[Politics] Brexit

[drew]

That is the reality, and people will be conned thinking Labour is the solution. Labour has picked up so many new voters because of immigration in the first place, it's why they are doing so well in London, and really bad in other places.

Jesus, what scaremongering.

 

[gregbrighton]

Ha. Any campaign with Gove in it is doomed.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Ha. Any campaign with Gove in it is doomed.

Don't worry, the remain campaign have you so you balance each other out !

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Far be for me to correct an outer but I'm afraid it's the Tories fault we are in the EU.

EDIT - it was Heath that lied through his back teeth to voters to get us in.

I'm talking in regards of the debate around immigration, Labour kick started this part by losing complete control of the borders.

 

[sten_super]

Of course, expert opinion is relevant, however that does not mean it is true.

If you think otherwise you are subjecting yourself to a fallacy..........the appeals to authority fallacy to be precise.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Your unequivocal acceptance that all these experts must be right because they are experts would be credible if such experts were always unequivocally correct, I am merely providing examples where experts were in fact wrong.

The EU is riven with such examples, yet some are so bigoted they are unwilling to accept this truth.

As I have said before, some years ago the British public were told by the pro EU "experts" that there would never be a 2 speed EU, however now this is the solution to problems caused by these very same experts.

These problems are largely associated with the introduction of the euro, a project the experts advised us would help unify those countries that would accept it.

We have learned those experts were wrong, because they never had the necessary political and fiscal infrastructure in place.

Other experts pointed this out at the time but they were told they were wrong..........we now can see who was right and who was wrong.

Evidence therefore indicates you are on the side of the liars.

So it boils down to "I'm happy to accept expert opinion, but only when it agrees with me"?

It's not a single expert, or a single piece of analysis that I find convincing, but it is the weight of the whole. As I mentioned in an earlier post, where is the Brexit campaigners quantitative analysis that says that leaving will be better for the economy? They don't have any. That is revealing. It would be nigh on impossible for any economic modelling to show a positive economic from Brexit, and both sides know that.

I'm a broken record, but Brexit campaigners are picking the wrong argument trying to say that there won't be an economic cost to leaving the EU. They are plenty of reasons that Brexit is a good idea, but the economy is not one of them.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So it boils down to "I'm happy to accept expert opinion, but only when it agrees with me"?

It's not a single expert, or a single piece of analysis that I find convincing, but it is the weight of the whole. As I mentioned in an earlier post, where is the Brexit campaigners quantitative analysis that says that leaving will be better for the economy? They don't have any. That is revealing. It would be nigh on impossible for any economic modelling to show a positive economic from Brexit, and both sides know that.

I'm a broken record, but Brexit campaigners are picking the wrong argument trying to say that there won't be an economic cost to leaving the EU. They are plenty of reasons that Brexit is a good idea, but the economy is not one of them.

I think it is much better to exit, create some decent jobs and only then bring in people with the required skills, who can earn decent money and then make a good contribution back in to our system, without falling in to the trap of them requiring in work benefits.

As it works at the moment, we have zero control of our border, nothing around us is improving, we are just getting busier and busier.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Well there you have it, No Visa Free Travel, No Migrant Deal, the EU has created another problem.
https://www.rt.com/news/340120-turkey-visa-migrants-deal/

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I think it is much better to exit, create some decent jobs and only then bring in people with the required skills, who can earn decent money and then make a good contribution back in to our system, without falling in to the trap of them requiring in work benefits.

As it works at the moment, we have zero control of our border, nothing around us is improving, we are just getting busier and busier.

But exactly how will leaving the EU make it possible for us to "create some decent jobs"? What policies does the government need to have to make that happen, and how has EU membership stopped us from doing it in the past? Three questions I'd love the answer to. I am genuinely bemused by the oft-repeated notion, a regular theme of the Brexiters, that leaving the EU will see our lovely old country suddenly become a tiger unleashed on the world.

Balance of trade wise we are one of the poorer performers in the EU so what will happen to transform us into great performers on the world stage if we leave? Our ability to buy things from the rest of the world will probably help a non-EU UK reach trade agreements with other countries faster than it otherwise might but will that really help us to "create decent jobs" over and above what we should already be able to do? The fact that we lag near the bottom of almost every EU table of educational standards isn't a good sign, and that's not the EU's fault.

We can become a great trading nation again but I don't understand why leaving the EU is seen as the great trigger to make it happen.

 

[Maldini]

If we remain that will be it for years to come. If we leave we have the option of coming back.At least we'll know the differences between being in or out.
Voting in will mean we will never know.

