The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[pastafarian]

Its the economy dummy

it`s

 

[Hampster Gull]

it`s

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Nearly £10million pounds of taxpayers’ money is to be spent sending a leaflet to every UK home warning about the dangers of a “Brexit”, prompting a Cabinet row over the use of public money.
The Government announced on Wednesday night that it was spending more than £9.3million on the pamphlet warning that an EU exit would put jobs at risk and increase the price of household goods.
Boris Johnson and other Eurosceptic ministers accused the Government of using public money to "scare people" ahead of the EU referendum.
Mr Johnson, who attends Mr Cameron’s political Cabinet, called the leaflet a “complete waste of money” and said that it is a “biased and hysterical warning”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...yers-to-fund9m-leaflet-to-every-home-warning/

That leaflet at £9.3M is over the £7m agreed that each side should have to fight their campaigns. It is taxpayers money...were you asked if it was OK for the government to spend your money on their propaganda....Joseph Goebbels would have thought it was a master stroke. The social media is alive with the news and a lot of people,me included, are returning their leaflet to 10,Downing Street as return to sender.
The purdah period can't come quick enough. As usual Soulman is speaking sense. Return your propaganda leaflet to the PM...They might need some toilet paper.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Reports that the Netherlands have voted No in their referendum and that turnout is above the 30% hurdle rate (about which there seems to be some denial in the Euro-biased Guardian)

http://abcnews.go.com/International...tch-referendum-eu-ukraine-trade-deal-38184454

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Anyone have any thoughts on how we might get new human medicines approved in the UK should their be a vote to leave the EU? Currently, such products are authorised across the EU following European Medicines Agency and CHMD assessment. Come to think of it, how would any such products, already authorised still be valid for marketing in the UK?
Or how, again from a purely legislative viewpoint, how we might then export pharmaceutical products into the single market? Or why would a company consider involving UK clinics/hospitals etc in future multi-centre european clinical trials when the UK is on a different legislative framework?

 

[jakarta]

Anyone have any thoughts on how we might get new human medicines approved in the UK should their be a vote to leave the EU? Currently, such products are authorised across the EU following European Medicines Agency and CHMD assessment. Come to think of it, how would any such products, already authorised still be valid for marketing in the UK?
Or how, again from a purely legislative viewpoint, how we might then export pharmaceutical products into the single market? Or why would a company consider involving UK clinics/hospitals etc in future multi-centre european clinical trials when the UK is on a different legislative framework?

Clearly it wouldn't happen and we would descend into a state of utter chaos with no-one willing to trade with the 5th largest Economy in the World.

Obvious really.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Clearly it wouldn't happen and we would descend into a state of utter chaos with no-one willing to trade with the 5th largest Economy in the World.

Obvious really.

What wouldn't happen? New pharmaceutical products are authorised with an EU wide marketing authorisation issued by the EU Commission following assessment by EMA/CHMP. If you're no longer a member of the EU then how can an EU issued authorisation (new or previous) apply in the UK? These authorisations are also varied, updated etc on a regular and routine basis so how is this going to be done in the UK? Who will assess it here and against what? All the original reference data is with the EMA and, having left the EU the UK would have no place on the CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) anyway.
It's not a question of trade deals, it's one of the legal basis on which regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals function, in this case since Thalidomide in the 60's.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

That leaflet at £9.3M is over the £7m agreed that each side should have to fight their campaigns. It is taxpayers money...were you asked if it was OK for the government to spend your money on their propaganda....Joseph Goebbels would have thought it was a master stroke. The social media is alive with the news and a lot of people,me included, are returning their leaflet to 10,Downing Street as return to sender.
The purdah period can't come quick enough. As usual Soulman is speaking sense. Return your propaganda leaflet to the PM...They might need some toilet paper.

More bullshit coming through the post soon. I shall be sending it back.

 

[looney]

You may be confused. The issue was whether the EU would insist on retaining free movement as part of any deal to give the UK continued access to the single market. You replied, with pleasing brevity, "they won't" and it was that claim I was simply asking you to confirm. If my question appeared 'stupid' it was because it was querying a daft claim. Yours. You now move things on by saying that the principles of free movement won't apply if we are not a member - we will "free trade like Norway". Unfortunate example. Norway's trading agreement with the EU includes the free movement you say will not apply if we are not a member. Ask Oslo. Best not to rattle on about stupid posts I'd say.

Excuse the Norway example as I don't want not get hung up on a technical error. Free movement is not a principle, that's why some like us are outside of the Shengen Agreement, its an economic instrument. We are hardly likely to sign up for it if its one of the main reasons for leaving. The EU knows this they also understand the gains from Trade so will deal, we are not being threatened with a trade war. The UK became the first industrialised Nation without immigration, and emigration only began after success. Your whole premise is absurd.

