The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Thu 25 Feb 2016, 8:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

Now it is official (and some guy with a green admin name has ruined the other thread) I shall put this here for you to discuss the referendum.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:44 am

Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

by Ent Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:44 am

dyrewolfe wrote:
Ent wrote:Uh dyre you will have an unpolicable land border with the Republic of Ireland and you can get a ferry to England or Scotland with no Id. Hell of a lot harder to police than a tunnel.

Like I said - I DON'T buy that argument from the Leave campaign. I doubt we will ever be able to completely stop illegal immigration, but I believe we can do a hell of a lot better than we are currently doing...with a properly manned and equipped border agency, with the legal powers to take the necessary action. Which we can't do at the moment as we have to comply with EU regs on that issue (and many others).

Ent wrote:
Illegal immigration will continue as it is illegal. Will just stop free movement (unless that is a requirement for a trade agreement like Norway), which in general is of benefit to the UK.

I'm fully in favour of a points-based system for legal immigrants, to help ensure we only take in those who can make a positive contribution to the country.

Ent wrote:
Financial sector contributes significantly to gdp, it dwarfs the biotech and aerospace industry. Those industries contain foreign company's to that may leave.

Financial sector dwarfs manufacturing and other industries because it purely deals in moving vast sums of money around. However as we have seen, it can be very volatile...especially when those working in it are corrupt. The temptation for bad practices will always be there, due to the money involved. It will remain a big part of our GDP I guess, but I would love to see Britain become more of a manufacturing nation once more. Its increasing, but needs to grow more.

Again, we would survive if the banks threw their toys out their prams and relocated. Short term pain but long term gain.

Ent wrote:
I don't think there is all that much common sense being applied in truth.

Only time will tell. The truth is...nobody really knows. Thats why there is so much spin and scaremongering.

I think you live in a fantasy land if I am honest. The financial services contribute to gdp by employing people and making profit, not just moving money around. It is a huge sector and will have devastating consequences if it leaves the uk. Short term pain could be a generation.

How will leaving the Eu help manage illegal immigration? Specifically what Eu laws prevent uk border patrol detecting and deporting illegal immigrants. i genuinely don't know and am happy to be informed. It is well established European immigration makes a net contribution to the country.

Having a land border with an eu nation is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed, you can't just say ah I don't believe that.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:45 am

Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

by dyrewolfe Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:45 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
dyrewolfe wrote:I've been leaning towards "Leave" the whole time and after watching George Osborn's recent performance the other day I'm even more inclined to vote that way. Came across as a thoroughly obnoxious git - all bluster and rhetoric and unable to give any factual answers.

The only "Fact" I've been able to determine is that neither side has been able to come up with a compelling argument.

The Leave campaign boils down to "we'll be overrun by illegal immigrants if we stay", while Remain say "it'll be an economic apocalypse if we leave".

I don't particularly buy into either stance. Why?

Well even if we're no longer politically joined to the continent, we still have one hell of a big physical link through the Channel Tunnel. I'm sure immigrants making their way to France will still try and get through that way...as well as the other routes they are currently using. We still need our government to come up with an effective way of dealing with them. The UK Border Force doesn't seem to be doing a great job so far.

If we leave, the rest of Europe isn't going to just stop trading with us. Sure British businesses may have to pay higher / additional trade tariffs, which may cause some short term pain, but I believe the country as a whole will benefit in the long run - especially if we can negotiate our own trade agreements with the rest of the world.

I couldn't care less what the banks do...they nearly crippled this country 8 years ago. I would be quite happy to see them go. The UK is a world leader in biotechnology, electronics and the space industry (we build a lot of satellites and are a major partner in the ESA). We need to strengthen our manufacturing base and become less dependent on service industries.

I liked your post, and some well reasoned arguments and positions in there (plus I liked the music).

Just a couple of responses to this:

1. George Osborne is an obnoxious git, but please don't add that to the list of reasons to vote Leave. As I've been trying to explain to Duty, Remain is an extremely brought church across all the major political parties and whilst the mere sight of Osborne's smugness makes my spine chill, I'm happy to tick the same box as him on this particular issue.

