New Poll. Europe: In or Out

[cunning fergus]

Of course not. Trump was talking about a US domestic matter with, at most, regional implications. For America, the Brexit debate concerns the future global role of what has historically been its closest ally so it seems reasonable for its leaders to comment. I'm surprised you asked the question to be honest.

Trump was talking about the controls the US would apply to defeat domestic terrorism following a home grown islamic attack. You think that has no relevence at all to this county or Europe?

I'm surprised you think there is no coneection to be honest.................you probably still cant see it.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Most of the media comment about Donald Trump's immigration views have centred on his proposal to build a wall between the USA and Mexico so I reasonably assumed that you were talking about that. In your latest message you explain that you were referring to matters-islamic, so I guess we are talking about Trump's plans to ban Muslims from entering the US.

If you feel that the dingbat opinions of Mr Trump on the subject of Muslims are as relevant to a Brexit debate as the views of the US government on the subject of, um, Brexit, then I disagree.

Of course, anything anyone says about immigration has SOME connection with the Brexit debate but I don't see that it is of pressing relevance, however you choose to spell that word. So there you go.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

For hundreds of years Britain's policy was to keep a balance of power in Europe, only intervening if 1 power became a threat to the status quo. This meant Britain could use its resources for global expansion and trade in the rest of the world. This policy was called splendid isolation.

Now that an originally trading block of a few nations seems to be changing into a 28 member united states of Europe, this seems the last chance that Britain can help to dismantle this super state, and return to friendly trading agreements with the rest of Europe, while also renewing closer ties with the commonwealth and separate trading deals with likes of China and the USA.

I hope so.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

For hundreds of years Britain's policy was to keep a balance of power in Europe, only intervening if 1 power became a threat to the status quo. This meant Britain could use its resources for global expansion and trade in the rest of the world. This policy was called splendid isolation.

Now that an originally trading block of a few nations seems to be changing into a 28 member united states of Europe, this seems the last chance that Britain can help to dismantle this super state, and return to friendly trading agreements with the rest of Europe, while also renewing closer ties with the commonwealth and separate trading deals with likes of China and the USA.

Do people feel that membership of the EU trading block and stronger commercial ties with the Commonwealth, China and the USA (anywhere, really) are mutually exclusive? Is it either/or or could we have both, like Germany, France, Italy, etc?

 

[cunning fergus]

Most of the media comment about Donald Trump's immigration views have centred on his proposal to build a wall between the USA and Mexico so I reasonably assumed that you were talking about that. In your latest message you explain that you were referring to matters-islamic, so I guess we are talking about Trump's plans to ban Muslims from entering the US.

If you feel that the dingbat opinions of Mr Trump on the subject of Muslims are as relevant to a Brexit debate as the views of the US government on the subject of, um, Brexit, then I disagree.

Of course, anything anyone says about immigration has SOME connection with the Brexit debate but I don't see that it is of pressing relevance, however you choose to spell that word. So there you go.

Well if you want to select and advocate the opinions from an unelected bureaucrat about Brexit, then don't discount the opinion from a potential president in waiting of an old and trusted ally........as you would say.

 

[5ways]

Some more analysis from the Economist Intelligence Unit.

http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx...ubtopic=Forecast&subsubtopic=Economic+outlook


Top line:

"Brexit" is not our baseline forecast. However, if the UK were to vote to leave the EU on June 23rd 2016 this would trigger economic and political turmoil, albeit largely in the short term. Uncertainty would lead to financial market volatility, affecting investment decisions and undermining growth.

The longer-term impact of Brexit would depend on the details of the exit agreement decided on by the UK and the EU. We would expect a Norway-style relationship with free trade in goods, but not services. Overall, the UK would remain an attractive business environment.
An important short-term political implication would be that David Cameron's position as prime minister would become untenable, leading to his resignation.

Brexit would also revive questions about Scotland's relationship with the UK. We would expect another Scottish independence referendum during the forecast period, but that Scotland would narrowly vote to remain in the UK.

