Should We Leave the EU?

[HMS Ark Royal]

For the reasons that Iskra has already laid out. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder regarding all of this.

Not at all... i just find Iskra's comment that the british public, of which i am a member, can not be trusted to make a sensible vote to be a personal insult

 

[RichmondCommu]

Not at all... i just find Iskra's comment that the british public, of which i am a member, can not be trusted to make a sensible vote to be a personal insult

Well I mostly agree with Iskra on this so I guess that means you've now been insulted twice. Oh well.

 

[yorkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35641496

suggests the better educated you are, the more likely you are to be favourable towards the EU.

Interesting, but not that surprising!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your comment, Iskra, implies that i can not be trusted to make an informed decision on which way I wish to vote. For that reason, I find the remark insulting.

It's not insulting. If a remark really is insulting we do ask that it is not re-published or responded to, but reported to us instead. I can see nothing insulting posted by Iskra.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Interesting, but not that surprising!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not insulting. If a remark really is insulting we do ask that it is not re-published or responded to, but reported to us instead. I can see nothing insulting posted by Iskra.

I did so - however, as the comment remains, I assumed the report had been dismissed as being without cause

 

[yorkie]

Blair,
Corbyn
Cameron
The BBC
The Guardian

All hideously pro EU, who needs any more evidence an OUT vote is the only sensible one.

Well I don't know anyone else, but that's got me convinced

(only joking!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I did so - however, as the comment remains, I assumed the report had been dismissed as being without cause

Simply the fact you've republished it denotes you're happy with it to remain published. There's nothing wrong with it. Anyway let's move on from that please (feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss it further).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well I mostly agree with Iskra on this

Without being insulting, so do I. I consider Iskra's view- that most people do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding to make an informed decision- as fundamentally accurate. I've said several times that I don't feel knowledgeable enough to make a decision, yet compared to many I am more knowledgeable. I understand the difference between the European Union and the Council of Europe, which is more than can be said for most of the Brexit group.

 

[WessexEclectic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35641496

suggests the better educated you are, the more likely you are to be favourable towards the EU.

Who is smarter?

 

[northwichcat]

Best quote on the EU so far:

In an exclusive interview, Martin Lewis, known as the Money Saving Expert, admitted he is “55/45” in favour of the UK staying in the EU.

However, the ITV star told the HuffPost UK he still needed to carry out research into the issue, and attacked politicians for talking “bollocks” once their minds had been made up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/24/martin-lewis-eu-referendum-expert_n_9306736.html

 

[Blamethrower]

here is interesting reading regarding the EU and football. It makes the distinction between the EU and the EEA:-


As far as football is concerned, Brexit will have a zero effect on the status quo. The reason is that for the purposes of this discussion, we need to understand that there are 3 types of “Europe”. These are: 1. EU; 2. EEA; and 3.Switzerland.

EU = Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

EEA = Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK……PLUS…… NORWAY, ICELAND and LIECHSTENSTEIN

SWITZERLAND = Switzerland (…err…obviously)

So even if the UK exits the EU, nowhere have I seen any UK politician say that the UK will also exit the EEA – in fact for all sorts of treaty reasons, the UK cannot exit the EEA.

Hence all that happens is that UK moves from the “EU” column to “EEA” column, as we would then become part of the NORWAY, ICELAND and LIECHSTENSTEIN grouping.

But EXACTLY the same single market rules will continue to apply. So for example, at the moment, a UK footballer is totally free to move to a club in Norway without having to worry about work permits etc. and the same is true of a Norwegian footballer moving to the UK. — Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Erik Thorstvedt, Steffen Iversen and Tore Andre Flo, for example, did not need to worry about any work permit nonsense when they moved to the Premiership.

From Wikipedia:

The European Economic Area (EEA) provides for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the internal market of the European Union (EU) between its 28 member states, as well as three of the four member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA): Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

So, as long as we join the EFTA, then leaving the EU will mean absolutely nothing at all

What amuses me though is people are linking economics with the EU. Surely the economic arguments of this referendum should be based on membership of the EFTA and EEA?

