The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[sir albion]

Government report published today lays out the reality in black and white. Brexit is both reckless and harmful.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...dels_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU_Accessible.pdf

From the executive summary:
"

These models offer different balances in terms of advantages, obligations and influence. If the result of the referendum were a vote to leave, we would seek the best possible balance of advantage for the UK. However, regardless of the preferred outcome that the UK
seeks, the precedents clearly indicate that we would need to make a number of trade-offs:

• in return for full access to the EU’s free-trade Single Market in key UK industries, we would have to accept the free movement of people;

• access to the Single Market would require us to implement its rules. But from outside, the UK would no longer have a vote on these rules. And there is no
guarantee that we could fully replicate our existing cooperation in other areas, suchas cross-border action against criminals;

• full access to the Single Market would require us to continue to contribute to the EU’s programmes and budget;

• an approach based on a Free Trade Agreement would not come with the same level of obligations, but would mean UK companies had reduced access to the Single
Market in key sectors such as services (almost 80 per cent of the UK economy),1 and would face higher costs;

• we would lose our preferential access to 53 markets outside the EU with which the EU has Free Trade Agreements. This would take years to renegotiate, with no
guarantee that the UK would obtain terms as good as those we enjoy today; and

• in order to maintain the rights of UK citizens living, working and travelling in other EU countries, we would almost certainly have to accept reciprocal arrangements for their
citizens in the UK. "

It goes on to unpick the delusions of the Canada, WTO, Norway and Swiss models none of which give us the comparable economic advantage we currently enjoy. Knocks Boris' pro-cake, pro-eating it policy with some plain facts.

Ifs and buts in both camps although clearly as per usual the IN camp is about the financials...Maybe the British public are thinking of our country in different ways than the usual rubbish like trade deals etc etc bla bla bla.
There's more to a country leaving than trade deals etc and trade deals we will negotiate if we finally leave anyway....Nothing to fear from leaving as we'll be in control and everyone will still want a piece of us.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Ifs and buts in both camps although clearly as per usual the IN camp is about the financials...Maybe the British public are thinking of our country in different ways than the usual rubbish like trade deals etc etc bla bla bla.
There's more to a country leaving than trade deals etc and trade deals we will negotiate if we finally leave anyway....Nothing to fear from leaving as we'll be in control and everyone will still want a piece of us.

The US trades with the EU, are they also signed up to the free movement of people too? This is what I don't understand, or do they have seperate Trade deals?
What I care about is the numbers coming here, because equally that has a big effect too.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Dodgy Dossier

Government report published today lays out the reality in black and white. Brexit is both reckless and harmful.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...dels_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU_Accessible.pdf ....

........It goes on to unpick the delusions of the Canada, WTO, Norway and Swiss models none of which give us the comparable economic advantage we currently enjoy. Knocks Boris' pro-cake, pro-eating it policy with some plain facts.

I liked the bit about WMD

It took Andrew Neil 10 minutes to pick holes in this Government propaganda dossier and their arguments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b072fxb1/daily-politics-02032016

Just a few of the many points/misinformation ..

The PM said we would rule nothing out if we didn't get a good deal ie Brexit. Why would he consider this a viable option then but now the world would end?

Norway has to comply with 75% of EU laws according to the Government report, 9% according to the EFTA secretariat (not disputed by the EU)

From Iceland to Turkey whether your inside or outside the EU there are no tariffs on goods yet we would have them inflicted on us ....

Further analysis by other impartial sources will no doubt do the same in coming days.

I'm not sure why you bother, few people are likely to read or be swayed by government one sided reports.

 

[sir albion]

The US trades with the EU, are they also signed up to the free movement of people too? This is what I don't understand. What I care about is the numbers coming here, because equally that has a big effect too.
Or do they have seperate Trade deals?

Yeah must have separate trade deals like many other countries outside....Its a pile of old shite all this scaremongering.
I don't have a problem with migration as long as it's reduced to the tens of thousands max and more skilled people.
Having 100's of thousands each year(mostly unskilled) is keeping wages down and increasing rents and much much more including public services.
Personally I'm voting out to save Britain as it'll be destroyed by the EU if we stay.You can bet your right bollock that the EU have wretched plans ahead.The trade and monetary reasons are not important to me as I'd happily lose my job if it means we can be independent from this hideous EU organisation.