Specific danger:

The UK’s political capital is likely to be running low in a Brexit situation, and we would expect access to the services markets to be off-limit. This would damage the ability of the UK’s financial sector to provide services to EU markets, and companies that rely on this would probably relocate. We would also expect a sizeable drop off in foreign direct investment (FDI) from companies that view the UK as a gateway to Europe. This would involve a loss of typical spillover effects from FDI, such as new working practices and new technologies. It will also make it more difficult for the UK to finance its current-account deficit, which remains substantial. As a result, we would expect a further deterioration in the UK’s international investment position, raising the risks to financial stability.

In the longer term, the UK remains an attractive business environment. The short-term economic costs of a Brexit vote are likely to be significant, but we would expect economic growth to recover over the medium to long term, albeit to a level below our current baseline forecast for real GDP. Cities such as Frankfurt and Paris are keen to displace London as the financial centre of Europe, but London should retain its status as a strong international financial centre by virtue of language, time zone and an existing concentration of interconnected businesses. It may even gain a competitive edge through its ability to repeal some EU regulation. Structural features such as a flexible labour market and a broadly pro-business policy orientation would also help the UK to remain an attractive destination for inward investment. However, these features would be set against a wider and more persistent current-account deficit, and a loss of skilled labour from the EU, which would undermine the recovery in productivity.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do people feel that membership of the EU trading block and stronger commercial ties with the Commonwealth, China and the USA (anywhere, really) are mutually exclusive? Is it either/or or could we have both, like Germany, France, Italy, etc?

one issue is that while in the EU you cannot hold an unilateral trade agreement with non-members. i.e. India or China. so yeah, its sort of mutually exclusive until the EU decides otherwise. they are working on a trade deal with US that we will have to accept too, worts and all.

 

[nicko31]

As the pound loses another 1.5% today the IN's are catching up

 

[Lincoln Imp]

one issue is that while in the EU you cannot hold an unilateral trade agreement with non-members. i.e. India or China. so yeah, its sort of mutually exclusive until the EU decides otherwise. they are working on a trade deal with US that we will have to accept too, worts and all.

I'm sure you're right although Germany and France seem to struggle on.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Well if you want to select and advocate the opinions from an unelected bureaucrat about Brexit, then don't discount the opinion from a potential president in waiting of an old and trusted ally........as you would say.

Well actually I do discount the ban-all-the-Muslims opinions of Mr Trump but that wasn't my point. My point was that they are less relevant to a debate on Britain's withdrawal from the EU than the views of a senior US official. I am not sure why anyone would claim otherwise.

 

[Soulman]

David Cameron claims that his deal is ‘legally binding and irreversible’. However, the former Director General of the Legal Service of the EU Council said: ‘There is no possibility to make a promise that would be legally binding to change the treaty later’.
His reform package was dealt a further blow after leaked documents revealed that German chancellor Angela Merkel told EU leaders at last week’s Council not to worry about the Prime Minister’s demand for Treaty change. She stated that ‘on the question of amending the Treaties, we do not know if we ever will have a change of them’.
The Prime Minister’s deal is not worth the paper it’s written on. EU courts and EU politicians can rip it up straight after the referendum.

 

[Soulman]

Taxpayer-funded civil servants have been authorised by David Cameron to use public resources to campaign for Remain. Will advisers and officials working for ministers who back Leave have the same freedom? They have tonight been issued a strict ban on their activities by the Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood.

Civil servants working in the departments of Grayling, Whitto, IDS etc have been barred from giving their ministers briefings supporting their position on the EU. They are banned from providing speech material, and will be denied access to government papers relating to the referendum. Special advisers working for Leave ministers are banned from supporting their boss’ position in office hours. They are also banned from using annual leave on campaign activity. Pro-Remain ministers are meanwhile allowed to use public resources to campaign.