2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

3. Your comments about an over-reliance of services (particularly financial services) is spot-on, but careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. FS employs huge numbers of people across the UK and contributes vast sums to the Treasury in tax. I live in Edinburgh and one of the compelling arguments for staying part of the UK was to maintain Edinburgh as a hub for financial services. It is a crucial part of the UK economy and whilst it requires firm and robust regulation to ensure lessons from Lehmans etc are well learned, we should also recognise the huge contribution it makes to employing highly skilled people in the UK and contributing huge amounts to be spent on important public services. I should also note, having worked in several services businesses in this industry, that the charitable contributions ("guilt money" as my wife calls it) these institutions make in their local areas is pretty significant as well. Foundations at these places give very generously to worthy local causes. We do need a more balanced economy, but losing large chunks of the FS industry to Paris or Frankfurt (there's an article in the FT about this today) would be bad news for the UK economy (and again make it less likely that Johnson and Gove will be spending that additional £350m on the NHS).

4. I know very little of the European Space Agency, but I do wonder whether our full membership status would survive. I wonder whether we'd be asked to accept Associate Member status (like Canada). Yes, Norway and Switzerland are "non-EU" full members of the ESA, but course they pay into the EU budget in exchange for free trade, and they also accept free movement of persons from the EU (Schengen). More a query than an assertion. Until you mentioned it I hadn't given it any thought at all.

Some good points raised there and some food for thought.

I would just like to add that Britain survived the collapse of the shipbuilding and mining industries (and to a lesser extent industries like car making and steel production). I would like to think it could survive a relocation of the financial institutions.

As well as being suspicious of banks in general, I don't like the fact they have such dominance over our economy and feel they can hold this country to ransom by threatening to leave. Not to mention how cosy with the government they are after the bail-out.

I realise it would result in a lot of job losses and an economic downturn...but its not like we haven't gone through those before...

Also, I think we currently get around £150m of our £350 membership fees back in some form or other...so in reality it would only be a £200m net gain. I was also not swayed by the promise it would be spent on the NHS...I imagine a great number of meetings would have to be held before they had any clue as to how the country's post-exit budget would look.

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:45 am

Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

As has been pointed out, any tariffs will be not inordinately high and a free trade deal is in the EU's interest, seeing as how the UK will be its largest export market the moment independence happens.

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:48 am

Ent wrote:It is well established European immigration makes a net contribution to the country.

No it isn't. Such reports that have been carried out looking into this have not evaluated the cost to public services, or the cost of discriminating unfairly against skilled non-EU migrants which comes as a direct result of the free movement of peoples.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:49 am

Duty281 wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Reading one of the more recent lies spouted off by the scaremongering Stay brigade is that if the UK left the EU, Scotland would leave the UK to remain in the EU. Now whilst I don't necessarily see Scotland leaving the UK as a bad thing, and I'm sorry to say I know a few English that would be more than happy to see Scotland go, I would like them to stay in the UK. So do the Scots believe there's any truth in this?

Polling indicates this to be false. There is not a majority consensus in Scotland to hold a second referendum if the UK leaves the EU and, even if there was, I find it unlikely that the SNP would push for one knowing that they would lose.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14508986.Scots__would_oppose_independence_referendum_if_a_Brexit_goes_against_their_vote_/

Thank you Duty

. Like I said I don't see it as a bad thing if Scotland wants that, it was the Leave Brigade using this lie as another scare tactic that annoyed me. I'll be passing this on.

by Ent Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:49 am

mikey_dragon wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

Pay tariffs and have freedom of movement...

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:51 am

Ent wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

Pay tariffs and have freedom of movement...

Norway do not pay tariffs.

by dyrewolfe Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:52 am

I would also like to throw another thought out there.

I am also totally opposed to the argument that we need to be a part of the EU to influence it. After all, you saw how Cameron's latest attempt to re-negotiate our terms of membership went.

Tumbleweed

I think British influence in Europe can be summed up like this:

The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll) - Page 18 King_canute_443255

Our popularity and influence would appear to be based solely on how much we suck up to the other nations and play nice. Like any big organisation, with a small number of more powerful members, it all comes down to doing what the big boys want. Independent thought is discouraged and anyone with differing opinions can find themselves given the cold shoulder.

by funnyExiledScot Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:54 am

Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:The only party backing leave in NI is the DUP.

A party who oppose gay blood donation, gay marriage, stood up form a business refusing to serve gay customers - and have tried to legislate to allow for this. A party whos core members believe in creationism and that the world is a few thousand years old.

