this does seem to be what has happened: I would suggest that a number of newspapers have basically had it in for the EU for decades, and during that time have repeatedly pushed out myths and distortions that are not accurate, and are designed to discredit the EU in readers' eyes. That has a far greater impact on election and referendum results than casting one's own vote.

 

[Howardh]

Whatever happens regarding figures, here's an absolute fact; it's a Brexit win and it can't fail.
We don't know how many illegals will cross the Irish border into the UK, as there is no border control, so therefore no figures.
Let's say 1000 do that. Could be 100, could be 100,000, it's unknown.
Out of those 1000 carrying EU passports but not allowed to work - some will find illegal work (depriving someone of a legit job) and some will return home.
Chances are those returning will do so through a more convenient port than Dublin - very likely one in the UK where their passport will be checked/swiped (whatever).
So there is no record of them entering, but a record of them leaving.
Therefore....for every 1000 that enter unknown (immigration = 0) some will leave (say 500) via a UK port and be counted out, so emigration = 500.

0 - 500 = -500. So Brexit can claim they have reduced immigrants by 500, when in fact (with 500 staying) it's an increase of 500. Win - win for Brexit.

 

[Gutfright]

Are you really expecting me to believe that the "millions of Britons" you make reference to will actually cast their "measly insignificant" single votes (to borrow your phrase) just because a newspaper tells them the way their vote should be cast?

"Having your voice heard" and "controlling how people vote" are two very different things.

If you happen to own several newspapers which are read by millions of people, then you have a very good platform to make your voice heard.

 

[Howardh]

Looks like the bookies odds on leave are drifting. On the oddschecker site not one of 21 bookies gives Brexit the lead.

Bookies can be wrong! Does Leicester ring a bell?!! Wonder how many will put a huge chunk on Brexit?? Has anyone here put a large amount on either, especially when Brexir's odds were much longer (is that the right term?)

NB I don't bet...never have. Money's for my pocket, not the bookies!

 

[Gutfright]

Chances are those returning will do so through a more convenient port than Dublin - very likely one in the UK where their passport will be checked/swiped (whatever).
So there is no record of them entering, but a record of them leaving.
Therefore....for every 1000 that enter unknown (immigration = 0) some will leave (say 500) via a UK port and be counted out, so emigration = 500..

That's not how immigration figures are calculated