 

[Mvann]

Best quote on the EU so far:



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/24/martin-lewis-eu-referendum-expert_n_9306736.html

That article seems to sum it up about right. There are probably as many good reasons to stay as there are leave. Especialy as we are not part of the Eurozone. That actual might work in our favour.

 

[ComUtoR]

It's quite likely there will be job losses if we leave the EU. Thus, why is there anything wrong with pointing that out? Personally, I believe a number of big companies will choose to vacate the UK if we leave the EU. That would then mean a large number of jobs being lost.

I understand jobs will be lost and it is acceptable to point that out but there is a very big difference between "some job losses" and "mass job losses" That difference is important to me.

For people to make an informed decision it needs to start with accurate and informed debate. To use "mass" job losses is inflammatory and just as emotive as us racist migrant haters.

People will vote based on the impact it has for them. I'm not in a job where it is threatened by us leaving the EU. Personally, its not job losses that will sway my vote in either direction.

Due to not being fully informed my vote is going to be partially based on the opinion of others and the informed arguments that will get presented. It was mentioned that now Boris Johnson has joined the Out campaign it will push votes that way because he is respected, trusted and generally liked by many people. I read up-thread about Martin Lewis stating he is 55/45 shows how close even those who are very well versed are still sitting. Again, like Boris it was mentioned that many will align themselves to his position.

It's very difficult to be definitive about something that isn't definitively going to happen.

Which is true for both sides. Nobody is able to say with any certainty what will happen and the long term impacts. I would hope that the Government will be able to mitigate against problems that will undoubtedly arise.

It was (and still is) a global crisis, that started in the US and would have affected us whatever unions we were or weren't in.

Yes and we weathered that pretty well. I believe that if we exited the EU then we will also weather that too.

The racist migrant hater part of me wants out and to hell with everyone but the Belittling Tory in me would happily stay. The other part of me doesn't care either way and will just go about my day to day.

 

[radamfi]

Hence all that happens is that UK moves from the “EU” column to “EEA” column, as we would then become part of the NORWAY, ICELAND and LIECHSTENSTEIN grouping.

But EXACTLY the same single market rules will continue to apply. So for example, at the moment, a UK footballer is totally free to move to a club in Norway without having to worry about work permits etc. and the same is true of a Norwegian footballer moving to the UK. — Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Erik Thorstvedt, Steffen Iversen and Tore Andre Flo, for example, did not need to worry about any work permit nonsense when they moved to the Premiership.

If it was the case that leaving the EU would mean automatically joining the Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein club, then there wouldn't be that much of an issue either way. But the "outers" don't want that. They see that Norway has to let in immigrants from eastern Europe, for example.

 

[zuriblue]

Farage
Gove
Boris
Daily Mail

All hideously anti-EU, who need any more evidence an IN vote is the only sensible one.

And, of course, the Out campaign's sane and sensible voice, David Icke.

 

[yorksrob]

I hope those who feel that the public aren't capable of making a decision on this have the courage of their convictions and absent themselves this and any future public votes and elections.

I certainly don't trust such people to exercise the franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that of course is less profit that can be reinvested into the business. I really don't understand why you have a problem with big business.

I have a problem with big business.

The phrase 'power without responsibility' springs to mind. We've seen it again and again, corrupt banks too big to fail, tax dodging corporations.

 

[Moodster020]

Firstly, don`t look at what either side promises you, whether it be "a return to sovereignty", or "less terrorism risk".
That`s all lies and propaganda.

Look at past history, because how they work in the past will be how they proceed in the future.

