The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[pastafarian]

You can't get much fairer, or much more democratic, than the upcoming incredibly simple in-out referendum.

quite correct
begs the question why have you always been against having a referendum if it is the fairest and most democratic thing to do

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

quite correct
begs the question why have you always been against having a referendum if it is the fairest and most democratic thing to do

I'm against referenda in general. I think it's weak, lazy and distracting method of politics.

 

[pastafarian]

As Andrew Neil stated "257,000 EU migrants came to Britain in year to Sept 2015. In same time 630,000 EU citizens registered for NI number. Why discrepancy?"

someone is playing silly sausages with the figures thats for sure.

perhaps the Krauts are doing the figures for us,they seem to have a problem keeping track of stuff too.

How on earth do you lose 130000 asylum seekers?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I forgot about Kate Hoey, so that's 1 who has at least some common sense.

For me it's not the lack of outters from Labour that is the problem - it's that most Labour members don't wish to join the debate or stand with either side. That combined with the sheer hypocracy of some party members. Remember Neil Kinnock was for many years anti EEC but once he and his wife saw a way of earning a huge salary each they suddenly became converts. Much like Diane Abbott on QT this week - voted against a referendum but now suddenly wants a debate on the EU. Labour claim the EU is a subject that will rip apart the Tories ..... that may well be but at least most Tory members have taken a side and made it public - Labour members are noticable by thier absence in the debate. Maybe they're too worried about not being able to join the gravey train like Kinnock if they speak up.

 

[5ways]

i can take bits from the article i agree with as well



But economics cannot predict what will happen if Britain leaves the EU.

They are also more likely than many politicians to play down the importance of sovereignty

Patrick Minford of Cardiff Business School argues that: “In the long term, Brexit will herald a major growth-boosting period

freeing Britain from the EU influence that “prevents the UK from taking full advantage of a surging global economy [and] capitalising on its unrivalled influence throughout the rest of the world”.

Ruth Lea, adviser to Arbuthnot Securities, argues that being outside the EU’s single market need not be a serious concern. “Trade with World Trade Organisation rules is not disastrous,” Ms Lea says, referring to the rules that underpin global commerce. “A lot of EU trade is done on these rules.”



You never did reply as to how The US is going to sell to its citizens the conditions of free movement,less sovereignty,subservience to EU law and a membership fee to the EU that are apparently attached to a deal if a country wishes to free trade with the EU.

Why would the US have to sell that to its citizens? It wasn't just the bit I agreed with it was the statement that backed up the point I was making which remains valid. The EU will demand free movement as part of any deal.

 

[brighton fella]

You can't get much fairer, or much more democratic, than the upcoming incredibly simple in-out referendum. So what you're basically saying is you're a bad, no very bad, loser?

am i supposed to be grateful that we in a supposedly democratic country are given a referendum to look forward to,, it is because Britain is supposedly democratic that we have rightfully been given that choice.,
it is simple ..vote to remain in and you will never be given such choice's again.vote to leave and those choices are yours to keep forever. the choice is yours.

hence why if we remain in it will be a complete waste of time to ever consider voting again as your vote will count for diddly squat ...f*ck all in other words.

 

[pastafarian]

Why would the US have to sell that to its citizens? It wasn't just the bit I agreed with it was the statement that backed up the point I was making which remains valid. The EU will demand free movement as part of any deal.

They wont because its not true
didnt stop you saying though that this is the price of doing business with the EU

We would not suddenly become markedly more sovereign after a Brexit renegotiation - we would sign new treaties which limit this sovereignty; we would have to abide free movement, a membership fee and EU law and regulation as a price to do business with the world's single largest economy and our biggest trading partner. We would not float above all these forces

 

[JC Footy Genius]

you persist with the illusion that being nimble is to be powerful. Again, you say we will see what position they take post-Brexit. Well the US has told us and it's negative. The EU position is also negative towards us. Your plan is to call their bluff, you'll find that there was no bluff to be called - they laid out their positions and we simply chose to ignore them. It's la-la land again from Brexiters.

