The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[melias shoes]

..... the Turkish government is asking for the EU to increase its pledge to €6bn ($6.6bn; £4.64bn), European Parliament President Martin Schulz said.
Turkey is also seeking a faster path towards EU membership and the speeding up of plans to allow Turks visa-free travel in Europe.
Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters that he was proposing a "new package" designed to "strengthen Turkish-EU ties not only on the illegal migrants issue but also in all challenging issues as well as Turkey's EU accession process".

This is why the EU is so important to our long term security and prosperity. Their solution to preventing the huge pressures on European countries dealing with 2 - 3 million refugees/migrants heading towards Europe in the next few years is to bung a load of (our) cash at Turkey and allow 80 million of their citizens visa free travel across Europe in the next few years and possibly full membership.... genius.

You couldn't make it up could you?

 

[BadFish]

I love the way that the IN campaign think they have some moral high ground on the information given to the public. It's made all the more funny because straight after [MENTION=1320]Notters[/MENTION] debunked something a supporter of the OUT campaign had posted he was caught out posting similar rubbish himself.

Clearly both sides are doing it and in equal measure and you both know it.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/h...both-sides-of-the-brexit-divide-a3180631.html

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2...and-yet-more-misleading-statistics-on-europe/

Fwiw I am very much undecided on the subject at present. From the outside looking in though it is clear you are correct and both sides are ramping up the rhetoric and bullshit.

From what I have seen though only one side has adopted a handy little hashtag designed to shut down debate.

 

[melias shoes]

I'm still safe, trust me. First and foremost - Europeans don't see Turkey as part of Europe. It is, practically speaking, mostly in Asia. Secondly the path Turkey has taken is exactly opposite to the one you'd take if you were serious about the process. The government abuses free speech, shutters newspapers, detains journalists. Turkey has to undertake around 34 'chapters' on everything from social, to economic to political reform to quality. There is a long-check list and for reform minded governments it sets out a clear road map. Turkey has completed one of these chapters. Also every member state has to sign off on each chapter - not going to happen. Finally Cyprus will veto anything substantial.

We shall see. You can count on me to remind you.

 

[5ways]

I see it's £350 million a day, before the rebate, so the UK actually pays just under £250 million a week.. an astonishing amount of money that I'm not convinced is well spent by Europe. All I see is a body that makes unnecessary laws, taking power away from our democratically elected Parliament. I see a body that pays bloated salaries to fat cats who don't do a huge amount of work to justify it.

A trading agreement? Brilliant. Im in 100%. Makes total sense. But why should we let Europe make laws that bypass UK law? Are we not capable of that ourselves? Why should we let them insist on free movement into Britain? Not against migration into the UK at all, but why shouldn't we be able to say 'yes' to tradespeople that fill a shortage, Doctors, Nurses, skilled workers etc, why have an open door policy to absolutely everyone? I've not seen one decent argument to any of these points from the inners,

Please God convince me I'm wrong, otherwise I think it makes sense to break from the EU, make our own laws and control who comes in, all the while saving £250 million a week.

Well it is a lot of money but it has to be put in context. Why are we in the EU in the first place? It is about jobs and trade. The EU gives us access to the European internal market. 2/3rds of small businesses operate in Europe without restrictions and do business easily through harmonised regulation about safety standards, workings rights and so on. A lot of the EU law we've adopted covers just this. The IN campaign argues that for every £1 we spend, we get £10 back. This is calculated on the basis of FDI, and trade in goods and services. Every day X many million goes out but 60 million comes in in the form of FDI. Would this evaporate if we left the EU? No, not entirely - but it is fundamentally linked. The ease of doing business with Europe makes us a major hub for European and international companies who want skilled UK workers, a good legal framework and access to Europe. Car manufacturers are a case in point. If we left the EU we would be subject to tariffs on car imports in the EU. The cost of business would rise and fewer companies would set-up here. The same is true of big corps like banks, Barclays and Goldman have said they'd move thousands of jobs to Paris, but it is also true of manufacturers.

Also being part of the EU lowers prices for your typical consumer; Spanish olive oil, French soap or German cars are all sold without tariffs. Why not a simple trade agreement? If you look at my previous posts this has been much discussed. The essential points are that :

So what are the options for a deal? BlackRock summaries them quite neatly, if pejoratively

Norwegian deal (non-starter): this would involve full access to the European Economic Area (EEA) as enjoyed by Norway and others under the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). In return, EFTA members contribute to the EU budget and are bound by its ‘Four Freedoms,’ including free movement of people and regulations on working hours, banking and climate change. We cannot see a post-Brexit UK accepting these terms. Plus, EU members would likely veto the UK candidacy to avoid setting a secessionist precedent.