1) The Scottish referendum, all three leading parties joined forces and promised the Scots all kinds of deals to stay in. Once the vote was won, very little of the promises have come to fruition.
That will be repeated in this referendum, vote in and the negotiation won`t be worth the paper its not written on.
2) Like the Irish, vote to leave and you`ll get another vote till you get the right answer.
3) 1975, a vote for the Common Market, and look what it has turned into, all with the all encompassing "you voted for it". Vote to stay in this time and try to imagine the changes the EU will bring in over the next 40yrs, because "you voted for it".

That is the modus operendi.
Base your vote on how they act, not what they promise you or scaremonger you with.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I have a problem with big business.

The phrase 'power without responsibility' springs to mind. We've seen it again and again, corrupt banks too big to fail, tax dodging corporations.

Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW and Airbus are all "big business". Big business that manufactures things and provides thousands of skilled, coveted jobs in this country. Do you have a problem with any of those organisations? In my view our continued membership of the EU is key to the future of those "big businesses" and their long term investment in our country.

 

[radamfi]

What a nutter! Lawson desperately wants the UK to be out of the EU to "regain its sovereignty" but he wants to grab Ireland back, apparently ignoring the Irish bloody struggle for independence. Seriously, how many Irish people want that?

http://www.newstalk.com/Lord-Nigel-...s-its-mistake-and-rejoins-UK-following-Brexit

 

[yorksrob]

Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW and Airbus are all "big business". Big business that manufactures things and provides thousands of skilled, coveted jobs in this country. Do you have a problem with any of those organisations? In my view our continued membership of the EU is key to the future of those "big businesses" and their long term investment in our country.

I will look at all the motives of big business critically, and try to gauge how much their views are related to ease of exports versus ease of outsourcing and cheap labour. I certainly shaln't be treating their pronouncements as an infallible source of wisdom - which was what got new labour into trouble, I seem to recall.

 

[dgl]

I see it like this, are there any companies where the cost of manufacturing in Britain including shipping costs to the rest of the EU is favourable but only slightly and where moving out of the EU would tip the balance the other way, and so the company moves the manufacturing away form Britain to somewhere else in the EU.

I could also see an out vote meaning we end up still paying money into the EU so we can have favourable trade deals but without the ability to vote for/against anything that might affect us, similar to Norway etc.
So we still pay in all the money but get less back as a result, meaning we are in an even worse situation than before but UKIP and suchlike will still claim it as a 'victory'.

 

[furnessvale]

I see it like this, are there any companies where the cost of manufacturing in Britain including shipping costs to the rest of the EU is favourable but only slightly and where moving out of the EU would tip the balance the other way, and so the company moves the manufacturing away form Britain to somewhere else in the EU.

I could also see an out vote meaning we end up still paying money into the EU so we can have favourable trade deals but without the ability to vote for/against anything that might affect us, similar to Norway etc.
So we still pay in all the money but get less back as a result, meaning we are in an even worse situation than before but UKIP and suchlike will still claim it as a 'victory'.

To answer your first point.

Your scenario is only valid in respect of a company that exports exclusively to the EU. Other companies that export little or export to other countries, ie the majority of our GDP, will benefit from less EU interference.

To answer your second point.

The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world. Switzerland is 20th and Norway is 25th. Both are net exporters to the EU and were negotiating from a position of weakness both in size and balance of payments.

On the other hand, the UK is a net importer from the EU, £60billions pa and rising. Any punitive action by the EU, apart from being illegal under WTO rules, would also be counterproductive for their exporters.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What a nutter! Lawson desperately wants the UK to be out of the EU to "regain its sovereignty" but he wants to grab Ireland back, apparently ignoring the Irish bloody struggle for independence. Seriously, how many Irish people want that?

Depends which bit of Ireland you ask! There are plenty in the north who'd want Eire back.

But in the Republic, given that Sinn Fein are on target to be the 2nd biggest party in the Dail after the May elections, not so many.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your scenario is only valid in respect of a company that exports exclusively to the EU. Other companies that export little or export to other countries, ie the majority of our GDP, will benefit from less EU interference.