Amusingly, Heywood writes that these restrictions mean:

“The principles of impartiality and the proper use of public resources continue to apply to all government communications activity, including activity related to the EU referendum.”

This is laughable – Downing Street civil servants like Chris Hopkins are authorised to use taxpayer-funded resources to campaign for Remain, yet civil servants and SpAds for Eurosceptic ministers who want to do the same thing for the Leave campaign are banned from doing so. This is the exact opposite of “the principles of impartiality and the proper use of public resources”. It’s “do as we say, not as we do…”
Nadine Dorries has grilled the PM about Guido’s revelation that a pro-EU letter supposedly from FTSE 100 bosses, due to appear in tomorrow’s papers, was actually drafted by a Downing Street civil servant. Cameron said Chris Hopkins wrote the letter with his authorisation:

“He’s a civil servant working in No.10 and his authority comes from me, and he’s doing an excellent job… the government’s view is that we should Remain in a reformed European Union and the civil service is able to support the government in that role”
http://order-order.com/2016/02/23/downing-street-do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do/

 

[Notters]

David Cameron claims that his deal is ‘legally binding and irreversible’. However, the former Director General of the Legal Service of the EU Council said: ‘There is no possibility to make a promise that would be legally binding to change the treaty later’.
His reform package was dealt a further blow after leaked documents revealed that German chancellor Angela Merkel told EU leaders at last week’s Council not to worry about the Prime Minister’s demand for Treaty change. She stated that ‘on the question of amending the Treaties, we do not know if we ever will have a change of them’.
The Prime Minister’s deal is not worth the paper it’s written on. EU courts and EU politicians can rip it up straight after the referendum.

Not interested. Still in.

 

[cunning fergus]

Well actually I do discount the ban-all-the-Muslims opinions of Mr Trump but that wasn't my point. My point was that they are less relevant to a debate on Britain's withdrawal from the EU than the views of a senior US official. I am not sure why anyone would claim otherwise.

As I understand it then, you are arguing that security is not an issue in the Brexit debate?

An unelected US bureaucrat can make a salient point about our membership of the EU based on trade, however a US president in waiting, cannot advocate a credible view concerning terrorism.

The trouble we have I think is that you are obsessed with trade, it's why purist Tories love the EU; nothing else matters.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

As I understand it then, you are arguing that security is not an issue in the Brexit debate?

An unelected US bureaucrat can make a salient point about our membership of the EU based on trade, however a US president in waiting, cannot advocate a credible view concerning terrorism.

The trouble we have I think is that you are obsessed with trade, it's why purist Tories love the EU; nothing else matters.

Your theory about me bites the dust. I am not obsessed with trade, I am not a purist Tory, and everything else matters.

A couple of days ago a leading eurosceptic implied that we were more likely to get our heads cut off (etc) if we remained in the EU. This is a legitimate view which I listened to carefully. On balance I disagree with him but I respect his opinion. I hear what Mr Trump has to say but cannot respect the opinion of a strange dingbat who suggests building a colossal Mexican-financed wall to keep migrants out at the same time as banning Muslims from entering the country. I note that you characterise this as "A US president in waiting... a credible view concerning terrorism".

On the back of this I could advance a theory about the way your mind works. I am not going to do that. It wouldn't be very nice and I could be wrong. I'll just leave that sort of thing to you if I may.

 

[BigGully]

Not interested. Still in.

Not quite sure why you would support any politician selling something that isnt for sale .......

 

[Notters]

Not quite sure why you would support any politician selling something that isnt for sale .......

I'm not, I just like being part of the EU.

 

[BigGully]

I'm not, I just like being part of the EU.

What part do you like ..... ?

For clarity I have worked and lived in Europe and enjoy it immensely on regular visits, but I cannot see any political aspect that seems fair, democratic or particularly helpful...................

 

[El Presidente]

What part do you like ..... ?

This one

 

[BigGully]

This one

View attachment 72595

In or out ......