Free movement of people and trade are separate issues. Don't try to connect them and demand I pass judgement on them, it is THAT that is the straw man argument.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I'm the head of a large UK company employing 60.000 workers and I think it's good for the UK economy to stay in the EU (actually it's brilliant for me because 55.000 of my workers are eastern europeans and they cost me on average 15% less than british workers) Get it?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's without Financial services (no country has free trade Financial Services with the EU, also Financial services is a huge chunk of UK exports to the EU) and also still has EU restrictions on food, agriculture etc. Also Canada had to allow all EU states visa free entry (again with the free movement, although yes not to work). But I'll have to concede I don't know too much about the deal, although I don't believe the deal has been ratified by the EU and there is a doubt it will be agreed by certain member states like Romainia for example where Canada is dragging its heels on allowing visa free entry.
Again, Canada isn't negotiating a Brexit and starts from a much better platform.

CETA includes financial services agreements.

Financial services are an important component of the agreement, so much so that a whole chapter is devoted to facilitating trade and investment in this sector. Apparently, the financial services chapter was one of the last chapters of CETA on which Canada and the European Union reached an agreement (Whittington 2014).

https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/cigi_paper_no.91_web.pdf

But this is not the same as the full access we have now obviously. The point is Canada (x country) negotiates a deal with the EU which focuses on their major sectors. As our financial sector is far more significant and important ensuring ongoing access would be a major objective of any post Brexit negotiations. Even in a worse case scenario a country (Switzerland) with a well established global presence manages to run a very successful Banking/financial sector outside the EU.

Your initial position was we have to allow free movement to get access to the EU free market, Canada is just one of many examples that show this isn't the case. For your Canada had to allow see negotiated mutually agreed and beneficial visa arrangement.

The point on the time (7 years?!) it is taking to negotiate and get final ratification is a good economic reason for leaving the EU. Having to satisfy 28 separate countries trade demands many completely contradictory when negotiating with other countries causes absurd amounts of unnecessary delay damaging our chances of forging and expanding new opportunities in developing markets.

Also Canada didn't start from a better platform they negotiated from scratch. We know we already comply with all EU regulations and standards across every sector therefore our renegotiation will not have to start from page 1.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You've successfully managed to avoid answering the question. To avoid so much expert opinion you must have very selective focus. Can the Out campaign offer such a group of such economists? No - because there isn't one, because Brexit is bad for the economy. This isn't a Cassandra situation - it is the majority opinion.

I answered it with points you could not address. How many of those 'top economists' supported the setting up of the Euro? How many supported us joining the Euro? How many predicted the last financial disaster or the one before that? How long does it take for economic forecasts from organisations like the OBR, IMF, OECD to be proved wrong? If any of these chancers had any long standing record of getting predictions right they wouldn't be economists they would be sitting on their own private island after succesfully playing the markets. Apologies to any economists on NSC obviously.

 

[Captain Sensible]

CETA includes financial services agreements.

Financial services are an important component of the agreement, so much so that a whole chapter is devoted to facilitating trade and investment in this sector. Apparently, the financial services chapter was one of the last chapters of CETA on which Canada and the European Union reached an agreement (Whittington 2014).

https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/cigi_paper_no.91_web.pdf

But this is not the same as the full access we have now obviously. The point is Canada (x country) negotiates a deal with the EU which focuses on their major sectors. As our financial sector is far more significant and important ensuring ongoing access would be a major objective of any post Brexit negotiations. Even in a worse case scenario a country (Switzerland) with a well established global presence manages to run a very successful Banking/financial sector outside the EU.

Your initial position was we have to allow free movement to get access to the EU free market, Canada is just one of many examples that show this isn't the case. For your Canada had to allow see negotiated mutually agreed and beneficial visa arrangement.

The point on the time (7 years?!) it is taking to negotiate and get final ratification is a good economic reason for leaving the EU. Having to satisfy 28 separate countries trade demands many completely contradictory when negotiating with other countries causes absurd amounts of unnecessary delay damaging our chances of forging and expanding new opportunities in developing markets.

Also Canada didn't start from a better platform they negotiated from scratch. We know we already comply with all EU regulations and standards across every sector therefore our renegotiation will not have to start from page 1.

A few points, it doesn't contain Financial services deal. As you say even Switzerland with a huge banking sector is not allowed to export FS freely. Correct the Canadian deal is not like the free trade deal we have now. Geographically freedom of movement will not work with Canada and we are not talking the same huge numbers as the UK trade, with a scaled down deal, free movement was never an issue. Canada outside of Europe but in return has to grant Visa access to all. See the European Commission as previously spoken about. Canada does start from a better negotiating position because it doesn't have to withdraw from the EU first, Canada negotiates on an equal footing to the EU, unlike the UK would, seemingly trying to get something for nothing. The only other deal I know like this so far is South Korea. The EU is negotiating with the USA also.
And the EU is branching out to other nations outside its continent to relax and in some cases remove nearly all restrictions on trade, it's a good thing for the EU. The U.K. In order to get the same deal would have to negotiate on its own and does not have the same financial figures that are attractive to some countries outside of Europe. Stay in and you will get the benefits of what you describe as a 98% free trade deal. Good luck negotiating that deal with Canada once you are outside.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I answered it with points you could not address. How many of those 'top economists' supported the setting up of the Euro? How many supported us joining the Euro? How many predicted the last financial disaster or the one before that? How long does it take for economic forecasts from organisations like the OBR, IMF, OECD to be proved wrong? If any of these chancers had any long standing record of getting predictions right they wouldn't be economists they would be sitting on their own private island after succesfully playing the markets. Apologies to any economists on NSC obviously.

