The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[pastafarian]

We would have less control over much of our law.

EU regulations account for 60 per cent of all UK law,thats a shocking and damning statistic.
i cant believe thats what people were signing up for all those years ago.

 

[Triggaaar]

The options laid out are the main alternatives to full membership, none of them offer the same benefits that full membership does. I can say then that in the case of Brexit these are the possible

We will definitely not mimic either Switzerland or Norway's deal, because they wouldn't be appropriate for us, so even suggesting they are possible options is slightly disingenuous, but you went much further than that. You said "The deal will be inferior. The options laid out clearly demonstrate this." You were suggesting that the options are the only options, when the reality is we would not follow any of those options. You state that the deal will be inferior, and that's just not true, you don't know what the deal will be.

The government published a report that also said that no alternative models is as beneficial to the UK as full membership.

The government are campaigning for us to stay IN, what do you expect them to say?

This is not conjecture this is government analysis.

So when it comes to standard UK elections, you accept whatever analysis the government puts forward, and you vote to keep the same government

This conclusion is based on an objective reading of the post-Brexit scenario.

Are you really that stupid? You think that the government are going to provide objective evidence, despite the fact that they've said they are campaigning to keep us IN?

 

[5ways]

I asked you before which countries outside of the EU who have a Free Trade Agreement(FTA) with the EU have accepted free movement? you didnt bother to answer instead you went off on a tangent.
so ill ask again...........

What tangent? I think I said that every other European country with a FTA agreement has to accept free movement. As it happens Norway has higher EU migration than the UK, and Norway is outside the EU. Moreover it is in the interest of EU countries with large numbers of their citizens here to maintain this free movement. Being physically on the European continent makes us different to, say, South Korea.

 

[5ways]

EU regulations account for 60 per cent of all UK law,thats a shocking and damning statistic.
i cant believe thats what people were signing up for all those years ago.

Depends how you count it : https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made-eu/

a lot of these laws are no moribund or didn't apply to the UK in the first place. Also there is difference between EU legislation passed and EU regulation that has 'influenced' UK law. I'm not arguing that it's not significant though.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I see no options from the Out campaign. The options laid out are the main alternatives to full membership, none of them offer the same benefits that full membership does. I can say then that in the case of Brexit these are the possible outcomes. The government published a report that also said that no alternative models is as beneficial to the UK as full membership.

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

This is not conjecture this is government analysis. The final paragraph states

"Whatever alternative to membership the UK seeks following a decision to leave the EU,
we will lose influence over EU decisions that will still directly affect us. We need to weigh the
benefits of access to the EU and global markets against the obligations and costs incurred
in return. It is the assessment of the UK Government that no existing model outside the EU
comes close to providing the same balance of advantages and influence that we get from the
UK’s current special status inside the EU." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf

This conclusion is based on an objective reading of the post-Brexit scenario. It is not a positive one. I've see nothing from Outers which argues otherwise - only the suggestion that we will negotiate a deal, and the deal will be good.

Let's see if you can work out how the first two sections I have emphasised in bold completely undermine your assertion (the bit I underlined)

If the Government dossier is true why did the very same government consider Brexit a very real option pre negotiation? Why would they risk giving the people a chance to vote out if only negative consequences arise? Why does an impartial Parliamentary briefing paper make clear there are no absolutes about Brexit or the benefits of continued EU membership? Why do you persist in passing off your opinion as fact?

 

[5ways]

We will definitely not mimic either Switzerland or Norway's deal, because they wouldn't be appropriate for us, so even suggesting they are possible options is slightly disingenuous, but you went much further than that. You said "The deal will be inferior. The options laid out clearly demonstrate this." You were suggesting that the options are the only options, when the reality is we would not follow any of those options. You state that the deal will be inferior, and that's just not true, you don't know what the deal will be.

The government are campaigning for us to stay IN, what do you expect them to say?