Says it all.

If you're referring to the wedding cake-thing, that's somewhat incorrect.

No it isn't.

They oppose gay marriage, blood donation and adoption. They are a homophobic party.

The bakery in question didn't refuse to serve gay customers, they refused to print a pro-gay marriage slogan.

And there isn't a party around that supports blood donation from gays (at least not in the realistic sense).

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems, has pledged to end the "gay blood ban".

As for the bakery, they were found guilty in the NI courts of discrimination. UKIP wanted the law changed to accommodate a "conscience clause" to allow people to discriminate on grounds of conscience (i.e. things they don't like).

Neither of these issues, whilst important, have much to do with the EU referendum.

by Coxy001 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:55 am

Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

Pay tariffs and have freedom of movement...

Norway do not pay tariffs.

Norway:

Pay into the EU in order to gain access to the single market

Have to accept freedom of movement

Have no say over anything. And by no say they have no veto on jack sh*t

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:55 am

That's what I was asking of Norway...

by Ent Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:56 am

Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:It is well established European immigration makes a net contribution to the country.

No it isn't. Such reports that have been carried out looking into this have not evaluated the cost to public services, or the cost of discriminating unfairly against skilled non-EU migrants which comes as a direct result of the free movement of peoples.

Duty we all "cost public services" because we use them, if you are paying tax that is that there is no further discussion.

Skilled migrants obtain entry to the country via the visa system.

Eu migrants make a net contribution, that is a simple fact.

You have entrenched views you will stubbornly defend in the face of good evidence to the contrary.

This doesn't make you passionate or a good voice for the leave campaign. It makes you stupid.

by funnyExiledScot Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:56 am

Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

Pay tariffs and have freedom of movement...

Norway do not pay tariffs.

No they don't. But they do contribute to the EU budget (without a rebate) and they are part of Schengen (open borders) and free movement of people.

by Ent Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:58 am

Apologies if my use of the word tariffs re Norway was incorrect.

They pay for access to the single market.

by Coxy001 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 10:59 am

dyrewolfe wrote:I would also like to throw another thought out there.

I am also totally opposed to the argument that we need to be a part of the EU to influence it. After all, you saw how Cameron's latest attempt to re-negotiate our terms of membership went.

I think British influence in Europe can be summed up like this:

Christ. We can't influence jack sh*t if we're not at the table. It's called a veto.

How much say does Norway have over things? I'll answer for you: effing 0%. Do they have a say over the "ever closer union" malarky? Nope. Did we negotiate to be exempt from this? Yup.

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:01 am

Ent wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:It is well established European immigration makes a net contribution to the country.

No it isn't. Such reports that have been carried out looking into this have not evaluated the cost to public services, or the cost of discriminating unfairly against skilled non-EU migrants which comes as a direct result of the free movement of peoples.

Duty we all "cost public services" because we use them, if you are paying tax that is that there is no further discussion.

Skilled migrants obtain entry to the country via the visa system.

Eu migrants make a net contribution, that is a simple fact.

You have entrenched views you will stubbornly defend in the face of good evidence to the contrary.

This doesn't make you passionate or a good voice for the leave campaign. It makes you stupid.

It is not a fact just because you believe it, it is an opinion that you are basing on some incredibly weak reports.

by Ent Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:02 am

I'm out, I can't contend with this stupidity any more.

I had no idea about the Eu or the pros and cons before this referendum was announced. The only think I knew about it was it was contentious as Ireland needed two referendums and negotiations to accept the Lisbon treaty.

So I had a read about things and remain is the obvious choice. You'd have to be stupid to think leave is viable.

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:02 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

Pay tariffs and have freedom of movement...

Norway do not pay tariffs.

No they don't. But they do contribute to the EU budget (without a rebate) and they are part of Schengen (open borders) and free movement of people.

Good thing we won't end up like Norway then. thumbsup

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:03 am

Ent wrote:I'm out, I can't contend with this stupidity any more.

I had no idea about the Eu or the pros and cons before this referendum was announced. The only think I knew about it was it was contentious as Ireland needed two referendums and negotiations to accept the Lisbon treaty.

So I had a read about things and remain is the obvious choice. You'd have to be stupid to think leave is viable.

Astonishing how all those other countries survive as independent entities, isn't it?