I don't remember commenting on our relative power I was just pointing out we would have to be outward looking as a necessity to make Brexit work. A US trade official in the current administration has suggested they do not favour individual trade deals. Both the US and EU positions are being presented in a way to persuade/scare the British public into staying put. You have as little idea how this would really play out after Brexit as the rest of us.

 

[brighton fella]

I'm against referenda in general. I think it's weak, lazy and distracting method of politics.

you sound like hitler.

 

[5ways]

They wont because its not true
didnt stop you saying though that this is the price of doing business with the EU

The UK will have to accept free movement, the US will not. Their situation is obviously totally different.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

dont ask me,ask an economist

i doubt you will get a straight forward answer though

It's interesting to see how the economic storm clouds appear to be increasing the nearer we get to referendum/independence day. One day we are told the UK is too weak and feeble to strike out on its own the next the whole world economy depends on us staying in.

What's that old truism ... In times of crisis and uncertainty people usually vote for the status quo. Anyone would think some people have a vested interest predicting economic Armageddon

 

[5ways]

I don't remember commenting on our relative power I was just pointing out we would have to be outward looking as a necessity to make Brexit work. A US trade official in the current administration has suggested they do not favour individual trade deals. Both the US and EU positions are being presented in a way to persuade/scare the British public into staying put. You have as little idea how this would really play out after Brexit as the rest of us.

What I can tell you is the benefit from the status quo, and base my assumptions upon the statements of US officials. Brexit advocates cannot offer anything as nearly concrete in terms of probable outcomes. I'm inclined to take them seriously and not brush it off as trying to cow the British public.

 

[pastafarian]

The UK will have to accept free movement, the US will not. Their situation is obviously totally different.

There is no prerequisite of a country signing a Free Trade Agreement with the EU that the country in question must sign up to free movement or the other factors you mention.

Mexico,South Korea,Peru?
Singapore,Canada,Usa,Japan,Vietnam,India?

how many of these negotiations or done deals for Free Trade Agreements include signing up to free movement

 

[5ways]

There is no prerequisite of a country signing a Free Trade Agreement with the EU that the country in question must sign up to free movement or the other factors you mention.

Mexico,South Korea,Peru?
Singapore,Canada,Usa,Japan,Vietnam,India?

how many of these negotiations or done deals for Free Trade Agreements include signing up to free movement

Yes I know this. But our case will be different. The EU wants free movement, we want access to the market we will have to compromise. The EU will want to retain movement because it benefits their citizens so much. Mexico, SK and Peru's agreement is also unlike Norway's or Switzerland.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

What I can tell you is the benefit from the status quo, and base my assumptions upon the statements of US officials. Brexit advocates cannot offer anything as nearly concrete in terms of probable outcomes. I'm inclined to take them seriously and not brush it off as trying to cow the British public.

You choose to believe the pro EU narrative from whatever source. Advocates of Brexit do not or think on balance they would prefer the unknown risks of Brexit rather than the certainty of ongoing risks staying in. Both views are legitimate but no side has a clearer crystal ball. Speaking of balls ...

Yes I know this. But our case will be different. The EU wants free movement, we want access to the market we will have to compromise. The EU will want to retain movement because it benefits their citizens so much. Mexico, SK and Peru's agreement is also unlike Norway's or Switzerland.

How do you know this?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Please..... how do the other nations around the world control their borders?.. for the most part with a tried and tested set of internationally agreed parameters, alongside local adjustments depending on national requirements. It doesn't stop people visiting or working in those countries does it?...

....and the point is NO... the UK is not allowed to put extra controls over its borders, being in the EU means we have to adhere to the common policy as per EU edicts.

As for stability since the war, I think you will find that was NATO matey....

Yes, Nato. You're probably right. Not sure about 'not allowed' to put extra controls on our borders, though . . . . when Cameron beat Brown I thought they were promising to control immigration (in a way that Labour didn't) yet the numbers have gone through the roof. I don't ever recall Cameron saying 'the EU stopped Brown and me from upholding our borders'. No, I am still of a mind that the huff and puff about border controls is covering up something else (such as poor management of our borders, just as we poorly manage the NHS and schools these days, according to some). I don't recall that a revolutionary new approach to our borders was anything Cameron boasted he had won in his recent talks. And anyway, I thought that most of the concerns about immigrants concerned folk of non European origin, folk with what might be called third world attitudes to women, integration etc. There is nothing in our EU arrangements that can be used as an excuse for allowing these folk to move here (from outside the EU) and recreate their previous lifestyles. (I am trying to avoid making pejorative comments here). I seems to me that leaving the EU would merely make it easier to keep the Polish plumbers out. Sorry, I just don't get it.