 

[Scunner]

I haven't contributed on here up to now because I have been actively engaging in the debate on Facebook and Twitter mostly. I have joined Vote Leave and have paid a donation.

I think that George Osborne's report will eventually play into the hands of the Brexit camp with this report. Up to now the argument has mainly focused on process - Sovereignty, Border controls, Democratic mandate etc etc - rather than substance. And this report will force the Brexit camp to concentrate on substance when it comes to economic arguments.

The economic reasons for leaving the EU are sound, but they have to be made. There are three principal areas that leave should focus on, firstly the sclerotic nature of the EU economy, it has stagnated and will continue to do so while the eurozone lacks a federal fiscal policy to support it. By intensifying the debate over the misbegotten attempt to meld unproductive and unregulated Mediterranean economies with productive and growing economies in the north, the out camp can reveal that the eurozone was always going to fail without a federal structure. They can then create the fear of a federal Europe as a necessary by-product of saving the eurozone. Remain campaigners can then point out that we are not in the eurozone, but this should lead to the trap, which is the second substance point.

Immigration will be the deciding factor of the referendum. The price the UK will have to pay over the next decade for its 'special status' outside of the eurozone highlighted above, is the elephant in the room, immigration, 'we have control' the remain camp cry. No we don't. And it's going to get worse, far worse.

For evidence of this one only has to look to the case of the German journalist who will now face prosecution because of Erdogan's blackmailing of Merkel. The EU is terrified that immigration is going to tip the balance of the Brexit debate, so they are doing everything that they can to stifle bad news.

Over the next 10 years this - even according to George Osborne's own leaflet - will see NET immigration exceed 1 million people, attracted by a successful nation and a lucrative benefits system.

That is the same as a city the size of Birmingham, And think about that for a second. Think about it without the archetypal Brighton yoghurt munching beardy liberal 'let em all in and anyone who thinks differently is a swivel eyed racist' approach and think about it structurally, about the substance of that.

Take the M25 as an example, and let's for the sake of argument add to it the woefully inadequate London to Brighton rail link. How many tracks do you want there to be? How many lanes wide does the M25 have to be? How will the UK infrastructure cope?. That leaves aside more nebulous, but no less valid, fears about national identity.

The British have traditionally been diplomatic, liberal, independent, innovative (still 3rd in the global index), trading and has been open to diverse cultures that wish to integrate here. That last point is changing in Newtonian fashion. The resistance of both the Islamic religion to integration and the liberal cornerstone of our nature to accept that rejection of our culture is a reality has created a febrile reaction in the lower social classes. If Britian Brexits, which I hope it will for the third reason below, it will be this that is the main reason.

The third reason is the system of jurisprudence that we live with - the principle of judge made and precedent led Common Law. The EU is a civil law body, and this runs in deep contrast to our system. Traditionally we have had an 'adversarial' culture in our law, and European countries an 'inquisitorial' culture. Also, in civil law countries the state controls law making by statute, and in effect the citizens of those countries can act in whichever way the state allows them to. This contrasts directly with UK/US/Commonwealth common law system which, in effect means that individuals can act in whichever way they choose unless there is a common law, or a codified statutory law that prohibits that action. The difference may appear nuanced but the substance of that difference is substantial.

If the Brexit camp were to start to focus on the substance of this it would drag out the detail of the ridiculous levels of regulation the EU needs to create in order to be able to function even moderately well. In turn this regulation supersedes common law to the resentment and bewilderment of us. All you need to do is think about some petty piece of EU regulation and wonder why it exists, and why we didn't have it. The reason we didn't is because of the common law principle. No one thought to question curvy cucumbers and there was no case law to make us do so, nor a government inclined to bring it to Hansard. However, the EU had to regulate because one state cannot be seen to have an advantage over another. But the fact is people, that 1000 years of common law principle from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights is being thrown away. By voting to remain you will be ensuring that your children and your children's children will be finally residing under civil law governance that various Kings and Parliaments have fought to resist. It's happening by mission creep and it is upsetting those people willing to see and not those with there eyes shielded by indifference.

Vote Leave.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But exactly how will leaving the EU make it possible for us to "create some decent jobs"?

Many small to medium companies are shackled with EU red tape despite the fact they don't actually do any direct trade with the EU. I can't find the link right now but I recently read an article that suggests 60% of these companies would be better off without this red tape thus freeing up funds to create more jobs.

What policies does the government need to have to make that happen,

Dump the red tape.

and how has EU membership stopped us from doing it in the past? Three questions I'd love the answer to.