And do you mean the Lisbon treaty where Ireland voted to reject it, and were then asked to vote again?

by Coxy001 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:05 am

Ent wrote:I'm out, I can't contend with this stupidity any more.

I had no idea about the Eu or the pros and cons before this referendum was announced. The only think I knew about it was it was contentious as Ireland needed two referendums and negotiations to accept the Lisbon treaty.

So I had a read about things and remain is the obvious choice. You'd have to be stupid to think leave is viable.

Been telling Duty that for some time. Got to admire his conviction, even if it's based on make believe fairy tales.

by funnyExiledScot Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:06 am

Duty281 wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Reading one of the more recent lies spouted off by the scaremongering Stay brigade is that if the UK left the EU, Scotland would leave the UK to remain in the EU. Now whilst I don't necessarily see Scotland leaving the UK as a bad thing, and I'm sorry to say I know a few English that would be more than happy to see Scotland go, I would like them to stay in the UK. So do the Scots believe there's any truth in this?

Polling indicates this to be false. There is not a majority consensus in Scotland to hold a second referendum if the UK leaves the EU and, even if there was, I find it unlikely that the SNP would push for one knowing that they would lose.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14508986.Scots__would_oppose_independence_referendum_if_a_Brexit_goes_against_their_vote_/

Believe me, I follow Scottish politics closely, if the UK as a whole votes Leave, and Scotland votes Remain, the SNP will push for another referendum. No question. Sturgeon is too clever to want it, but her party (the governing party up here, albeit without a majority) will accept nothing else. What is more interesting is whether Westminster will allow it (which will create an almighty hornets next up here). As a "No" voter I was perfecty willing to accept that a consequence of a "No" vote could mean the UK voting together to leave the EU. The SNP argue that the point was lost on us, and we didn't understand that, and that we were somehow duped. I can see Westminster taking a pretty hard line: "you had your referendum, you had your chance, you had two years of debates etc. and the result was conclusive. No further referendum.". That will case riots up here - the SNP faithful have never and will never accept "no" for answer, and care little for democracy. It is a concern for those of us in Scotland who believe strongly in the UK, but I don't see it swaying many south of the border.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:06 am

Rowley wrote:
Azzy wrote:

Net migration should be capped at 10,000 per annum. That is achievable by either having a very limited number of visas, for expert specialists only,

You should really stop talking about immigration. It is clearly a subject you know literally nothing about.

by Ent Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:07 am

No duty it is a fact because various groups have looked into it, the main bit of research coming from UCL.

You're entrenched opinion is the migrants are bad and look to discredit anything that says otherwise.

You are genuinely one of the stupidest people I have ever come across.

by Derbymanc Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:08 am

Why do people feel the need to insult others for not agreeing exactly with what they want to do. Some want to leave, some want to stay. Personally think the EU has too much power overall and would like to see us leave because of that. Immigration needs tightening up but Rowley's better to talk too about that as it's not as simple as just writing it down.

What has really annoyed is both sides plucking figures out of thin air and scare mongering. The same thing we said the SNP was doing, now both sides are doing.

Bonkers

by funnyExiledScot Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:10 am

Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

Pay tariffs and have freedom of movement...

Norway do not pay tariffs.

No they don't. But they do contribute to the EU budget (without a rebate) and they are part of Schengen (open borders) and free movement of people.

Good thing we won't end up like Norway then.

Agreed, they charge far too much for beer. Still, the reason people mention Norway is because Farage has said on numerous occasions that the UK could thrive outside of the EU "much like Norway". That's before, I assume, pesky details like Schengen came across his radar and someone explained to him the deal that Norway has.

Norway would be a terrible model for the UK, and I think Leave were wrong to mention them as a workable solution.

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:11 am

Ent wrote:No duty it is a fact because various groups have looked into it, the main bit of research coming from UCL.

You're entrenched opinion is the migrants are bad and look to discredit anything that says otherwise.

You are genuinely one of the stupidest people I have ever come across.

Research that didn't look into the cost of public services? Wage compression? Extra demand on housing? Or health services? School places? The costs of unemployed British people as a result?

You should read into things, rather than just glancing at the headlines and taking it as read.

