[Politics] Brexit

[Westdene Seagull]

Not a fact, in fact untrue http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

I see you're STILL quoting CPE ..... partly funded by the EU and 50% funded by the British government ..... oh so independent !

 

[pastafarian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...inside-the-arrogant-imperial-and-dangerously/

'We may not always like it, but one of the intractable realities of the human condition is that nothing ever stays the same. Families, companies, nations, the English language, our daily lives: they all change, for better or for worse, quickly or slowly, all of the time. Politics is no different. It is therefore absurd to frame the European referendum as a choice between a terrifying revolution (Leave) and an unthreatening embrace of the status quo (Remain); instead, what we are being asked is to choose between two radical change agendas with complex, unpredictable consequences. "Brexiters have been confronted with the possible downsides of leaving; now Remainians must address the financial and political risks of staying" Both come with risks and challenges; both are uncertain and will require adjustments; both will mould our country, our economy and our political institutions into something very different to what they are today. But while the Leave side has relentlessly (and rightly) been grilled about its post-Brexit vision, the Remain camp has been shamefully let off the hook. It hasn’t had to explain how exactly it sees the EU evolving over the next decade or two, and what we would therefore be signing up to. Brexiteers have been confronted with the possible downsides of leaving; now Remainians must address the financial and political risks of staying. What are the alternatives if Britain leaves the EU? The starting point for any sensible discussion is to acknowledge that the EU is facing an ongoing economic and social crisis, and is desperate to deepen its integration further. Remain must tell us how this would impact the UK, and why it thinks that we would be better off dealing with the fallout inside, rather than outside, the EU. What, for example, will happen when the next Eurozone crisis erupts (and no, denying that there will be one isn’t good enough)? A new deal appears to have been cobbled together for Greece, but the real worry must be Italy, a country whose economy has not grown at all since 2000, which is crippled by 11.4 per cent unemployment and a massive national debt, and which could bring down the euro. Would we have to put our hands in our pockets directly when the next crisis erupts, or would the impact merely be indirect, reducing our exports to the region? It may be that the European Central Bank is forced to resort to helicopter money, but there is a very real danger that Germany would refuse to put up with that, destabilising the Continent. There are thus political risks wherever we look. Will Spain go populist? Will the current riots spiral out of control in France? Austria’s economy has been growing yet an extremist, authoritarian candidate grabbed 49.9 per cent of the vote at the presidential elections. What next? What is the chance of Marine Le Pen winning a presidential election in France, if not next year then in six years’ time, and waging all-out war on globalisation? What would the impact be on our economy and investments in France? Wouldn’t we be safer out? Eastern Europe has also started to elect unsavoury politicians: it may well be that the immigration crisis will tear the EU apart, especially when the Dublin convention on refugees is replaced by a quota system. Expanding the EU to include additional countries, which is very much Brussels’s plan, would exacerbate opposition to the free movement of people. Given all of this, Remain needs to explain why we wouldn’t be better off trying to diversify our economy towards more resilient parts of the world. The share of our exports that goes to the EU has already collapsed from 55 per cent in 1999 to 44 per cent last year – but shouldn’t we be trying to reduce this further and faster? If the eurozone succeeds in harmonising its fiscal policies and becoming more like a single entity, it may succeed in overriding British interests more effectively, which could be another reason for us to leave. The EU was always intended by its founders to be a process – a mechanism by which formerly independent European countries gradually bind themselves together into an ever-closer union. Crises were seen as useful flashpoints that would trigger a further push to integration, and its central institutions were deliberately designed to seek and accrue power. When I was growing up in France, it was made consistently clear that the EU was a political project that used economics as a tool of state-building; the single market was created because all countries have a free internal market, not because the EU’s founding fathers believed in international free trade. We used to be taught all of this openly and explicitly at school: the EU was the obvious, rational future, the only way war could be avoided and the best way to protect our social models from the ravages of “Anglo-Saxon” markets. There are therefore two possibilities if we vote to stay: eventual abrupt disintegration, or further EU integration. If the latter, how many more powers will we give up when the next treaty comes along, and how much “progress” will be made in critical areas like a European army, tax harmonisation, and the centralisation of justice and home affairs? Why haven’t voters been told ahead of June 23? The biggest, costliest and most immediate change after a Remain vote would be psychological. Forget about all the caveats: an In victory would be hailed as proof that Britain has finally ceased fighting its supposed European destiny. Our bluff would have been called in the most spectacular of fashions: after decades of dragging our feet, of being ungrateful Europeans, of extracting concessions, rebates and opt-outs, of trying to stand up for our interests, we would finally have hoisted the white flag. The idea that we would hold another referendum on the next treaty would simply be laughed out of town. Voting to Remain would thus be a geopolitical disaster for the UK, a historic failure. Comfortable, middle-class voters who are considering sticking with the devil they believe they know need to think again. Voting to remain is a far greater leap into the unknown than voting to leave. It’s self-evidently normal to be independent and prosperous: just look at America, Australia, Canada or Singapore. But there are no known examples of a previously independent democracy being subsumed into a dysfunctional, economically troubled technocracy and doing well as a result. As mad gambles go, it is hard to think of anything worse'

good article

Too long. Can't be arsed.