Swiss style (unacceptable): Switzerland has bilateral accords that grant it access to parts of the single market but exclude financial services. We see this an unacceptable option for both the UK and EU because of the financial services exclusion and the effort needed to negotiate complex bilateral agreements. The UK also would have to contribute to the EU budget.

Turkish trade (unattractive): this would be a customs union, where access to the EU internal market is allowed for goods on a tariff-free basis, but services and agriculture are excluded. We doubt the EU would be keen on including services, given the UK runs a large surplus in that area. We see this as an unattractive option.

UK-tailored deal (difficult): this would involve free trade agreements with the EU and others. Promoters of this solution point to the EU’s goods surplus with the UK as an incentive for it to grant UK financial services ‘equivalence’ (translation: have the same rights and duties as EU rivals). One problem: the UK already has trouble extracting concessions from the EU. So why would Europe yield to the UK if it were no longer contributing to the EU budget? Conclusion: none of these options are attractive, in our view, and all would entail years of negotiations and uncertainty

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/03/brexit-debate (See also: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf)

Every alternative model proposed does not provide us unfettered access to the market. Or it gives us access to the market but no influence in the rules governing the laws and regulations that it operates by. This comes to the point about EU and UK law. The EU project is about closer Union, it is about a European ideal and identity. This makes us uncomfortable, and rightly. EU law does bypass UK law. But what is this law? It is law that regulates international trade, the quality of seas and river water, it is renewable energy targets. There is a democratic deficit here, and the PM’s ‘red card’ idea might offer some relief. But fundamentally and essentially we have opted out of ever closer Union. This is pragmatic; retain the substantial economic benefit and lessen the cloying federalism.

This doesn’t come without a cost. Free movement is one of those costs, if you’re inclined to see it that way. Free movement is in the EU’s DNA, it is essential that people, capital and ideas can flow freely from one to the other. This has actually enriched us; migrants pay more into the system than they take from it in benefits. This equally allows Brits to live abroad easily. We essentially import working age labour and export pensioners. This is a win-win for the treasury.

Let me know if any of this is unclear or you would like more info. Essentially to say that leaving the EU would save us money is a false economy. We would lose investment, we would lose jobs, and we would suffer severe economic uncertainty. The worst thing that could happen to a small business that exports to Europe, or in fact anywhere we have a trade agreement (because we negotiate FTA's as a bloc) would be brexit. In terms of writing our own migration laws; if you want access to the EU internal market it comes at the cost of free movement. This movement has been good for UK plc overall, but obviously this is a macro perspective and not a street level view.

Also the money we spend in the EU does go somewhere. It strengthens democracy in the Balkans, it supports job creation in the Welsh valleys, it coordinates cross-border police work, it tests the quality of air in London, the quality of seawater on Brighton beach, it funds science and technology projects in Cambridge. Yes is an aberration to many, but the core aim of promoting a prosperous, healthy and democratic European neighborhood remains a noble goal even after you strip away all the bureaucratic nonsense.

 

[Buzzer]

Fwiw I am very much undecided on the subject at present. From the outside looking in though it is clear you are correct and both sides are ramping up the rhetoric and bullshit.

From what I have seen though only one side has adopted a handy little hashtag designed to shut down debate.

And there we go again with the claims that the OUT side is worse than the IN side for propaganda and apparently it's for improper use of hashtags. Really?

Gotta say, for someone who is undecided you do a good impression of someone who isn't. And if anyone from the IN campaign feels unable to debate because someone else posted a hashtag then frankly that's pathetic. Sorry, but it really is.

 

[melias shoes]

And there we go again with the claims that the OUT side is worse than the IN side for propaganda.

Gotta say, for someone who is undecided you do a good impression of someone who isn't. And if anyone from the IN campaign feels unable to debate because someone else posted a hashtag then frankly that's pathetic. Sorry, but it really is.

The IN campaign full steam ahead with project fear. All he can come up with is a hashtag from out campaign.