I remember one EU-sponsored report which claimed immigration had cost the UK £120 billion. You're just looking for ones that support your point of view.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:13 am

dyrewolfe wrote:

I couldn't care less what the banks do...they nearly crippled this country 8 years ago. I would be quite happy to see them go. The UK is a world leader in biotechnology, electronics and the space industry (we build a lot of satellites and are a major partner in the ESA). We need to strengthen our manufacturing base and become less dependent on service industries.

Classic

let's just f*ck 20% of the economy, meanwhile we're spending more bailing out farmers than we ever did bankers and farming is a miniscule fraction of UK GDP Rolling Eyes

by Azzy Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:15 am

Derbymanc wrote:Why do people feel the need to insult others for not agreeing exactly with what they want to do.

This is v2, where you can wage virtual war from yonder keyboard with zero repercussions.

by SecretFly Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:20 am

The MP that changed how she's going to vote.................. coincidently at the very last minute - nice timing........................... but her. How bizarre.

She begins by being an avowed Leave supporter - supposedly developed over years of serious thought on the issue and having debated all the principles in her own mind well in advance of the Campaign. Knowing too the details of how she feels the NHS will function if LEAVE win.

But she changes her mind - last minute - why? Because the Leave campaign are telling untruths about the NHS..................

Does it matter? Everyone with a brain knows and accepts untruths are popping up on all sides - that's politics, that's elections, that's referendums. They're football games - you have a side, you maybe feign an injury to get an opponent red carded. You cheat a little if the ref ain't looking.

A little white lie makes a person fundamentally opposed to the UK's link to the EU say "I've now changed my mind. I'm now for EU".

"Oh I think our striker dived there. I now fully support the other team"

Yep. Plant. Sleeper Agent at work... Wink

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:21 am

Ent you're just coming across as one of the remain snobs looking down their nose at people who disagree with their view. I was always a fan of the leave campaign, but the lies and discrimination against the opposition coming from the stay brigade is nothing short of embarrassing.

by SecretFly Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:21 am

Derbymanc wrote:Why do people feel the need to insult others for not agreeing exactly with what they want to do.

Fear?

by Azzy Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:22 am

Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

This is from a month ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/how-EU exit-could-lead-to-other-eu-countries-following-the-uk-out/

I heard today that Italians are pushing hard for their own referendum. It is looking more and more possible by the day that other referendums may take place, and we're not alone. You would think that Cameron would be telling the EU to give us some rather special benefits - in the days before 23 June - to show people it's a good deal after all. The EU cannot afford to risk the EU exit - they need us more than we need them. It's about time they proved it.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:25 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Is a pretty important point about trade that exiledscot makes... The EU will not in a month of Sunday's give us a) entry to the single market as we have currently with no tarriffs b) the ability to not adhere to freedom of movement.

Why?

Is very, very simple. If we set a precedent for leaving the EU and then get all the previous benefits of the single market for free then the floodgates of others leaving will open. Why on gods green earth would other countries pay to be in something/be part of joined state when one of their neighbours is having it all for free?

Our trade will be hit by tarriffs. To suggest otherwise is idiocy of the highest order. Yet the leave voters simply come back with "of course they'll want to trade with us", which is laughably ignorant. I can absolutely guarantee they will put the EU staying in one albeit reduced piece versus letting us trade tarriff/movement of people free. It doesn't set a dangerous precedent, it doesn't just open the floodgates.. it detonates said gates with a nuclear bomb.

Norway?

Pay tariffs and have freedom of movement...

Norway do not pay tariffs.

No they don't. But they do contribute to the EU budget (without a rebate) and they are part of Schengen (open borders) and free movement of people.

Good thing we won't end up like Norway then.

Agreed, they charge far too much for beer. Still, the reason people mention Norway is because Farage has said on numerous occasions that the UK could thrive outside of the EU "much like Norway". That's before, I assume, pesky details like Schengen came across his radar and someone explained to him the deal that Norway has.

Norway would be a terrible model for the UK, and I think Leave were wrong to mention them as a workable solution.

You're certainly right FES. But from what I've read, the lying remain camp have been saying it's certainly going to be economic disaster, repatriation of UK expats, etc. if the UK voted leave. EU exit were also saying that it hasn't happened to Norway when Norway were told that all this would happen to them if they stayed outside of the EU - so Norway were mentioned in that regard too?

by Coxy001 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:31 am

Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:No duty it is a fact because various groups have looked into it, the main bit of research coming from UCL.