Incidentally, I was amused to see reruns of debates on joining the EU back in the day. A strong 'in' campaigner was none other than Maggie Thatch. Why is it that tories go gung ho for things, then throw their toys out when 'the unforseen' happens? Enoch Powell was just the same (the architect of asian immigration in the 50s).

I'd like to see the UK do things better, which includes stopping blaming the EU for all the misshaps, and just getting on with doing the right thing. I am still of the opinion that whether it is going to be better or worse if we leave (and I still don't know which is the more likely), the scapgoating and huff and puff informing the debate is leaving the likes of me cold.

 

[5ways]

You choose to believe the pro EU narrative from whatever source. Advocates of Brexit do not or think on balance they would prefer the unknown risks of Brexit rather than the certainty of ongoing risks staying in. Both views are legitimate but no side has a clearer crystal ball. Speaking of balls ...



How do you know this?

The most amusing move Out has made is to argue that Brexit is the "safer choice" - this is patently nonsense, the market jittered on Boris' announcement and would free-fall after a Brexit vote. It would probably lead to a short-term recession and could have long term repercussions for the UK economy. It is not safer in any way it is a total leap into the dark. On the IN side we can also look to the track record of the UK's economy while a member of the EU - it's actually pretty good (www.ft.com/cms/s/0/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#axzz41Jr5KTCp) So we have past experience, a present and existing set of rules, and the stability upon which to base future growth. Brexiters need more than a crystal ball to stack up with the IN arguments.

Based upon the 3 million or so EU citizens living in the UK, and the 2 million or so Brits living in the EU abroad we would need to find a way to accommodate this fact. These people have families and a right to settle etc. The simplest solution is to retain free movement. This is something the EU would push hard for. Two options Brexiters espouse, the Norway or Swiss model, are based upon the principle of free movement. It is the price to pay for access to the internal market.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

There is no prerequisite of a country signing a Free Trade Agreement with the EU that the country in question must sign up to free movement or the other factors you mention.

Mexico,South Korea,Peru?
Singapore,Canada,Usa,Japan,Vietnam,India?

how many of these negotiations or done deals for Free Trade Agreements include signing up to free movement

Mexico has a highly mutually beneficial free trade agreement with the EU. And it's a true and absolute free trade agreement as well, since 2007. It will interesting to see what happens if the UK tries to gain a similar agreement. Would Mexico want it? What would the EU do? Any thoughts?

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

An old quote has re-emerged in an Anthony Hilton column for Thursday's Evening Standard, which may give you pause for thought as to how you vote in the EU referendum:

" I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."

 

[pastafarian]

Yes I know this. But our case will be different. .

How will our case be different?

Every country negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with the EU would expect to be treated on equal playing terms as each other according to WTO regulations.How could the EU treat all the countries I mentioned the same yet discriminate against us alone by insisting we have free movement? There is no mechanism that permits this.

Based upon the 3 million or so EU citizens living in the UK, and the 2 million or so Brits living in the EU abroad we would need to find a way to accommodate this fact. These people have families and a right to settle etc. The simplest solution is to retain free movement. This is something the EU would push hard for. Two options Brexiters espouse, the Norway or Swiss model, are based upon the principle of free movement. It is the price to pay for access to the internal market.

If and it is an if ,we did seek a Free Trade Agreement with the EU the process would take years.The issue of the 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK would have been finalised and concluded long before the finalisation of a trade agreement,
You seem to forget another equally simple solution is for people just to acquire the correct permits for residing or working,something countless countries do across the globe
.
Lets see how Switzerland pans out shall we,its quite possible they will implement their referendum result before feb 2017 and will restrict free movement.