 

[melias shoes]

Well it is a lot of money but it has to be put in context. Why are we in the EU in the first place? It is about jobs and trade. The EU gives us access to the European internal market. 2/3rds of small businesses operate in Europe without restrictions and do business easily through harmonised regulation about safety standards, workings rights and so on. A lot of the EU law we've adopted covers just this. The IN campaign argues that for every £1 we spend, we get £10 back. This is calculated on the basis of FDI, and trade in goods and services. Every day X many million goes out but 60 million comes in in the form of FDI. Would this evaporate if we left the EU? No, not entirely - but it is fundamentally linked. The ease of doing business with Europe makes us a major hub for European and international companies who want skilled UK workers, a good legal framework and access to Europe. Car manufacturers are a case in point. If we left the EU we would be subject to tariffs on car imports in the EU. The cost of business would rise and fewer companies would set-up here. The same is true of big corps like banks, Barclays and Goldman have said they'd move thousands of jobs to Paris, but it is also true of manufacturers.

Also being part of the EU lowers prices for your typical consumer; Spanish olive oil, French soap or German cars are all sold without tariffs. Why not a simple trade agreement? If you look at my previous posts this has been much discussed. The essential points are that :


Every alternative model proposed does not provide us unfettered access to the market. Or it gives us access to the market but no influence in the rules governing the laws and regulations that it operates by. This comes to the point about EU and UK law. The EU project is about closer Union, it is about a European ideal and identity. This makes us uncomfortable, and rightly. EU law does bypass UK law. But what is this law? It is law that regulates international trade, the quality of seas and river water, it is renewable energy targets. There is a democratic deficit here, and the PM’s ‘red card’ idea might offer some relief. But fundamentally and essentially we have opted out of ever closer Union. This is pragmatic; retain the substantial economic benefit and lessen the cloying federalism.

This doesn’t come without a cost. Free movement is one of those costs, if you’re inclined to see it that way. Free movement is in the EU’s DNA, it is essential that people, capital and ideas can flow freely from one to the other. This has actually enriched us; migrants pay more into the system than they take from it in benefits. This equally allows Brits to live abroad easily. We essentially import working age labour and export pensioners. This is a win-win for the treasury.

Let me know if any of this is unclear or you would like more info. Essentially to say that leaving the EU would save us money is a false economy. We would lose investment, we would lose jobs, and we would suffer severe economic uncertainty. The worst thing that could happen to a small business that exports to Europe, or in fact anywhere we have a trade agreement (because we negotiate FTA's as a bloc) would be brexit. In terms of writing our own migration laws; if you want access to the EU internal market it comes at the cost of free movement. This movement has been good for UK plc overall, but obviously this is a macro perspective and not a street level view.

Also the money we spend in the EU does go somewhere. It strengthens democracy in the Balkans, it supports job creation in the Welsh valleys, it coordinates cross-border police work, it tests the quality of air in London, the quality of seawater on Brighton beach, it funds science and technology projects in Cambridge. Yes is an aberration to many, but the core aim of promoting a prosperous, healthy and democratic European neighborhood remains a noble goal even after you strip away all the bureaucratic nonsense.

I reckon you actually work for the IN campaign.

 

[Buzzer]

The IN campaign full steam ahead with project fear. All he can come up with is a hashtag from out campaign.

Guns don't kill people. Hashtags do.

 

[BadFish]

And there we go again with the claims that the OUT side is worse than the IN side for propaganda and apparently it's for improper use of hashtags. Really?

And if anyone from the IN campaign feels unable to debate because someone else posted a hashtag then frankly that's pathetic. Sorry, but it really is.

True enough, makes you wonder why they bother.

 

[Notters]

I love the way that the IN campaign think they have some moral high ground on the information given to the public. It's made all the more funny because straight after [MENTION=1320]Notters[/MENTION] debunked something a supporter of the OUT campaign had posted he was caught out posting similar rubbish himself.

Clearly both sides are doing it and in equal measure and you both know it.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/h...both-sides-of-the-brexit-divide-a3180631.html

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2...and-yet-more-misleading-statistics-on-europe/

Yes, my out of date telegraph article was just like the endless made up stats about European law.

 

[BadFish]

The IN campaign full steam ahead with project fear. All he can come up with is a hashtag from out campaign.

You forgot the #

 

[Buzzer]

Yes, my out of date telegraph article was just like the endless made up stats about European law.

You're tenuously claiming the moral high ground here on whose false statement was worse and then you throw in a comment about fallacious OUT stats on EU law being 'endless'.

No. You're just as bad. The IN campaign are just as bad.

 

[Notters]

You're tenuously claiming the moral high ground here on whose false statement was worse and then you throw in a comment about fallacious OUT stats on EU law being 'endless'..

But they are aren't they? They've been a running joke for decades!