It's not about money it's about Great Britain

 

[Colonel Angus]

I fear that with a Brexit, those who currently go to Europe to buy cheap tobacco for their kids will lose out massively.

Will no-one think of the children?!

 

[5ways]

I liked the bit about WMD

It took Andrew Neil 10 minutes to pick holes in this Government propaganda dossier and their arguments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b072fxb1/daily-politics-02032016

Just a few of the many points/misinformation ..

The PM said we would rule nothing out if we didn't get a good deal ie Brexit. Why would he consider this a viable option then but now the world would end?

Norway has to comply with 75% of EU laws according to the Government report, 9% according to the EFTA secretariat (not disputed by the EU)

From Iceland to Turkey whether your inside or outside the EU there are no tariffs on goods yet we would have them inflicted on us ....

Further analysis by other impartial sources will no doubt do the same in coming days.

I'm not sure why you bother, few people are likely to read or be swayed by government one sided reports.

Andrew Neil makes an amusing point about whether the report would still be basically correct even without a deal. The answer I think is still yes. The basic facts are the basic facts and politics is still politics.

As set out in the report, Iceland and Turkey do not have totally free access and also face non-tariff barriers. Turkey's agreement doesn't cover services, for example. Which is 80% of the UK economy. EFTA is like sitting at the child's table of the world economy.

I bother for my own interest, just for the joy of it. (!) It's also a great go-to source.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Your welcome. I have never understood how a nationalist party can be anti UK but pro EU. If you want true self determination opposition to both must be the only principled position to take. Anyone would think the SNP and many of it's supporters are just anti English but use the word 'Westminster' to hide their prejudice.

I'm not saying I want Scotland to vote itself out of the UK, but there is a huge difference of degree between the British union and the European union, making it possible for a Scotsman to want independence from the UK but membership of the EU. The former involves joint armed forces and a single head of state for example, together with a raft of rules, laws and regulations that goes far beyond anything applicable to the EU (or the USA for that matter). Centuries of close union haven't diminished Scotland's sense of national identity though, just as EU membership hasn't diminished my pleasure at being English.

 

[beorhthelm]

Government report published today lays out the reality in black and white. Brexit is both reckless and harmful.

a pro-Stay government report say's so - must be true then.

here's a fact: staying in means keeping to all the rules of the EU, plus all those changes to come. it is not risk free and will be harmfull to the UK in the long term.

 

[5ways]

a pro-Stay government report say's so - must be true then.

here's a fact: staying in means keeping to all the rules of the EU, plus all those changes to come. it is not risk free and will be harmfull to the UK in the long term.

The main point made in the report is that leaving the EU also means keeping the rules, without influencing them.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Andrew Neil makes an amusing point about whether the report would still be basically correct even without a deal. The answer I think is still yes. The basic facts are the basic facts and politics is still politics.

As set out in the report, Iceland and Turkey do not have totally free access and also face non-tariff barriers. Turkey's agreement doesn't cover services, for example. Which is 80% of the UK economy. EFTA is like sitting at the child's table of the world economy.

I bother for my own interest, just for the joy of it. (!) It's also a great go-to source.

He makes the point that if the report was in any way accurate why would the government consider Brexit a viable possibility a few months ago. There are few basic facts when considering what bespoke deal an independent UK could achieve. True, politics is politics .. including spin,misrepresentation, partial information, lies, damn lies and statistics.

I seem to remember someone suggesting we would face tariffs and of course have to accept free movement of people. Yet Turkey and Iceland do not.

I can understand why you would gain enjoyment from it .. presenting this ongoing Project fear campaign as anyway credible is enough to bring a smile to anyone's face!