You're entrenched opinion is the migrants are bad and look to discredit anything that says otherwise.

You are genuinely one of the stupidest people I have ever come across.

Research that didn't look into the cost of public services? Wage compression? Extra demand on housing? Or health services? School places? The costs of unemployed British people as a result?

You should read into things, rather than just glancing at the headlines and taking it as read.

I remember one EU-sponsored report which claimed immigration had cost the UK £120 billion. You're just looking for ones that support your point of view.

I'll use bullet points so you understand (pi$$ing in to the wind using that word):

Between 2000 & 2011 immigration (EU migrants) contributed £20bn to the economy

Those migrants would've cost £6.5bn in education if they were British

Immigrants are 43% less likely to receive state benefits

Immigrants are 7% less likely to live in social housing

25% of immigrants from A10 countries have a degree, 65% of those from EU-15 countries have a degree, compared to 24% of natives.

Immigrants increase aggregate demand and thus total aggregate spend within the economy. Such a scenario leads to increases in need for labour and thus job opportunities.

Your lack of knowledge on the benefits immigration brings is astounding.

by funnyExiledScot Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:36 am

mikey_dragon wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:41 am

Coxy001 wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Ent wrote:No duty it is a fact because various groups have looked into it, the main bit of research coming from UCL.

You're entrenched opinion is the migrants are bad and look to discredit anything that says otherwise.

You are genuinely one of the stupidest people I have ever come across.

Research that didn't look into the cost of public services? Wage compression? Extra demand on housing? Or health services? School places? The costs of unemployed British people as a result?

You should read into things, rather than just glancing at the headlines and taking it as read.

I remember one EU-sponsored report which claimed immigration had cost the UK £120 billion. You're just looking for ones that support your point of view.

I'll use bullet points so you understand (pi$$ing in to the wind using that word):

Between 2000 & 2011 immigration (EU migrants) contributed £20bn to the economy

Those migrants would've cost £6.5bn in education if they were British

Immigrants are 43% less likely to receive state benefits

Immigrants are 7% less likely to live in social housing

25% of immigrants from A10 countries have a degree, 65% of those from EU-15 countries have a degree, compared to 24% of natives.

Immigrants increase aggregate demand and thus total aggregate spend within the economy. Such a scenario leads to increases in need for labour and thus job opportunities.

Your lack of knowledge on the benefits immigration brings is astounding.

And who is suggesting that immigration doesn't bring benefits?

When controlled, when fair, it is an excellent asset.

In its current form - free movement for those in the EU; have to earn £35,000 for those outside the EU, with the Remain side talking about making it 'more difficult' for non-EU migrants to bring their families over if they win the referendum - it is a complete mess, and not fully harnessing the benefits that immigration can bring.

by Duty281 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 11:45 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

We won't require a free trade deal with the EU to trade, it would merely make things easier.

Numerous countries have free trade deals with the EU who don't pay in, make their own laws, and don't accept free movement - like South Korea and South Africa.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 12:01 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

I got confused there between tariffs and trade barriers after reading that email posted by Tattie. So the question is are the tariffs extortionate? Is it more affordable than sending the EU a lot of money every week? I can't see the tariffs being that high (I don't actually know) but I also believe the powerhouse that is the UK would be in a position to negotiate terms on this - I guess that makes me a racist idiot according to some for believing that. Reading on the email actually answers those questions I've just asked under the question EU's Common External Tariffs. It's a win-win situation for EU exit.

by funnyExiledScot Thu 09 Jun 2016, 12:02 pm

Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

We won't require a free trade deal with the EU to trade, it would merely make things easier.

Numerous countries have free trade deals with the EU who don't pay in, make their own laws, and don't accept free movement - like South Korea and South Africa.

Correct - we won't require one, but without one UK business will have to pay tariffs on exports (at the ROW MFN rate) and UK business can be prevented from providing services (e.g. UK fund managers managing money or offering products to EU customers).

We will almost certainly commence negotiations with the EU for some sort of deal on trade and services. The deals you mention for South Africa and Korea will not be analogous - they were struck for political reasons and, importantly, don't include services (only goods). These negotiations have been estimated to take between 4-10 years, during which time goods will be subject to tariffs and services restricted (depending on the laws of each EU member state in question).