 

[Captain Sensible]

Campaign trash talk already! We have months of this. The question of remain in my eyes is purely economic. Im not interested in whether someone wants to bang drums about democracy, sovereignty, foreigners etc. For me it's an economic question. The facts and stats back up that remaining is in the economic benefit of the U.K. I have never heard a credible argument to the contrary. I'm all ears though.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Campaign trash talk already! We have months of this. The question of remain in my eyes is purely economic. Im not interested in whether someone wants to bang drums about democracy, sovereignty, foreigners etc. For me it's an economic question. The facts and stats back up that remaining is in the economic benefit of the U.K. I have never heard a credible argument to the contrary. I'm all ears though.

This in spades. And I too am all ears too (as I try to fight off the urge to vote 'out' for the sheer merry hell of it, and 'in' out of 'Better the Devil you know').

In the long term, will we be better off by staying or leaving? That means stable economy, growth, ability to deal with whatever issue arises, whether it be Asylum seekers in Calais or Dover, Russians in the DHSS, hostile investment from the Chinese with their loss leader steel, . . . . etc etc.

NOT 'will we be better able to show allegiance to The Queen, slimmer, more attractive to the opposite, or same, sex, less annoyed by people taliking in foreign languages such as Urdu and Scouse, more or less able to buy New Zealand lamb or bent bananas, more free of the seconds it takes to buy Euros when going on a brass and puff weekend in Amsterdam', etc etc.

Actually, it is all bollocks, Bananas, the Chinese, Asylum seekers. Gimme the balance sheet please!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The IN campaign full steam ahead with project fear. All he can come up with is a hashtag from out campaign.

For years we've had the Leavers media attempting to terrify people with its endless front page headlines about migrant hoards about to invade, all spiced up with interjections from the Duncan Smiths of this world telling us (as he did the other day) that we're more likely to be shot or decapitated or otherwise made unhappy if we don't vote as he wishes... and the Out campaign just drones go on and on and on about "Project Fear".

Both sides are painting depressing pictures - it's called 'electioneering' - and for Boris & Co to claim that the other has a monopoly in the dark arts is just PR puffery.

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm still safe, trust me. First and foremost - Europeans don't see Turkey as part of Europe. It is, practically speaking, mostly in Asia. Secondly the path Turkey has taken is exactly opposite to the one you'd take if you were serious about the process. The government abuses free speech, shutters newspapers, detains journalists. Turkey has to undertake around 34 'chapters' on everything from social, to economic to political reform to quality. There is a long-check list and for reform minded governments it sets out a clear road map. Turkey has completed one of these chapters. Also every member state has to sign off on each chapter - not going to happen. Finally Cyprus will veto anything substantial.

When you say "Europeans" I assume you mean the member state's electorate? If so at what point have they EVER Benn consulted about EU expansion? You are too young to remember but when Poland joined and Blair and his cabinet came under pressure for not restricting freedom of movement for Poles, they said only 15,000 Poles would come to the UK. They meant as well the f@cking dolts.

http://news.sky.com/story/1044874/blair-award-for-helping-poles-move-to-uk

What this indicates is that it is not what the electorate think that counts, if EU politicians and unelected technocrats want it, it will happen......Merkel wants it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...sed-merkel-juncker-eu-statement-a6916966.html

Even our own PM wants it......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

And even the opposition (as it was) want it.......

http://ceftus.org/2012/07/04/message-from-ed-miliband/

The trouble with you young uns' is that you have no experience of the long perpetual deceit of our own politicians in doing what big business want, the view of the electorate's don't matter.

You'll think differently in 20 years.........it's not your fault.

 

[cunning fergus]

Well it is a lot of money but it has to be put in context. Why are we in the EU in the first place? It is about jobs and trade. The EU gives us access to the European internal market. 2/3rds of small businesses operate in Europe without restrictions and do business easily through harmonised regulation about safety standards, workings rights and so on. A lot of the EU law we've adopted covers just this. The IN campaign argues that for every £1 we spend, we get £10 back. This is calculated on the basis of FDI, and trade in goods and services. Every day X many million goes out but 60 million comes in in the form of FDI. Would this evaporate if we left the EU? No, not entirely - but it is fundamentally linked. The ease of doing business with Europe makes us a major hub for European and international companies who want skilled UK workers, a good legal framework and access to Europe. Car manufacturers are a case in point. If we left the EU we would be subject to tariffs on car imports in the EU. The cost of business would rise and fewer companies would set-up here. The same is true of big corps like banks, Barclays and Goldman have said they'd move thousands of jobs to Paris, but it is also true of manufacturers.