 

[beorhthelm]

The main point made in the report is that leaving the EU also means keeping the rules, without influencing them.

and when that influence amounts to 3.5% of the vote, its not worth the loss of sovereignty to the many institutions that seek to obtain powers above and beyond those needed for trade.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I'm not saying I want Scotland to vote itself out of the UK, but there is a huge difference of degree between the British union and the European union, making it possible for a Scotsman to want independence from the UK but membership of the EU. The former involves joint armed forces and a single head of state for example, together with a raft of rules, laws and regulations that goes far beyond anything applicable to the EU (or the USA for that matter). Centuries of close union haven't diminished Scotland's sense of national identity though, just as EU membership hasn't diminished my pleasure at being English.

The EU is very keen to have it's own army, The European Commission President is a big fan so is Mrs Merkel. The EU has three Presidents with far more power than our Monarch. The EU of course has rafts of rules, laws and regulations. So apart from all this plus a currency, anthem , flag , enshrined goal of ever closer union/centralizing of power what could a patriotic Scotsman possibly have to fear ....

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

The EU is very keen to have it's own army, The European Commission President is a big fan so is Mrs Merkel. The EU has three Presidents with far more power than our Monarch. The EU of course has rafts of rules, laws and regulations. So apart from all this plus a currency, anthem , flag , enshrined goal of ever closer union/centralizing of power what could a patriotic Scotsman possibly have to fear ....

A multi billionare with the technically ability to veto our governments laws, Im glad the unelected Queen does not and hopefully will not ever step into our already corrupt and antiquated political system. It amazes me the anti Euro brigade are so outraged at the European Parliament that is far more democratic and up to date that our own.

 

[Soulman]

Could be that Turkey joins the EU late this year. I am not a fan.
Arguments for and against Turkey’s EU membership.
http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/...d-against-turkeys-eu-membership/#.VtdLtEAnPIU

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A multi billionare with the technically ability to veto our governments laws, Im glad the unelected Queen does not and hopefully will not ever step into our already corrupt and antiquated political system. It amazes me the anti Euro brigade are so outraged at the European Parliament that is far more democratic and up to date that our own.

It amazes me how anyone could view the European Parliament as a democratic bastion for British interests.

Unable to defend the UK’s interest

Over the last European Parliamentary term (2009-14), a majority of British MEPs (across UK party lines) opposed 576 motions out of a total 1,936 that were put before the Parliament.

Of those 576 motions, 485 were nonetheless approved by the rest of the Parliament despite the opposition of a majority of British MEPs. This is a failure rate of 84 per cent.

This ‘failure rate’ is defined as the number of times a majority of British MEPs opposed a motion deemed to be against British interests, but were unsuccessful in preventing it being passed. This inability to block proposals is often due to the small number of seats the UK has in the European Parliament, which means British MEPs are often outvoted and unable to stop legislation passing into European and British law.

http://forbritain.org/MEPs votes.pdf

 

[5ways]

He makes the point that if the report was in any way accurate why would the government consider Brexit a viable possibility a few months ago. There are few basic facts when considering what bespoke deal an independent UK could achieve. True, politics is politics .. including spin,misrepresentation, partial information, lies, damn lies and statistics.

I seem to remember someone suggesting we would face tariffs and of course have to accept free movement of people. Yet Turkey and Iceland do not.

I can understand why you would gain enjoyment from it .. presenting this ongoing Project fear campaign as anyway credible is enough to bring a smile to anyone's face!

If we follow either the Norway or Swiss model we will have to accept free movement and I cannot in any way not see this happening in exchange for a free trade agreement. Iceland like Norway is part of the EEA so has to basically follow the rules set by the EU but are not part of the customs union. This is fine for Iceland because the economy is very simple, fish and metals it seems. It also easy for Norway or Iceland to get around the 'rule of origin' because they sell primary goods. The UK has global supply chains and these would be subject to tariffs because car parts, for example, can come from all over before being sold in Europe. Being in the customs union sidesteps this. This looks good for simple economies.

Turkey is part of the Customs Union unlike EEA and has access to the "the EU for manufactured goods and processed agricultural products, but not for agriculture, services or public procurement. Turkey has to enforce rules that are equivalent to EU legislation in areas where it has access to the Single Market, but without having a vote on that legislation." So some tariffs and no vote.

