The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[5ways]

As a centre-left softie, I think I should, quite naturally, fall with the 'in' crowd. I've always considered the 'outters' as being a ragbag group of right-wing scaremongers and idiots if I'm being totally honest. However I'm been doing a lot of reading on the subject and I think I'm now 55% in the 'out' camp. Allow me to explain my reasons:

The 'deal' that Cameron has negotiated isn't worth the paper it's written on. Many, many people would be more than happy to stick with the EU if we could manage our own laws and control our own migration, while keeping good, strong, trading relationship with the EU - and I honestly thought a reformed Europe could achieve this. Unfortunately it doesn't look like an 'in' vote will change anything. It'll still allow the EU to make key decisions on our future, decisions which we should be making ourselves. I want migration when it's filling skill-gaps and helping our country and growing our economy, not an open door to five-hundred million EU nationals who can come and go at will. Can we really justify the £350 million a week that goes to Brussels? Could that not be better spent on internships and apprenticeships here in the UK?

And this 'red card' veto isn't a veto at all, it'll just mean we can bring something in for debate. If history has taught us anything it's that the EU will ignore our concerns and carry on regardless.

I think it's unfair to say the 'out' camp are just using the politics of fear. There's some very good points being made, points which the 'in' camp can't answer.

I'm very open-minded on this, and willing to be convinced either way, but right now the 'out' camp are making far more sense.

What points can't the in camp answer? Also it is not nearly 350m a week.

Mythbusting: Does the EU cost Britain £55m a day?
Many Eurosceptics rage against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU. Nigel Farage, leader of the pro-Brexit UK Independence party, has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — which adds up to more than £20bn a year.
But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims. A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 emphatically reduced the bill from the headline figure. London sent £13bn to Brussels last year. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget.
That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a per cent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.
Another often-quoted figure — the reported £33bn cost of regulation — comes from an impact assessment by Open Europe, a think-tank, of 100 EU rules. But it is based on only one side of the balance sheet. Even though he does not like many of these regulations, Raoul Ruparel, the think-tank’s co-director, says the benefits of the regulations are “much higher” than the costs and “clearly not all of [the costs] would disappear after Brexit”.

https://next.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

 

[LIKE]

by your own admission I guess this means you're an idiot then

Like.

 

[pb21]

if your choice is to remain a brain dead idiot for the rest of your life rather than learn about the very c*nts that you so shamefully happen to support then more f*cking fool you...you reap what you sow pal.

I'm not sure if you're for real or just a parody of a parody which appears in Private Eye, still good work!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

if your choice is to remain a brain dead idiot for the rest of your life rather than learn about the very c*nts that you so shamefully happen to support then more f*cking fool you...you reap what you sow pal.

Congratulations on your argument in favour of leaving the EU. It's persuasive stuff, although probably not in the direction you were hoping.

 

[BadFish]

I have some sympathy for your view and do not trust a future UK government to deliver all or even most of what I and others expect in a post Brexit scenario. But I do know it is a damn site easier for the British people to directly influence and remove our MP's and government than bring any sort of change in the EU.

I think you are right about the ability to bring change although i am not convinced that the options offered are really that different in terms of misrepresentation and corruption. A few policy differences certainly but really just different coloured ties. I suppose that true change is more possible with an independent UK government but i like the idea that their is another entity in place to hold it to account.

I am undecided on this issue and it appears that sound information is at a premium in this debate, I must admit that I had hoped that the referendum would throw up some insights to sway me one way or the other. Sadly (and probably partly due to my lack of time to research it thoroughly ) from what I can see both sides are just politicking the **** out of it and blocking debate at every turn.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not sure what you and others mean when you say inners. There is no one view, its a broad church. As it is for "outers". There is no one voice

That's a very fair point, on both sides. However the prevailing in camp, run by the government, is portraying staying in the EU as a risk free Goldilocks proposition, all the goodness with no negatives while lieing on the prospect of future integration and pretending staying in will mean no change. On the other hand there is a consistent message from those leading the out camp that this is the major issue to leave, the fact that remaining in will lead to losing more power, more sovereignty.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I think you are right about the ability to bring change although i am not convinced that the options offered are really that different in terms of misrepresentation and corruption. A few policy differences certainly but really just different coloured ties. I suppose that true change is more possible with an independent UK government but i like the idea that their is another entity in place to hold it to account.