So when it comes to standard UK elections, you accept whatever analysis the government puts forward, and you vote to keep the same government

Are you really that stupid? You think that the government are going to provide objective evidence, despite the fact that they've said they are campaigning to keep us IN?

Perhaps I'm being a little droll with the govt report but I expect them to have analysed the facts honestly. Also I've said it will be inferior based on the models available in comparison - there is nothing to suggest this isn't the path we will take, or more precisely be lead down. You need some idea of what the deal will look like. Outers love striking out into the dark but you should at least have idea of where you will aim up. Or is looking at the closest alternatives a ploy by dastardly inners?

 

[pastafarian]

What tangent? I think I said that every other European country with a FTA agreement has to accept free movement. As it happens Norway has higher EU migration than the UK, and Norway is outside the EU. Moreover it is in the interest of EU countries with large numbers of their citizens here to maintain this free movement. Being physically on the European continent makes us different to, say, South Korea.

Perhaps you should look up the difference between a FTA,a customs union, European Union Association Agreement,Stabilisation and Association Agreements and all the other different types of agreements including bilateral trade agreements and EEA agreements......there is a subtle difference.

 

[Triggaaar]

Perhaps I'm being a little droll with the govt report but I expect them to have analysed the facts honestly.

But that's not their job. It's the job of politicians to convince us that what they say is best. The Tories tell us that they're the best government for the UK, Labour tell us they'd be best, and they both cherry pick stats to try and show they're right. And of course the same is true for both sides of the Brexit debate. The government are campaigning for us to remain in, so they will say anything they can to try and convince us it's the best decision, and facts won't come into it. It's not their job to be honest. It's not their job to admit to the negatives of their campaign, it's their job to dismiss the negatives and exaggerate the positives. Of course they're not going to be honest.

Also I've said it will be inferior based on the models available in comparison - there is nothing to suggest this isn't the path we will take, or more precisely be lead down.

There's everything to suggest it's not the path we'll take. Norway struck a deal that worked for them / the EU. Likewise with Switzerland, and it would be the same with us, we'd strike a deal that worked for us/the EU. For example, of course we wouldn't have a deal that didn't allow for financial services, since that's a large part of our economy.

You need some idea of what the deal will look like. Outers love striking out into the dark but you should at least have idea of where you will aim up.

Obviously no one can say what the deal would be. We just have to think about what's realistic. You have to accept that we are a large economy and the EU needs us. To pretend otherwise is naive. The EU will want a good deal for them, and the UK will want a good deal too. It's not really likely that either side will get a deal much better than currently exists though. The UK simply wouldn't be able to agree to a deal that would financially cripple us, so the EU would have to accept something similar to what we have now, or spitefully cast us adrift. The latter would be a disaster for the EU, so it makes no sense for them to do it.

 

[pastafarian]

Depends how you count it : https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made-eu/

a lot of these laws are no moribund or didn't apply to the UK in the first place. Also there is difference between EU legislation passed and EU regulation that has 'influenced' UK law. I'm not arguing that it's not significant though.

it does depend on how you count it,but even fullfact way only produce a figure slightly lower.
The initial report includes its methodology and its close enough to any correct figure likely to be achieved.

https://forbritain.org/percentagelaws.pdf

you say significant,i say damning.

 

[5ways]

Let's see if you can work out how the first two sections I have emphasised in bold completely undermine your assertion (the bit I underlined)

If the Government dossier is true why did the very same government consider Brexit a very real option pre negotiation? Why would they risk giving the people a chance to vote out if only negative consequences arise? Why does an impartial Parliamentary briefing paper make clear there are no absolutes about Brexit or the benefits of continued EU membership? Why do you persist in passing off your opinion as fact?

A government has a duty to inform the public as best it can, it is up to the public to make its own decisions.

I'm happy to say that the options outlined by this report and others demonstrate the ways in which they are inferior. This is an opinion but one based upon a reading of the available evidence. It is entirely factual.