Also being part of the EU lowers prices for your typical consumer; Spanish olive oil, French soap or German cars are all sold without tariffs. Why not a simple trade agreement? If you look at my previous posts this has been much discussed. The essential points are that :


Every alternative model proposed does not provide us unfettered access to the market. Or it gives us access to the market but no influence in the rules governing the laws and regulations that it operates by. This comes to the point about EU and UK law. The EU project is about closer Union, it is about a European ideal and identity. This makes us uncomfortable, and rightly. EU law does bypass UK law. But what is this law? It is law that regulates international trade, the quality of seas and river water, it is renewable energy targets. There is a democratic deficit here, and the PM’s ‘red card’ idea might offer some relief. But fundamentally and essentially we have opted out of ever closer Union. This is pragmatic; retain the substantial economic benefit and lessen the cloying federalism.

This doesn’t come without a cost. Free movement is one of those costs, if you’re inclined to see it that way. Free movement is in the EU’s DNA, it is essential that people, capital and ideas can flow freely from one to the other. This has actually enriched us; migrants pay more into the system than they take from it in benefits. This equally allows Brits to live abroad easily. We essentially import working age labour and export pensioners. This is a win-win for the treasury.

Let me know if any of this is unclear or you would like more info. Essentially to say that leaving the EU would save us money is a false economy. We would lose investment, we would lose jobs, and we would suffer severe economic uncertainty. The worst thing that could happen to a small business that exports to Europe, or in fact anywhere we have a trade agreement (because we negotiate FTA's as a bloc) would be brexit. In terms of writing our own migration laws; if you want access to the EU internal market it comes at the cost of free movement. This movement has been good for UK plc overall, but obviously this is a macro perspective and not a street level view.

Also the money we spend in the EU does go somewhere. It strengthens democracy in the Balkans, it supports job creation in the Welsh valleys, it coordinates cross-border police work, it tests the quality of air in London, the quality of seawater on Brighton beach, it funds science and technology projects in Cambridge. Yes is an aberration to many, but the core aim of promoting a prosperous, healthy and democratic European neighborhood remains a noble goal even after you strip away all the bureaucratic nonsense.

I will just take you up one point, as your belief that big business knows best is endearingly naive.

This is what big business were saying when you were still enthralled with the antics of Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa Laa and Po.

The Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, Adair Turner, has told business leaders not to be swayed by "ill-informed scare stories" and consider the benefits of the European Monetary Union.
Speaking at a CBI dinner, Mr Turner said there were dangers associated with joining the single European currency, but stressed that overall benefits would far outweigh them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/500231.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/120407.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Blair-to-get-off-the-fence-and-back-euro.html

And stop using the views of Goldman Sachs......

http://www.theguardian.com/business...ign-keep-britain-in-european-union-referendum

They are part of the problem, and why if they and their Tory mates say stay in, The workers have to say out.......

http://www.spiegel.de/international...ed-greece-to-mask-its-true-debt-a-676634.html

You'll be telling us the CAP is brilliant next..........

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Campaign trash talk already! We have months of this. The question of remain in my eyes is purely economic. Im not interested in whether someone wants to bang drums about democracy, sovereignty, foreigners etc. For me it's an economic question. The facts and stats back up that remaining is in the economic benefit of the U.K. I have never heard a credible argument to the contrary. I'm all ears though.

Setting aside the trifling matters of democracy, sovereignty, impact of mass migration what are the economic facts and stats you base your view on?

There are numerous studies* produced by many organisations with varying degrees of bias and influenced by vested interests producing numerous post Brexit scenarios. There are very few hard facts. I look forward to your comprehensive independently sourced facts and stats.

* One example http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

 

[Captain Sensible]

Setting aside the trifling matters of democracy, sovereignty, impact of mass migration what are the economic facts and stats you base your view on?

There are numerous studies* produced by many organisations with varying degrees of bias and influenced by vested interests producing numerous post Brexit scenarios. There are very few hard facts. I look forward to your comprehensive independently sourced facts and stats.

* One example http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/

Facts are, we know how much the EU is worth to the UK and vice versa, how much membership costs verses how much capital is generated through trade. This info is freely available from multiple sources. Surely you know this?
Now the facts on a Brexit please? Or even if there are no actual facts as its a hyperthetical at this point. Independant estimated costs (including estimated job losses, company losses, exchequer losses, and then projections on the gains that HAVE to follow otherwise what is the point of a Brexit)?
Oh...sorry you mean I have to search through the Internet for an independently sourced projections based on facts. Well I don't think I need to.
I know how much staying in is worth to the UK, I believe it's enough to warrant staying even with the EU's obvious issues. It's up to those that want out to present me with the alternative view that I find A) credible and B) worth leaving for.
As I said, I'm all ears. Or is it eyes?