I am undecided on this issue and it appears that sound information is at a premium in this debate, I must admit that I had hoped that the referendum would throw up some insights to sway me one way or the other. Sadly (and probably partly due to my lack of time to research it thoroughly ) from what I can see both sides are just politicking the **** out of it and blocking debate at every turn.

I know from previous discussions you are a big fan of actions and people who shake up elites and the status quo.

Most multi nationals, a majority of big business, the UK government, all other EU governments, the US government, all representatives of the G20 want the UK to remain in the EU club. A bigger collection of elites you are unlikely to find, a lot of vested interests are being challenged in this referendum ... voting for staying in would make them extremely happy

 

[pastafarian]

What points can't the in camp answer? Also it is not nearly 350m a week.

https://next.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

anyway you calculate it,its still an enormous amount of money


https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/


A membership fee isn’t the same as the economic cost or benefit

Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more?

We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits. “There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal”, as the House of Commons Library says.

£55 million a day doesn't include the rebate and is not based on recommended figures

The claim that the UK’s membership fee is £55 million a day comes from the £20 billion annual UK payment to EU institutions listed in the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Pink Book.

The ONS told us this isn’t the correct figure to use. It has another set of figures which actually represent official government payments, although this isn’t clear from the release.

The £20 billion figure includes payments to EU institutions by UK households, and so doesn’t represent what the government pays as a ‘membership fee’.

The Treasury has more up to date estimates than the ONS, and uses slightly different accounting methods. They show we paid in £13 billion in 2015.

We previously said that “it's reasonable to describe £55 million as our ‘membership fee’, but it ignores the fact that we get money back as well.”

This was based on the understanding that the rebate is paid up front and then sent back, which we now know is wrong.

£350 million a week doesn’t include the rebate but uses better figures

It’s also been claimed that we send £350 million a week to the EU. That also misses out the rebate, although is based on better figures for the UK’s contributions.

£350 million is what we would pay to the EU budget, without the rebate.

But the UK actually pays just under £250 million a week.

£500 billion cost since joining the EU has the same problem

A further claim is that, if you add up the UK’s payments to the EU budget since 1973, we’ve contributed nearly £500 billion in total.

It uses the correct ONS figures on official contributions, although the ONS published slightly revised figures earlier this week. It also factors in inflation to reflect the rise in prices over the last four decades.

But it still doesn’t account for our rebate, so doesn’t represent what we have actually paid. Applying the discount reduces the figure to about £380 billion, or £9 billion a year.

The UK gets money back

The government then gets some of that money back, mainly through payments to farmers and for poorer areas of the country such as Wales and Cornwall.

In 2015, the UK's ‘public sector receipts’ amounted to £4.5 billion

So overall we paid in £8.5 billion more than we got back, or £23 million a day.

The Treasury figures note payments the EU makes directly to the private sector, such as research grants. In 2013, these were worth an estimated £1.4 billion, so including them could reduce our net contribution further still.

The money we get back will be spent on things the government may or may not choose to fund if we left the EU. It’s not enough to look at the net contribution in isolation because what we get back isn’t fully under our control.

Different figures from different sources

The Treasury's European Union Finances release provides the best figures for the UK’s contributions to the EU budget, according to the ONS.

The Treasury and ONS both publish figures on the subject, but they're slightly different. The ONS also publishes other figures on contributions to EU institutions which don't include all our payments or receipts, which complicates matters.

The ONS figures ultimately come from the Treasury, and the numbers aren't the same because they categorise and account for the payments differently.