Because all companies have to comply with EU regulations regardless of them trading directly with other EU members or not.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

I was pleased to that Gove had the negative campaigned put to him today on the radio interview i heard, both sides are doing it as they believe thats what motivates people to vote. Both deny doing it, its Sad that it has all become a Torie school boy spat in the main media bites, it will not persuade anyone posting on this forum to jump one way or the other and will put off the bulk of the electorate who just want clearer facts and figures they can understand.

I still go along that I get on more with my French and German friends than I do with a bunch of Etonians who bang on about Democracy but happily sit in the oligarchy of Westminster government sticking their fingers up to another form of Europeon oligarchy that sit in a slightly more democratic form.

Still we be interesting to watch it playing out over the next few weeks. Think it will be close but nearly all referendum vote for the status quo over the unknown as the Scots just did after a very positive leave campaign.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

http://vote-eu-referendum.com

 

[pastafarian]

I haven't contributed on here up to now because I have been actively engaging in the debate on Facebook and Twitter mostly. I have joined Vote Leave and have paid a donation.

I think that George Osborne's report will eventually play into the hands of the Brexit camp with this report. Up to now the argument has mainly focused on process - Sovereignty, Border controls, Democratic mandate etc etc - rather than substance. And this report will force the Brexit camp to concentrate on substance when it comes to economic arguments.

The economic reasons for leaving the EU are sound, but they have to be made. There are three principal areas that leave should focus on, firstly the sclerotic nature of the EU economy, it has stagnated and will continue to do so while the eurozone lacks a federal fiscal policy to support it. By intensifying the debate over the misbegotten attempt to meld unproductive and unregulated Mediterranean economies with productive and growing economies in the north, the out camp can reveal that the eurozone was always going to fail without a federal structure. They can then create the fear of a federal Europe as a necessary by-product of saving the eurozone. Remain campaigners can then point out that we are not in the eurozone, but this should lead to the trap, which is the second substance point.

Immigration will be the deciding factor of the referendum. The price the UK will have to pay over the next decade for its 'special status' outside of the eurozone highlighted above, is the elephant in the room, immigration, 'we have control' the remain camp cry. No we don't. And it's going to get worse, far worse.

For evidence of this one only has to look to the case of the German journalist who will now face prosecution because of Erdogan's blackmailing of Merkel. The EU is terrified that immigration is going to tip the balance of the Brexit debate, so they are doing everything that they can to stifle bad news.

Over the next 10 years this - even according to George Osborne's own leaflet - will see NET immigration exceed 1 million people, attracted by a successful nation and a lucrative benefits system.

That is the same as a city the size of Birmingham, And think about that for a second. Think about it without the archetypal Brighton yoghurt munching beardy liberal 'let em all in and anyone who thinks differently is a swivel eyed racist' approach and think about it structurally, about the substance of that.

Take the M25 as an example, and let's for the sake of argument add to it the woefully inadequate London to Brighton rail link. How many tracks do you want there to be? How many lanes wide does the M25 have to be? How will the UK infrastructure cope?. That leaves aside more nebulous, but no less valid, fears about national identity.

The British have traditionally been diplomatic, liberal, independent, innovative (still 3rd in the global index), trading and has been open to diverse cultures that wish to integrate here. That last point is changing in Newtonian fashion. The resistance of both the Islamic religion to integration and the liberal cornerstone of our nature to accept that rejection of our culture is a reality has created a febrile reaction in the lower social classes. If Britian Brexits, which I hope it will for the third reason below, it will be this that is the main reason.

The third reason is the system of jurisprudence that we live with - the principle of judge made and precedent led Common Law. The EU is a civil law body, and this runs in deep contrast to our system. Traditionally we have had an 'adversarial' culture in our law, and European countries an 'inquisitorial' culture. Also, in civil law countries the state controls law making by statute, and in effect the citizens of those countries can act in whichever way the state allows them to. This contrasts directly with UK/US/Commonwealth common law system which, in effect means that individuals can act in whichever way they choose unless there is a common law, or a codified statutory law that prohibits that action. The difference may appear nuanced but the substance of that difference is substantial.

If the Brexit camp were to start to focus on the substance of this it would drag out the detail of the ridiculous levels of regulation the EU needs to create in order to be able to function even moderately well. In turn this regulation supersedes common law to the resentment and bewilderment of us. All you need to do is think about some petty piece of EU regulation and wonder why it exists, and why we didn't have it. The reason we didn't is because of the common law principle. No one thought to question curvy cucumbers and there was no case law to make us do so, nor a government inclined to bring it to Hansard. However, the EU had to regulate because one state cannot be seen to have an advantage over another. But the fact is people, that 1000 years of common law principle from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights is being thrown away. By voting to remain you will be ensuring that your children and your children's children will be finally residing under civil law governance that various Kings and Parliaments have fought to resist. It's happening by mission creep and it is upsetting those people willing to see and not those with there eyes shielded by indifference.

