Good post.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (April Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Good post.
I think it's something to do with we all wear gold sovereign rings, wear Union Jack T-Shirts [made in the UK tm], play cricket and eat cucumber sandwiches all day, while saying 'Spiffing' a lot to each other
When do we start the Gunboat diplomacy and colonisation of the poor places?
That's after the EU has collapsed dear boy, hopefully we would have finished afternoon tea by then, then we can give Harry Hun a darned good British style thrashing, six of the best, trousers down!
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
After tea obviously!
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,345
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Trade is determined by business. Politics is second to that, it is change but the whole reason we do trade with other countries is not changing because a law or regulation or the taxes taken on that trade.
Government is not the reason we trade, leaving EU will not stop trade unless they make a deliberate attempt to blockade or raise tarriffs. If that is the threat being made, then its obvious we should leave not stay out of fear
There are subsidies paid to farmers most famously, we also pay out a billion to EU or more net. Its really better to disengage a system not working, I dont see the subsidy system as a reason to stay we can always do it ourselves if we have to
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It's better to pretend the Remain crowd think THERE WILL BE NO TRADE because it's easier to come up with a fair and credible rebuttal to such a view.
If that fails, just say PROJECT FEAR a few times.
None of it is facts. It's opinions. And what the government presented has been torn to shreds.
If all these were such huge obstacles to over come then there would be no such thing as prosperous countries outside of the EU, China and US; but of course there are. We may pay more money for some things, but in turn we will then charge more for our exports. We may be a little worse off in the short term, but at least we'll be able to make 100% of our own laws and vote in a new Government if we don't like the laws it's making.
These countries are both considerably larger than us - the population of the EU is almost 3 times smaller than that of China let alone the population of the UK. That's the benefit of the EU - it gives us a single market of similar size to the US market for example.
You cannot say 'Well the USA is fine so we will be' because they are both very different economies. Until very recently the US was largely self sufficient due to both large domestic industry and a wealth of natural resources. The same cannot be said for the UK.
Another poll, this time from Ipsos-Mori. It gives remain a 10pt lead 49-39% but more interesting, I think, is the contrast between what voters think are important issues:
Interestingly the undecided vote breaks down with the economy top (38%) but immigration a gnat's whisker behind (34%) which I think suggests that the undecided vote will probably split between Remain and Leave. Another nugget is that the Remain vote seems softer with more voters saying they may change their mind.
MORI also asked an unprompted question on what the most important issues were in deciding how people would vote in the EU referendum. Overall the impact on the economy (32%) and immigration (27%) came top, but there was a sharp contrast between remain and leave voters. Among those who want to remain 40% named the economy, followed by jobs (15%), trade (14%) and immigration (14%). Among those who want to leave 47% named immigration, followed by making our own laws (25%), the economy (21%) and the impact of immigration on the welfare state (20%).
Interestingly the undecided vote breaks down with the economy top (38%) but immigration a gnat's whisker behind (34%) which I think suggests that the undecided vote will probably split between Remain and Leave. Another nugget is that the Remain vote seems softer with more voters saying they may change their mind.
That would be the day leave campaign loses any chance of winning. They can't afford to say that.
Back to the original post topic of the EU referendum.
Interesting program last night raised some interesting questions.
I can see perspectives - free trade, freedom to work, as well as the progressive dominion of political control.
The referendum seems to be a simple Stay? Yes/No.
If you say No - then according to the Conservatives or cross-party groups - you are saying that you don't hold for anything that the EU states, be it trade/economic/jobs/political state.
If you say Yes - then according to the same groups - you are saying that you accept everything that the EU wants/demands including trade/economic/jobs/political state.
However it's more subtle than that. So let me look at each of these perspectives.
Trade. Free trade is really what allows this company to function. Blocking this wouldn't safeguard the manufacturing jobs - just as china's grip extends in climbing the ladder of raw materials>manufacture>design chain. It's economics itself that pushes the mining/manufacture to the lowest cost places because people want to buy cheap or pay through the nose but people design products that maximise returned profits/investment at both segments. The result is unless you go to an artisan in the country you will have a global economic pressure and cost reduction driving many aspects. China itself focuses on low cost options - effectively waging a price war. As most high cost items are a composed of a set of low cost components then you're back to the price war.
Jobs.