The European Commission is still another source of information which shows lower contributions.

Correction 25 February 2016

We replaced the original article from 2014 with a more detailed explanation. We’ve corrected what we said about the claim that the UK’s EU ‘membership fee’ is £55 million a day, as noted in the text above.

 

[GT49er]

The in campaign has a very clear message: certain key items have been re-negotiated, Cameron's manifesto items if you like. And we will sit at the table and take a more active roll in the future of Europe on all other items. Vote in or out.

Yes, that is indeed a very clear message.

The equally clear response is, 'Yeh, right; vote out'.

 

[cunning fergus]

I think I understand where you are coming from now. IDS isnt an advocate of state socialism he is an advocate, like you, of fascism?

In which case the situation is quite simple and like you say not complicated.

I don't follow, I can't see how IDS is advocating fascism by being opposed to the EU; if that is the thinking of those who support an institution that has in the past, and will continue to expand its borders to include new countries without a by-your-leave with its own citizens then the sublime has truly passed to the ridiculous.

In framing opposition to the EU politicians will have their own motives, e.g. Corbyn always opposed the EU because of its imposition of a corporate sponsored free market, that would crush the poor and privatise public services without democratic consent.

He, and others are right, the discussion about borders, zero hour contracts and TTIP are clearly matters that Frank this view.

It is a shame that he has decided to alter his political course given his previously outspoken opposition to the EU on socialist grounds..........

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-03-05/jeremy-corbyn-accused-of-trying-to-hide-eurosceptic-past/

If he is not taking a socialist position on the EU I can only assume he is aligning with Cameron..........like you.

 

[pastafarian]

For what it's worth I would investigate dual citizenship if the UK left the EU..

Go for it,i think you would make a very good German.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Go for it,i think you would make a very good German.

Thanks. I guess it's the leadership qualities I display? Another option is to claim asylum of course.

 

[pastafarian]

The trouble with this vote is that you are really just trying to swap one corrupt entity that does not represent the british people for another.

you had me at corrupt entity that does not represent the British people.

 

[pastafarian]

Another option is to claim asylum of course.

you will be amongst a million friends,but also subject to a government that is realising they have made a monumental mistake of epic proportions with drowned refugee blood on their hands.

but as they say in Germany Good Luck

 

[sten_super]

Yes that's the excuse they gave. How I wonder does an individual expressing his personal view break an organisations supposed neutrality.

The BCC's initial position made this point. No mention of him breaking any supposed impartiality guideline.

The BCC responded at the time by saying it would not be campaigning for either side and that Mr Longworth's comments "reflect his personal assessment, rather than the position of the BCC".


And ..

BCC Statement on EU Referendum

BCC statement on its position during the EU referendum.

“The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) will not be campaigning for either side ahead of the EU referendum. The BCC will survey Chamber member companies across the UK, report their diverse views, and inform the debate.

“The BCC’s Director General has been very clear where his remarks reflect his personal assessment, rather than the position of the BCC.”

http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/bcc-statement-on-eu-referendum.html

Something changed and it is hard not to conclude some people don't like hearing a pro Brexit pov.

I seem to remember some of the Big Business wonks who signed that government pro EU letter the other week did so in a purely personal capacity . . .

Sorry to go back to an old post, just catching up. I was at the BCC Conference on Thursday, and a few points;

- there were a lot of people there (from Chambers and business) that were very unhappy that he'd used a BCC platform to put forward his own views in such a way. He made his own position untenable, IMHO.
- the initial press release of his speech makes no mention of his pro-leave views, so it stands to reason that the BCC didn't know that's what he was going to say in advance
- the second press release (which you link to) is them trying to close the stable door after the horse had bolted