Vote Leave.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

http://vote-eu-referendum.com

Just sent this on, thanks

 

[DTES]

Many small to medium companies are shackled with EU red tape despite the fact they don't actually do any direct trade with the EU. I can't find the link right now but I recently read an article that suggests 60% of these companies would be better off without this red tape thus freeing up funds to create more jobs.

Red tape isn't entirely down to the EU, of course. The current campaign to reduce red tape by our own government is here: https://cutting-red-tape.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ and wouldn't be happening were we forbidden to do it.

The other thing to bear in mind is the additional red tape we would bring in if we left the single market. Those companies that do trade with the EU are suddenly dealing with two separate regulatory frameworks for the markets they're operating in - not to mention the costs of any import/export duties that would be applied if we didn't go the Norway route.

Why would any large companies tie themselves in double regulatory knots and incur duties by continuing to operate in the UK when they could up and move elsewhere in the EU? I'm not pretending everyone will move, but no doubt some will. The question then is what's greater, the number of jobs the red tape cutting will create, or the number of jobs that leaving the single market will lose? Nobody knows for sure, but even if the figures released by the Treasury appear wildly exaggerated, I haven't seen a single serious analysis that suggests the net effect of leaving would be positive. Have you?

 

[beorhthelm]

The other thing to bear in mind is the additional red tape we would bring in if we left the single market. Those companies that do trade with the EU are suddenly dealing with two separate regulatory frameworks for the markets they're operating in

this is nonsense, you'd create any new regulation to be dovetailed to the EU. that's the point of "frameworks" you don't prescribe every detail. in practice if your widget goes to domestic market rules 1-6 applies, if selling to EU additional rules 7-15 apply. more importantly if you dont sell widgets, but services with no real *need* for regulation beyond basic law, employment and health & safety, then you just follow Westminster law and not have to review and incorporate EU regulations too. consider the VAT on digital items debacle: we dont impose VAT on businesses under a certain level, most other EU members do. so when they change the rules on VAT compliance for digital items, all of a sudden anyone in the UK has to comply with the EU rules, even if they dont market and sell to the EU. then there was the case of fire extinguishers, every company in the land had to change their extinguishers to the EU standard. our was already technically the same/better, except in colour coding. millions spent on replacing perfectly good equipment just so the colour changed.

we are more than capable of creating rules and red tape at Westminster, without having to incorporate all that comes from Brussels.

 

[gregbrighton]

Red tape isn't entirely down to the EU, of course. The current campaign to reduce red tape by our own government is here: https://cutting-red-tape.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ and wouldn't be happening were we forbidden to do it.

The other thing to bear in mind is the additional red tape we would bring in if we left the single market. Those companies that do trade with the EU are suddenly dealing with two separate regulatory frameworks for the markets they're operating in - not to mention the costs of any import/export duties that would be applied if we didn't go the Norway route.

Why would any large companies tie themselves in double regulatory knots and incur duties by continuing to operate in the UK when they could up and move elsewhere in the EU? I'm not pretending everyone will move, but no doubt some will. The question then is what's greater, the number of jobs the red tape cutting will create, or the number of jobs that leaving the single market will lose? Nobody knows for sure, but even if the figures released by the Treasury appear wildly exaggerated, I haven't seen a single serious analysis that suggests the net effect of leaving would be positive. Have you?

There isn't any. Only platitudes and guesswork by the Brexits. No facts, no strategy. Just kick out the immigrants and Britain will suddenly 'become Great again'. Just so superficial...

 

[DTES]

in practice if your widget goes to domestic market rules 1-6 applies, if selling to EU additional rules 7-15 apply.

Well yes. You can no longer make/sell every widget the same way, you have to do some this way and some the other way. You're claiming this is better for your business?

we are more than capable of creating rules and red tape at Westminster

Ain't that the truth. Honestly I suspect a lot of things that are blamed on the EU are absolutely nothing to do with them and simply wouldn't go away just by leaving.

 

[pb21]

The third reason is the system of jurisprudence that we live with - the principle of judge made and precedent led Common Law. The EU is a civil law body, and this runs in deep contrast to our system.

I think the UK has both Common Law (criminal) and Civil Law aspects? If so it doesn't run in deep contrast?

Edit: Wiki says this regarding the law in England and Wales:

"Primarily common law, with early Roman and some modern continental European influences".

I don't see how civil law can be said to be in "deep contrast to our system" when it is a system we use?