 

[5ways]

it does depend on how you count it,but even fullfact way only produce a figure slightly lower.
The initial report includes its methodology and its close enough to any correct figure likely to be achieved.

https://forbritain.org/percentagelaws.pdf

you say significant,i say damning.

Yes I see they made the distinction. I would like to know what some of this regulation actually is. Like an actual piece of law, who wrote it, why etc

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A government has a duty to inform the public as best it can, it is up to the public to make its own decisions.

I'm happy to say that the options outlined by this report and others demonstrate the ways in which they are inferior. This is an opinion but one based upon a reading of the available evidence. It is entirely factual.

A government has an ongoing self interest to do all it can within the law to get it's way, it is up to the public to see through their deception.

I'm happy to say the hypothetical carefully selected options outlined in this report conveniently all suggest there is no chance of getting a better deal if we vote against the governments wishes.

The report is mainly conjecture, supposition, guesswork interlaced with oodles of spin and you know it, presenting it as impartial or factual is plain silly!

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Latest from Nigel in regards of Turkey. Common sense as always.

 

[5ways]

A government has an ongoing self interest to do all it can within the law to get it's way, it is up to the public to see through their deception.

I'm happy to say the hypothetical carefully selected options outlined in this report conveniently all suggest there is no chance of getting a better deal if we vote against the governments wishes.

The report is mainly conjecture, supposition, guesswork interlaced with oodles of spin and you know it, presenting it as impartial or factual is plain silly!

I think that's deeply cynical. The report is clearly written and accessible. Believe it or not I believe government acts in the best interest of the public (not carte blanche but largely) and is doing so in the referendum debate (i did not vote for the govt).

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I think that's deeply cynical. The report is clearly written and accessible. Believe it or not I believe government acts in the best interest of the public (not carte blanche but largely) and is doing so in the referendum debate (i did not vote for the govt).

A weary cynicism based on years of watching politicians of all stripes playing the political game with their number one goal being retaining/gaining power. Not that I'm one of the all politicians are corrupt they're in it for themselves camp but 'Realpolitik' is a dirty business.

If the government really thought staying in was absolutely 100% in our national interest why suggest Brexit was an option they could take a month ago and why offer the public a chance to vote for (according to them) this perilous course of action that will lead to economic decline and increased security risks?

 

[pastafarian]

Yes I see they made the distinction. I would like to know what some of this regulation actually is. Like an actual piece of law, who wrote it, why etc

you can add to that list as well.........who asked you to write it?

 

[5ways]

A weary cynicism based on years of watching politicians of all stripes playing the political game with their number one goal being retaining/gaining power. Not that I'm one of the all politicians are corrupt they're in it for themselves camp but 'Realpolitik' is a dirty business.

If the government really thought staying in was absolutely 100% in our national interest why suggest Brexit was an option they could take a month ago and why offer the public a chance to vote for (according to them) this perilous course of action that will lead to economic decline and increased security risks?

'cos democracy is always worth the risk, come what may.

 

[brighton fella]

Latest from Nigel in regards of Turkey. Common sense as always.

spot on, but why do so many not see this, or are they just plain thick.

 

[Soulman]

Worth a look.
http://getbritainout.org/life-after-brexit-new-research-shows-the-uk-is-spoiled-for-choice/

 

[brighton fella]

I




John Longworth was the director general of a membership organisation, and he expressed (on a platform provided by his employer) a personal view that was substantially at odds with that organisation's adopted position (and the views of a majority of their members).

The comments around Carney's activity yesterday are ridiculous - he is an expert in his field, and was asked to comment on the specific impacts of Brexit on that field. He did so, while steering as far as he could from taking a clear position.

Longworth had every right to state his view.. we live in a free country don't we ? or maybe you'd rather us take the route that nazi germany did and the EU is currently heading toward's today where no one is allowed an alternative view.
Carney on the other hand speaks on behalf of bankers who created this whole mess, he does not speak for the people.