Like Cameron said it's project fact, not fear! I think if you read this doc it is hard to argue Brexit from an economic or trade POV.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

If we follow either the Norway or Swiss model we will have to accept free movement and I cannot in any way not see this happening in exchange for a free trade agreement. Iceland like Norway is part of the EEA so has to basically follow the rules set by the EU but are not part of the customs union. This is fine for Iceland because the economy is very simple, fish and metals it seems. It also easy for Norway or Iceland to get around the 'rule of origin' because they sell primary goods. The UK has global supply chains and these would be subject to tariffs because car parts, for example, can come from all over before being sold in Europe. Being in the customs union sidesteps this. This looks good for simple economies.

Turkey is part of the Customs Union unlike EEA and has access to the "the EU for manufactured goods and processed agricultural products, but not for agriculture, services or public procurement. Turkey has to enforce rules that are equivalent to EU legislation in areas where it has access to the Single Market, but without having a vote on that legislation." So some tariffs and no vote.

Like Cameron said it's project fact, not fear! I think if you read this doc it is hard to argue Brexit from an economic or trade POV.

We won't follow either model as we are in no way comparable in either economic or political clout. I can't for the life of me understand why our only possible options are dumbed down to a range of nations agreements who's combined economic and political input still fall well short of our overall significance to the well being of Europe's economic and political future.

This appears to be a deliberate policy of talking down the UK purely for political positioning which I find shameful and contemptuous. I 100% accept Brexit will not be cost free or lead to a promised land but do believe a positive and successful future can be achievable outside the EU.

 

[5ways]

We won't follow either model as we are in no way comparable in either economic or political clout. I can't for the life of me understand why our only possible options are dumbed down to a range of nations agreements who's combined economic and political input still fall well short of our overall significance to the well being of Europe's economic and political future.

This appears to be a deliberate policy of talking down the UK purely for political positioning which I find shameful and contemptuous. I 100% accept Brexit will not be cost free or lead to a promised land but do believe a positive and successful future can be achievable outside the EU.

I believe that too. Our case is very different but the onus is on Out to explain what will happen and why we should risk it. I can see the downsides clearly but not the upsides. When I talk about demanding free movement the only comparable examples we have include that, so it's the best starting point we have. Moreover it is quite clearly in the EU's interest (and ours, but that's why I'm voting in) to maintain movement for their citizens.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I believe that too. Our case is very different but the onus is on Out to explain what will happen and why we should risk it. I can see the downsides clearly but not the upsides. When I talk about demanding free movement the only comparable examples we have include that, so it's the best starting point we have. Moreover it is quite clearly in the EU's interest (and ours, but that's why I'm voting in) to maintain movement for their citizens.

If you agree why keep introducing these examples? I agree the out campaign suffers from an incoherent voice and should be doing a far better job but this shouldn't detract from the underlying point that a future outside the EU is possible, achievable and presents a unique opportunity which is not comparable to other smaller nations experience. Also it is difficult to present a clear alternative vision when the weight of the government/big business/establishment ranged against them. The future inside the EU is hardly certain, can you tell me what the EU will look like in 2 years time?

 

[5ways]

If you agree why keep introducing these examples? I agree the out campaign suffers from an incoherent voice and should be doing a far better job but this shouldn't detract from the underlying point that a future outside the EU is possible, achievable and presents a unique opportunity which is not comparable to other smaller nations experience. Also it is difficult to present a clear alternative vision when the weight of the government/big business/establishment ranged against them. The future inside the EU is hardly certain, can you tell me what the EU will look like in 2 years time?

The examples are used by the Out campaign too. Pastafarian brought up the WTO model, Breixters have long talked about the Norway model too. Out tries to point and them and say they get the benefits but not the cost, that is largely untrue and we wouldn't extract ourselves from dealing with, or paying into, the EU if we left. In can actually say 'this is the deal', this is where we stand - it's there on the table take it or leave it.

I can only predict what the EU will look like in two years, probably bumbling along, hopefully growing. I know that it won't disappear. I can say with more certainty what the UK will look like if we leave the EU because we see the signs already: a crash in the pound, deep uncertainty which will hit inward investment, the loss of all our free trade agreements outside the EU, jobs moving overseas, legal limbo inside the EU, and a long and painful process of renegotiation. How many years of renegotiation do we have to suffer for this 'victory'?