I think that the difference between this and the 'big business' letter is that the BCC had a stated position of neutrality, which the businesses didn't. The BCC also has a membership with a wide range of views, and clearly a number of these businesses do not want to be associated with an organisation which has a view which disagrees with their own. I note that Longworth has now resigned - be interesting to see where he pops up next.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Sorry to go back to an old post, just catching up. I was at the BCC Conference on Thursday, and a few points;

- there were a lot of people there (from Chambers and business) that were very unhappy that he'd used a BCC platform to put forward his own views in such a way. He made his own position untenable, IMHO.
- the initial press release of his speech makes no mention of his pro-leave views, so it stands to reason that the BCC didn't know that's what he was going to say in advance
- the second press release (which you link to) is them trying to close the stable door after the horse had bolted

I think that the difference between this and the 'big business' letter is that the BCC had a stated position of neutrality, which the businesses didn't. The BCC also has a membership with a wide range of views, and clearly a number of these businesses do not want to be associated with an organisation which has a view which disagrees with their own. I note that Longworth has now resigned - be interesting to see where he pops up next.

Interesting points. It is hard to judge from the outside how his speech was constructed, what the context was ie inhouse agenda or setting out the BCC's position on a range of issues to a wider audience. Was he responding to a question? Also have his or his predecessors previous speeches contained personal opinions.From what I can gather this was a very small part of his speech and in no way was he suggesting the BCC was pro Brexit.

Considering the topicality of this issue I am not surprised he mentioned it unless there is a specific neutrality rule that prevents him mentioning contentious issues or giving any personal opinions which would seem rather draconian. If such a rule/guideline really exists I wonder how it is interpreted, does there have to be a vote of all BCC members before he can speak on a major issue?

As to the big business letter point Mark Boland the Chief Exec of M&S signed it giving his personal view while M&S wanted to remain neutral.

Marks & Spencer said it would not be signing the letter. A spokeswoman for the retailer said: “We believe it’s a decision for the people of Britain to make.”

For some reason I think if he had made some vaguely pro staying in comment none of this furore would have ensued. Not that I believe there was a conspiracy to nobble him more an intolerance of opinions that deviate from the all business supports staying in narrative.

 

[jgmcdee]

Interesting points. It is hard to judge from the outside how his speech was constructed, what the context was ie inhouse agenda or setting out the BCC's position on a range of issues to a wider audience. Was he responding to a question? Also have his or his predecessors previous speeches contained personal opinions.From what I can gather this was a very small part of his speech and in no way was he suggesting the BCC was pro Brexit.

Considering the topicality of this issue I am not surprised he mentioned it unless there is a specific neutrality rule that prevents him mentioning contentious issues or giving any personal opinions which would seem rather draconian. If such a rule/guideline really exists I wonder how it is interpreted, does there have to be a vote of all BCC members before he can speak on a major issue?

As to the big business letter point Mark Boland the Chief Exec of M&S signed it giving his personal view while M&S wanted to remain neutral.

Marks & Spencer said it would not be signing the letter. A spokeswoman for the retailer said: “We believe it’s a decision for the people of Britain to make.”

For some reason I think if he had made some vaguely pro staying in comment none of this furore would have ensued. Not that I believe there was a conspiracy to nobble him more an intolerance of opinions that deviate from the all business supports staying in narrative.

I'm quite surprised that any business leaders have spoken out either way on this. With it being so contentious I would have thought that businesses only stand to lose out by alienating their customers, and doubt that many people will be swayed by a particular head of business coming out and saying "we should be in/out".

 

[sten_super]

Yes that's the excuse they gave. How I wonder does an individual expressing his personal view break an organisations supposed neutrality.

The BCC's initial position made this point. No mention of him breaking any supposed impartiality guideline.

The BCC responded at the time by saying it would not be campaigning for either side and that Mr Longworth's comments "reflect his personal assessment, rather than the position of the BCC".


And ..

BCC Statement on EU Referendum

BCC statement on its position during the EU referendum.

“The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) will not be campaigning for either side ahead of the EU referendum. The BCC will survey Chamber member companies across the UK, report their diverse views, and inform the debate.