Being in a single job market means there is more competition with more flexibility of pay for employers. "over here taking our jobs" is a misnomer. If the employer will pay X and someone will work but you reject that then you're not even in market. The skills you have are devalued by the employer.
There has been a shock caused by people assuming that eastern block countries were somehow backwards with lower education. Infact it's demonstrated that it's not the case - most migrants are intelligent and with the emphasis of drive to make something of their lives are actually more productive/intent on educating themselves to better themselves.
True the old group/union-esque mentality of Polish Builders that is used to make themselves more money (an observation from a old polish work colleague who's dad is a polish builder in Krakow). However they're just taking the same line that the unions/miners/etc took back in the 1970s/1980s. That aspect of work ethic is still strong in some countries.
What was interesting is when the new countries were added - the UK did not impose the optional 7 year adoption plan that slowly eases the number of migrants allowed. The government forecasts were either wrong or purposely misleading and the impact was far higher than was expected. Germany and France did. Hence the migration impacted them less.
Economy
First some wiki facts EU-27 contributions (2007-2013):
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#EU-27_contributions_.282007-2013.29
So the top 4 pay almost 62% of the EU budget.
So the UK contribution dropped from 14% (2014) to 10.9%.
Also when you look at the EU figures, the job market input seems that the new joiners have used expenditure to boost their employment - stemming the migration slope to UK and other developed countries.
However when you look at the EU expenditure in administration - BE has over 5Bn which is magnitudes more. Jobs for the boys in Lux and BE, especially considering the non-elected EU president happened to be from Lux. One could make the link between presidency and the 5bn into the BE economy as a 'back route'.
So this leads me on to my final point.
Politics/Government/Sovereignty
So the public votes for their nation's leaders, however who votes for the EU president? The EU president is voted for by cross national parties all vying for their own representative to be made president.
So the politics of the Empire of Rome with the senate and "Et Tu Brute" spring to mind. Once elected, the president does not have any executive power however the deals done to elect provide the binding power control base within the EU itself.
Surely it should be the cross national parties put forward their representatives and the EU citizens then vote for the president (or more precisely the cross national party) that then have enough dealings to push through agendas without democratic engagement.
I'm very aware that there are subtleties - far beyond the binary Yes/No. And that the extrapolation of saying Yes by the dissolving of governing parliaments and placing the dissolution of "royalty" in a single centrally governed federal state isn't acceptable as there are no systems in place for democratic elections across the EU.
However - as a Yes vote indicates acceptance of ALL current proposals at this stage without democratic input I see it as the worst of two evils. No - lose of trade/economic stability and Yes - the loss of democratic sovereign power by political erosion.
I feel that the EU nations have their eyes on the London financial market. Currently what we have protects both the traders (in terms of taxes) and allows the UK to put it's own economic package together to make it more attractive.
I see that if the London financial market provides 14.3% (9.6% with another 4.7% of services around that) of the UK's economy. Yes it's centred within the London and therefore not many outside of London see it but think it's bad because of the impact on house prices etc - however that's 14.3% of OUR (no north/south divide) economy.
Some nice stats (although 2011): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...tions_to_the_UK_economy_in_2011_by_region.png
So could I be a EU citizen?
Well perhaps being married to a French woman, knowing at least four couples that are english-<EU nationality> I would say I could however the aspect that concerns me is how the non-democratic EU policies are pushed through without any form of vote.
It's interesting that NL and France themselves rejected the original proposal to make a "state" through their own referendums. I know from conversations that normal french have the same fears of migration, job security, economic stability and loosing their national identity/capacity to manage their own citizen's problems through their own parliament.
I suspect that it's the same in many countries once you talk to the normal people and not the EU power hungry bureaucrats. Hence putting a democratic vote in there would probably be the only way that would be accepted across the EU.. not some old-boys club.
So although I am open to the EU, open to even being an EU citizen in the long term.. I also see that the way that it is being done and what is being done is not acceptable to most of the normal EU citizens.
So I'm am now faced with not a decision based on economy, or jobs or trade but one of democratic principle.
I now look at the Yes/No vote as simply being - do you wish to participate in the EU based on the current democratic principles?
Interesting program last night raised some interesting questions.
I can see perspectives - free trade, freedom to work, as well as the progressive dominion of political control.
The referendum seems to be a simple Stay? Yes/No.