common sense from Mr Condell

He was correct about two things. What a mong. I feel for his wife and kids...if he has either.

4 minute read?.....nah too long!
10 minute video?.....oooh look pictures

 

[brighton fella]

He was correct about two things. What a mong. I feel for his wife and kids...if he has either.

Typical response from a brainless div.

 

[Bladders]

good article






common sense from Mr Condell



4 minute read?.....nah too long!
10 minute video?.....oooh look pictures

 

[pb21]

good article.

It is a good article but essentially the same words could be used from the opposite remain perspective. It's just a thinly veiled scare piece to try and get people to vote out.

 

[GT49er]

............All remainers should read it (but they probably won't) ... ... ...

Too long. Can't be arsed.

Case proven.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

4 minute read?.....nah too long!
10 minute video?.....oooh look pictures

Do you really think I watched it to the end? I think he got about 2 minutes of my time.

 

[GT49er]

Its a well written article, but a very similar one could written from the perspective of remain is best because of everything we don't know what will happen in the future if we leave; such as if we leave that will start the collapse of the EU which will lead to WW3 playing out, the apocalypse and everyones death, or leaving the EU running out of energy and going bankrupt.

Its essentially just scaremongering.

You'd know all about scaremongering!

Remainers couldn't write an article like this; they'd just go on about a bit of a financial blip in the city, whilst calling it the end of the world. It's the only argument they've got, such as it is.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Typical response from a brainless div.

The blokes an idiot with a clear chip on his shoulder about politics. I would be embarrassed and ignore him if he was a Remainer ...and as he's a Brexiteer I'll just ignore him.

 

[pb21]

You'd know all about scaremongering!

Remainers couldn't write an article like this; they'd just go on about a bit of a financial blip in the city, whilst calling it the end of the world. It's the only argument they've got, such as it is.

Both sides are capable of writing puff pieces, such as this particularly good one, encouraging people to side with them. But that is essentially all they are, they may turn out to be correct but most likely what does end up happening hasn't even been thought of let alone put down on paper and published.

 

[GT49er]

Both sides are capable of writing puff pieces, such as this particularly good one, encouraging people to side with them. But that is essentially all they are, they may turn out to be correct but most likely what does end up happening hasn't even been thought of let alone put down on paper and published.

Yet the remain campaign keep putting out loads of guff and guesses as 'facts'.............

 

[melias shoes]

Yet the remain campaign keep putting out loads of guff and guesses as 'facts'.............

Yep could being their favourite 'fact'.

 

[melias shoes]

Superb job Michael Gove. Cool, calm and collected.

 

[melias shoes]

The blokes an idiot with a clear chip on his shoulder about politics. I would be embarrassed and ignore him if he was a Remainer ...and as he's a Brexiteer I'll just ignore him.

Sigh.

 

[Steve in Japan]

He was correct about two things. What a mong. I feel for his wife and kids...if he has either.

MODS can we pls ban the word "mong"?

It's fckn offensive and 1970s childish. And also unimaginative.

 

[melias shoes]

MODS can we pls ban the word "mong"?

It's fckn offensive and 1970s childish. And also unimaginative.

I think he's starting to feel the heat. He gets like that when he's worried.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think he's starting to feel the heat. He gets like that when he's worried.

I'm currently horizontal with a cold beer enjoying the summer...at this precise moment I haven't a worry in the world.

 

[pb21]

Superb job Michael Gove. Cool, calm and collected.

Michael Gove is able to put the best case for Brexit across. However he is too 'toxic' to have much sway with the normal hardworking taxpayer. If the Brexit crowd had someone who appealed to the general population things would be looking much closer.

 

[Steve in Japan]

I'm currently horizontal with a cold beer enjoying the summer...at this precise moment I haven't a worry in the world.

Presumably practising your lexicon of offensive words?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Presumably practising your lexicon of offensive words?

Spooky; I was actually practicing some German although it was nouns.