Again, you may well argue that the UK will come out better in the longer term, but the short term pain should not be brushed under the carpet.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 12:03 pm

Guys I've just noticed that #BR-exit is automatically changed to EU exit - I must have missed being told there is a reason for this?

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 09 Jun 2016, 12:26 pm

Sorry about that Mike but it's an EU directive.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 12:27 pm

Oh well, another reason to vote leave? Wink

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 09 Jun 2016, 12:32 pm

I dunno. If they could ban words like chillax and mcboatyface you'd see merit in their actions. I think it was because Julius H Marx is an oft fingered librarian who couldn't bear to watch his beloved language be butchered. It's also entirely possible that now he accidently made the change he doesn't know how to put it aright.

by **superflyweight** Thu 09 Jun 2016, 12:41 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Reading one of the more recent lies spouted off by the scaremongering Stay brigade is that if the UK left the EU, Scotland would leave the UK to remain in the EU. Now whilst I don't necessarily see Scotland leaving the UK as a bad thing, and I'm sorry to say I know a few English that would be more than happy to see Scotland go, I would like them to stay in the UK. So do the Scots believe there's any truth in this?

Polling indicates this to be false. There is not a majority consensus in Scotland to hold a second referendum if the UK leaves the EU and, even if there was, I find it unlikely that the SNP would push for one knowing that they would lose.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14508986.Scots__would_oppose_independence_referendum_if_a_Brexit_goes_against_their_vote_/

Believe me, I follow Scottish politics closely, if the UK as a whole votes Leave, and Scotland votes Remain, the SNP will push for another referendum. No question. Sturgeon is too clever to want it, but her party (the governing party up here, albeit without a majority) will accept nothing else. What is more interesting is whether Westminster will allow it (which will create an almighty hornets next up here). As a "No" voter I was perfecty willing to accept that a consequence of a "No" vote could mean the UK voting together to leave the EU. The SNP argue that the point was lost on us, and we didn't understand that, and that we were somehow duped. I can see Westminster taking a pretty hard line: "you had your referendum, you had your chance, you had two years of debates etc. and the result was conclusive. No further referendum.". That will case riots up here - the SNP faithful have never and will never accept "no" for answer, and care little for democracy. It is a concern for those of us in Scotland who believe strongly in the UK, but I don't see it swaying many south of the border.

Agree with this, but if UK does leave, I could see the SNP making it part of their 2021 manifesto that they will insist on a referendum in 2021/2022 if they return a majority.

Not sure Westminster will agree, but as you say, things will turn ugly if they don't.

by Rowley Thu 09 Jun 2016, 1:09 pm

The Scottish Referendum, the once in a lifetime vote they're going to do twice.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 09 Jun 2016, 1:19 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:Ent you're just coming across as one of the remain snobs looking down their nose at people who disagree with their view. I was always a fan of the leave campaign, but the lies and discrimination against the opposition coming from the stay brigade is nothing short of embarrassing.

The fact the Leave lot can't come back with anything sensible/intelligent/accurate/factual to rebuff what Ent is saying does not make Ent a snob.

by **superflyweight** Thu 09 Jun 2016, 1:19 pm

Like almost anywhere else you care to mention Jeff, Scotland is full of asswipes. We just seem to have an unhealthy minority of nationalist asswipes.

by mikey_dragon Thu 09 Jun 2016, 1:31 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Ent you're just coming across as one of the remain snobs looking down their nose at people who disagree with their view. I was always a fan of the leave campaign, but the lies and discrimination against the opposition coming from the stay brigade is nothing short of embarrassing.

The fact the Leave lot can't come back with anything sensible/intelligent/accurate/factual to rebuff what Ent is saying does not make Ent a snob.

It's there, and I can also see it has been posted on this thread (like Tattie's post). The stay brigade just won't have it/dismiss it - that's what we've come to expect from them. I like reading the debate on here as I'm seeing a lot less of that than I do elsewhere, especially now that Ent has apparently upped sticks. I don't think Ent is a snob either btw, I read his last few comments and said he was coming across as one of the typical remain snobs who dismiss everything that disagrees with their POV. You may not agree with me but I've been finding that all of the lies and scaremongering is coming from one side, the remainers - and folk like me didn't even need any more conviction to be a BR-exit crusader Wink

.

by Sponsored content

Will you vote Leave or Remain?