In terms of exports, it is roughly 50/50 in terms of exports to EU countries and exports to non-EU countries.

Any punitive action by the EU, apart from being illegal under WTO rules, would also be counterproductive for their exporters.

The problem is, there are only two countries in the EU where the UK accounts for more than 10% of total exports.

The balance is in favour of the EU. We need the bloc more than the individual countries in the bloc need us.

I wouldn't expect "punitive action", but the idea that everything will carry on as normal is laughable. People generally don't let you have the milk unless you pay for the cow.

 

[tony_mac]

I wouldn't expect "punitive action", but the idea that everything will carry on as normal is laughable. People generally don't let you have the milk unless you pay for the cow.

I don't think it's laughable at all; I think most people would expect some sort of bilateral trade agreement - they are mutually beneficial, particularly when the trade is roughly even in both directions (currently within about 10%).

 

[radamfi]

I don't think it's laughable at all; I think most people would expect some sort of bilateral trade agreement - they are mutually beneficial, particularly when the trade is roughly even in both directions (currently within about 10%).

My guess is that there would be so many bilateral agreements that it will basically be the same. Notably I would be pretty sure freedom of movement would be retained, as that is what British business wants.

So if it will be almost the same, why bother quitting the EU, especially if the UK will still have to pay into it?

 

[furnessvale]

In terms of exports, it is roughly 50/50 in terms of exports to EU countries and exports to non-EU countries.

Very roughly. The majority of our exports (55% and growing) is non EU.

However you have to add in the percentage of our GDP that is for domestic consumption and would not be subject to EU regulation even if the EU imposed its rules on imports to them.

Add that figure and you leave just 12% of our GDP being subject to EU interference post Brexit.

 

[tony_mac]

So if it will be almost the same, why bother quitting the EU, especially if the UK will still have to pay into it?

Most of the EU budget is spent on things like regional development, agriculture, social fund, and research.

 

[miami]

However you have to add in the percentage of our GDP that is for domestic consumption and would not be subject to EU regulation even if the EU imposed its rules on imports to them.

What would UK regulations look like? Which specific EU regulations are you looking to repeal?

 

[furnessvale]

What would UK regulations look like? Which specific EU regulations are you looking to repeal?

I have no idea, without much research, but I do know that whatever regulations are used they would imposed BY us not ON us which to me is a world of difference.

 

[Steveman]

This forum seems to have a completely contradictory view of the referendum compared to most others.

Most forums seem to be in favour of Leave, is it because the age range on here is younger and younger people don't know anything else other than being part of the EU and can't imagine anything else.

 

[radamfi]

This forum seems to have a completely contradictory view of the referendum compared to most others.

Most forums seem to be in favour of Leave, is it because the age range on here is younger and younger people don't know anything else other than being part of the EU and can't imagine anything else.

This forum is predominately educated and young so that is probably why it is more pro-EU than others. The white, older working class are the most anti-EU, which is why UKIP support is strongest in places like the coastal areas of Kent and Essex.

 

[Tetchytyke]

whatever regulations are used they would imposed BY us not ON us which to me is a world of difference.

And I think the EU referendum will boil down to this type of emotional response, really. The underlying assumption often seems to be that EU legislation is bad but UK legislation is good. One gains bonus points for referring to "red tape", which is what business leaders call legislation that stops them doing whatever they want.

EU regulations "imposed" on us include restrictions on EU roaming charges by mobile phone providers- something that the UK, lobbied intensively by Vodafone, opposed at every stage. As well as pesky rules like restricting the number of hours a HGV driver can drive for.

Other EU regulations "imposed" on us are less helpful, of course.

The only figures available as to how much EU law is in UK law are published by "Business for Britain", a Brexit campaign group run by the brains behind the economically far-right Taxpayers Alliance campaign group.

Really, there are two questions about all this. Do the EU have legislative control over us and, if so, is that a bad thing? I'm not convinced by either, to be honest.