“The BCC’s Director General has been very clear where his remarks reflect his personal assessment, rather than the position of the BCC.”

http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/bcc-statement-on-eu-referendum.html

Something changed and it is hard not to conclude some people don't like hearing a pro Brexit pov.

I seem to remember some of the Big Business wonks who signed that government pro EU letter the other week did so in a purely personal capacity . . .

Interesting points. It is hard to judge from the outside how his speech was constructed, what the context was ie inhouse agenda or setting out the BCC's position on a range of issues to a wider audience. Was he responding to a question? Also have his or his predecessors previous speeches contained personal opinions.From what I can gather this was a very small part of his speech and in no way was he suggesting the BCC was pro Brexit.

Considering the topicality of this issue I am not surprised he mentioned it unless there is a specific neutrality rule that prevents him mentioning contentious issues or giving any personal opinions which would seem rather draconian. If such a rule/guideline really exists I wonder how it is interpreted, does there have to be a vote of all BCC members before he can speak on a major issue?

As to the big business letter point Mark Boland the Chief Exec of M&S signed it giving his personal view while M&S wanted to remain neutral.

Marks & Spencer said it would not be signing the letter. A spokeswoman for the retailer said: “We believe it’s a decision for the people of Britain to make.”

For some reason I think if he had made some vaguely pro staying in comment none of this furore would have ensued. Not that I believe there was a conspiracy to nobble him more an intolerance of opinions that deviate from the all business supports staying in narrative.

His speech was almost all referendum-focussed - it was (unsurprisingly) the main topic of discussion at the conference, and the afternoon was more or less devoted to the topic. His overall narrative was broadly pro-leaving (which is no surprise as he's always been a Eurosceptic) but there were a couple of specific lines when he clearly stated his view that out was better for all - and that is what the members took issue with. He then undertook a number of media interviews where he was (seemingly) even more boldly pro-leaving.

The BCC are not slow to volunteer media contributions on issues that are uncontroversial to their members (e.g. increasing the dividend tax, or anything else which affects red tape or taxes on business). However on the referendum they'd clearly stated that their position was not to support either side (precisely because their membership is not unified on the issue). I think he could have got away with saying something vaguely supportive of Brexit (for example that a Brexit future might lead to less regulation and a more straightforward regulatory environment for business), but the problem was that he took a very clear position, while on stage at the BCC Annual Conference where he'd been given a slot in his role as Director General. I think if he'd have done the same but batting for the other side there would have been a similar fuss, because the organisation is beholden to it's members, and there are bound to be some members that strongly support leaving the EU, and that would complain about it.

On the wider topic - there are clearly people from all walks of life on both sides of the argument; 'the man on the street', business owners, politicians, bankers. There are compelling arguments to be made for both sides, and which I don't really think are being clearly made (so far this referendum has IMHO been up there as one of the worst UK-based examples of the terrible 'negative campaigning' that blights US politics). Both arguments have strengths and weaknesses, but most of the major players in this debate are being far too one-eyed. I'd welcome someone from either side acknowledging some of the concerns of the other, and stating that there are clearly some issues that will arise from their adopted position, but that the reason they still support it is X, Y and Z.

 

[brighton fella]

Congratulations on your argument in favour of leaving the EU. It's persuasive stuff, although probably not in the direction you were hoping.

i am not trying to persuade you at all. as if. i am just telling you how naive and idiotic it is to put trust in someone you know very little about.

for your own good at least. research the very c*nts that you are supporting rather than dismiss any claims made against them.

 

[goldstone]

One of the many problems of being a member of the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU:

Pythagoras' theorem - 24 words.
Lord's Prayer - 66 words.
Archimedes' Principle - 67 words.
10 Commandments - 179 words.
Gettysburg address - 286 words.
US Declaration of Independence - 1,300 words.
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments - 7,818 words.
EU regulations on the sale of cabbage - 26,911 words