A lot less economists supported joining the Euro that you are making out. It never even got started. The warnings from all over the globe and huge bodies like the OECD, that are seen as the leading light at G20 summits are warning of grave consequences of a Brexit. You just choose to ignore it, with blind faith in the UK to be able to secure a seemingly impossible deal. Rule Brittania (waves small flag).

 

[Maldini]

People like myself are not against the whole idea of the EU.Clubbing together for trade deals etc makes sense.However this fragile baby has turned into an ugly power crazy monster and that's why people like me want to leave.
Cameron would never be able to negotiate the UK out of all the things the Leave camp do no like so the only answer is to leave altogether.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I answered it with points you could not address. How many of those 'top economists' supported the setting up of the Euro? How many supported us joining the Euro? How many predicted the last financial disaster or the one before that? How long does it take for economic forecasts from organisations like the OBR, IMF, OECD to be proved wrong? If any of these chancers had any long standing record of getting predictions right they wouldn't be economists they would be sitting on their own private island after succesfully playing the markets. Apologies to any economists on NSC obviously.

Accepted. Its an early discipline relative to many others but offers much.

 

[Maldini]

A lot less economists supported joining the Euro that you are making out. It never even got started. The warnings from all over the globe and huge bodies like the OECD, that are seen as the leading light at G20 summits are warning of grave consequences of a Brexit. You just choose to ignore it, with blind faith in the UK to be able to secure a seemingly impossible deal. Rule Brittania (waves small flag).

How have we benefited from being in the EU?Has it helped us create thousands of jobs?However haven't these jobs been swallowed up by foreign workers who at the same time have cut wages.Don't tell us the grave dangers of what happens if we leave but tell me the positives as the've happened since we've been in.Don't hit us with Project Fear.We're getting enough of that from Panama Dave.

 

[sparkie]

How have we benefited from being in the EU?Has it helped us create thousands of jobs?However haven't these jobs been swallowed up by foreign workers who at the same time have cut wages.Don't tell us the grave dangers of what happens if we leave but tell me the positives as the've happened since we've been in.Don't hit us with Project Fear.We're getting enough of that from Panama Dave.

It's Project Fear vs Project Fear and Fantasy.

Fear wins so far for me.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A few points, it doesn't contain Financial services deal. As you say even Switzerland with a huge banking sector is not allowed to export FS freely. Correct the Canadian deal is not like the free trade deal we have now. Geographically freedom of movement will not work with Canada and we are not talking the same huge numbers as the UK trade, with a scaled down deal, free movement was never an issue. Canada outside of Europe but in return has to grant Visa access to all. See the European Commission as previously spoken about. Canada does start from a better negotiating position because it doesn't have to withdraw from the EU first, Canada negotiates on an equal footing to the EU, unlike the UK would, seemingly trying to get something for nothing. The only other deal I know like this so far is South Korea. The EU is negotiating with the USA also.
And the EU is branching out to other nations outside its continent to relax and in some cases remove nearly all restrictions on trade, it's a good thing for the EU. The U.K. In order to get the same deal would have to negotiate on its own and does not have the same financial figures that are attractive to some countries outside of Europe. Stay in and you will get the benefits of what you describe as a 98% free trade deal. Good luck negotiating that deal with Canada once you are outside.

Can you provide some verifiable evidence that CETA does not contain Financial Services agreements? Switzerland seems to be doing Ok. We agree the UK would get a bespoke deal better suited to our economic significance to the future prosperity of Europe. Free movement is a prerequisite of EU membership not for trade or gaining access to the single market. As previously stated we already comply with all EU standards and regulations, we already have links and ties across multiple business sectors, we are the second biggest economy in Europe they need us, we need them. A mutually beneficial trade deal is in all our vital national interests as is agreeing deals asap to diminish uncertainty. All of which means we have a much different and better negotiating position.

The evidence already discussed in this thread suggests otherwise, being able to negotiate our own deals is apparently more beneficial. Thanks for your best wishes and it's once we're outside. #allinthistogether

 

[Westdene Seagull]

What wouldn't happen? New pharmaceutical products are authorised with an EU wide marketing authorisation issued by the EU Commission following assessment by EMA/CHMP. If you're no longer a member of the EU then how can an EU issued authorisation (new or previous) apply in the UK? These authorisations are also varied, updated etc on a regular and routine basis so how is this going to be done in the UK? Who will assess it here and against what? All the original reference data is with the EMA and, having left the EU the UK would have no place on the CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) anyway.
It's not a question of trade deals, it's one of the legal basis on which regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals function, in this case since Thalidomide in the 60's.

I assume it's only the EU that invents new drugs then ?