The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[JC Footy Genius]

Brexit would not damage UK security

Whether one is an enthusiastic European or not, the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights—remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque—and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/brexit-would-not-damage-uk-security

Interesting that the retired Head of MI6 views having greater control over immigration from the EU as a 'potentially important security gain'. Well worth reading the whole article.

 

[Buzzer]

It's not most definitely calculated with the very worst case scenarios only. It takes a pessimistic, optimistic and probable view. The probable view is still negative - as it is with Moody's. I'm pleased they think the impact is relatively small - but it is still a negative impact which is unnecessary and damaging.

They argue that
"A decision for the UK to exit the European Union ('Brexit') would result in prolonged uncertainty and would be credit negative for UK-based companies such as the auto, manufacturing, food and beverage, and service sectors, says Moody's Investors Service today. Many companies would likely curb investments until the implications of a Brexit become clear for trade, investment, regulations and labour costs."

They've not gone for the very worst case scenario? Of course they have, if you commission a report to scare people about how much money would be lost then you wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't stretch every bad scenario to the point of credulity in order to emphasise the point. It's no coincidence that the figure is a nice round £100 billion.

And common sense dictates that if one group of esteemed economists come up with a figure of relative small decrease in trade and the other group of noble economists end up with an eye-watering £100 billion dollars then they are not working to the same scenarios. That's far too big a gap to put down to in-house preferences for working out their algorithms.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Interesting that the retired Head of MI6 views having greater control over immigration from the EU as a 'potentially important security gain'. Well worth reading the whole article.

I'm not a huge fan of his fiction to be honest #dodgydossier

 

[The Rivet]

I'm not a huge fan of his fiction to be honest #dodgydossier

Some would put far more weight on the views of the ex head of MI6 than yours.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Some would put far more weight on the views of the ex head of MI6 than yours.

I've got to agree with you. Tony Blair, for example, is a huge fan.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I'm not a huge fan of his fiction to be honest #dodgydossier

Yellow card HT, playing the man not the ball. I realise it's difficult to argue with him on the substantive issues though.

As an aside did you vote for Blair?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yellow card HT, playing the man not the ball. I realise it's difficult to argue with him on the substantive issues though.

As an aside did you vote for Blair?

I did vote for Blair, and was let down by him over Iraq and tuition fees.

 

[glasfryn]

Whether one is an enthusiastic European or not, the truth about Brexit from a national security perspective is that the cost to Britain would be low. Brexit would bring two potentially important security gains: the ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights—remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque—and, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/brexit-would-not-damage-uk-security

Interesting that the retired Head of MI6 views having greater control over immigration from the EU as a 'potentially important security gain'. Well worth reading the whole article.

few days ago dave was saying we need to stay in and secure european borders
might just be an idea to secure our own first ..........................................they really do not have a clue the good news is most getting in illegally are here for the money ,but it takes one to get in to mean us harm, just one.
and as for letting those that p1ssed off to Syria and want to come back they need their passports shredding

 

[sir albion]

Every country should take complete control of their borders....Inviting millions from Syria is not the way to protect your country from Isis as Merkel and the Brussels lot think.

 

[sparkie]

Project Fear definitely still winning over Project Fantasy for me.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Project Fear definitely still winning over Project Fantasy for me.

And this of course touches on one aspect of the referendum that hasn't really been discussed on here at all: which way, irrespective of your own opinions, do you think the vote actually go?


(For all the fact-waving going on, I'm pretty sure that most people will vote according to their emotions... romantic visions of a united Europe, distrust of foreigners, excitement about going it alone, fear of the unknown and so on. My sense as an Inner is that the emotional wind is currently behind the Outers' sails - I may disagree with them but they have a straightforward-looking and 'exciting' message and the pop press proprietors are on their side. And when there are terrorists on the street the appeal of trying to shut the front door is obvious. All this may or may not change but it's going to be exciting.)

 

[surrey jim]

And this of course touches on one aspect of the referendum that hasn't really been discussed on here at all: which way, irrespective of your own opinions, do you think the vote actually go?

Remain to win with 60% of vote.

 

[glasfryn]

Every country should take complete control of their borders....Inviting millions from Syria is not the way to protect your country from Isis as Merkel and the Brussels lot think.

watching the news this morning 51 got in illegally (how many get in that are not caught) and Keith Vaz seems to have woken up to the fact that we need to secure our own borders, the thing to remember is all these coming in Germany will get European passports eventually and be able to move around Europe willy-nilly as have those that are bombing in Europe now.

 

[pb21]

Remain to win with 60% of vote.

Ill state the obvious and say it’s going to be close, but also I think very close i.e. 52%/48%, or closer, either way.

As such it won’t resolve things, if ‘in’ wins the UKIP lot et al. won’t go away, if ‘out’ wins Dave’s lot et al. will push for some kind of re-referendum scenario.

 

[GT49er]

Remain to win with 60% of vote.

The 'Ins' will almost certainly win with their threat of economic meltdown if we leave, but they'll never fool as many as 60% of the electorate.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

watching the news this morning 51 got in illegally (how many get in that are not caught) and Keith Vaz seems to have woken up to the fact that we need to secure our own borders, the thing to remember is all these coming in Germany will get European passports eventually and be able to move around Europe willy-nilly as have those that are bombing in Europe now.

I believe that it is at the discretion of individual countries as to when and whether (and according to what criteria) they eventually grant citizenship to refugees. As has been mentioned, Germany does not consider applications until eight years have passed and this period is being increased by the issuing of temporary papers on the refugees' arrival which effectively stops the clock ticking. Evidence suggests that a large proportion of migrants will seek rights of residency only. This is simpler to obtain and does not require the individual to sever his ties with his home country. Rights of residency do not allow free movement to other EU countries.

HT has greater knowledge of all this than I do however.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

Project Fear definitely still winning over Project Fantasy for me.

Sums up both sides of the argument. Both sides are warning of hell and armageddon scenario's should the vote not go to their liking. Both sides are playing the politics of fear to suit their agenda..

In truth, nobody knows for certain. Its all theory at this time from both sides. One way or the other, we will have an idea several years down the line. Until then.......

 

[glasfryn]

I believe that it is at the discretion of individual countries as to when and whether (and according to what criteria) they eventually grant citizenship to refugees. As has been mentioned, Germany does not consider applications until eight years have passed and this period is being increased by the issuing of temporary papers on the refugees' arrival which effectively stops the clock ticking. Evidence suggests that a large proportion of migrants will seek rights of residency only. This is simpler to obtain and does not require the individual to sever his ties with his home country. Rights of residency do not allow free movement to other EU countries.

HT has greater knowledge of all this than I do however.

interesting
the Germans are still storing up trouble for themselves and only an out vote will secure our borders and immigrants will still be trying to get in whatever happens it just up to us to except the ones we need and maybe toss out some of those we don't.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The 'Ins' will almost certainly win with their threat of economic meltdown if we leave, but they'll never fool as many as 60% of the electorate.

The 'Outs' might win with their threat of more beheadings if we stay in, but they'll never fool as many as 60 percent of the electorate.

 

[GT49er]

The 'Outs' might win with their threat of more beheadings if we stay in, but they'll never fool as many as 60 percent of the electorate.

Possibly the most idiotic post on this entire thread. Bizarre.