If you say No - then according to the Conservatives or cross-party groups - you are saying that you don't hold for anything that the EU states, be it trade/economic/jobs/political state.
If you say Yes - then according to the same groups - you are saying that you accept everything that the EU wants/demands including trade/economic/jobs/political state.
However it's more subtle than that. So let me look at each of these perspectives.
Trade. Free trade is really what allows this company to function. Blocking this wouldn't safeguard the manufacturing jobs - just as china's grip extends in climbing the ladder of raw materials>manufacture>design chain. It's economics itself that pushes the mining/manufacture to the lowest cost places because people want to buy cheap or pay through the nose but people design products that maximise returned profits/investment at both segments. The result is unless you go to an artisan in the country you will have a global economic pressure and cost reduction driving many aspects. China itself focuses on low cost options - effectively waging a price war. As most high cost items are a composed of a set of low cost components then you're back to the price war.
Jobs.
Being in a single job market means there is more competition with more flexibility of pay for employers. "over here taking our jobs" is a misnomer. If the employer will pay X and someone will work but you reject that then you're not even in market. The skills you have are devalued by the employer.
There has been a shock caused by people assuming that eastern block countries were somehow backwards with lower education. Infact it's demonstrated that it's not the case - most migrants are intelligent and with the emphasis of drive to make something of their lives are actually more productive/intent on educating themselves to better themselves.
True the old group/union-esque mentality of Polish Builders that is used to make themselves more money (an observation from a old polish work colleague who's dad is a polish builder in Krakow). However they're just taking the same line that the unions/miners/etc took back in the 1970s/1980s. That aspect of work ethic is still strong in some countries.
What was interesting is when the new countries were added - the UK did not impose the optional 7 year adoption plan that slowly eases the number of migrants allowed. The government forecasts were either wrong or purposely misleading and the impact was far higher than was expected. Germany and France did. Hence the migration impacted them less.
Economy
First some wiki facts EU-27 contributions (2007-2013):
Code:
Germany 144,350 19.90 -9,507 -0.35
France 128,839 17.76 -5,914 -0.29
Italy 98,475 13.57 -4,356 -0.27
United Kingdom 77,655 10.70 -4,872 -0.25
Spain 66,343 9.15 3,114 0.29
Netherlands 27,397 3.78 -2,073So the top 4 pay almost 62% of the EU budget.
So the UK contribution dropped from 14% (2014) to 10.9%.
Also when you look at the EU figures, the job market input seems that the new joiners have used expenditure to boost their employment - stemming the migration slope to UK and other developed countries.
However when you look at the EU expenditure in administration - BE has over 5Bn which is magnitudes more. Jobs for the boys in Lux and BE, especially considering the non-elected EU president happened to be from Lux. One could make the link between presidency and the 5bn into the BE economy as a 'back route'.
So this leads me on to my final point.
Politics/Government/Sovereignty
So the public votes for their nation's leaders, however who votes for the EU president? The EU president is voted for by cross national parties all vying for their own representative to be made president.
So the politics of the Empire of Rome with the senate and "Et Tu Brute" spring to mind. Once elected, the president does not have any executive power however the deals done to elect provide the binding power control base within the EU itself.
Surely it should be the cross national parties put forward their representatives and the EU citizens then vote for the president (or more precisely the cross national party) that then have enough dealings to push through agendas without democratic engagement.
I'm very aware that there are subtleties - far beyond the binary Yes/No. And that the extrapolation of saying Yes by the dissolving of governing parliaments and placing the dissolution of "royalty" in a single centrally governed federal state isn't acceptable as there are no systems in place for democratic elections across the EU.
However - as a Yes vote indicates acceptance of ALL current proposals at this stage without democratic input I see it as the worst of two evils. No - lose of trade/economic stability and Yes - the loss of democratic sovereign power by political erosion.
I feel that the EU nations have their eyes on the London financial market. Currently what we have protects both the traders (in terms of taxes) and allows the UK to put it's own economic package together to make it more attractive.
I see that if the London financial market provides 14.3% (9.6% with another 4.7% of services around that) of the UK's economy. Yes it's centred within the London and therefore not many outside of London see it but think it's bad because of the impact on house prices etc - however that's 14.3% of OUR (no north/south divide) economy.
Some nice stats (although 2011): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...tions_to_the_UK_economy_in_2011_by_region.png
So could I be a EU citizen?
Well perhaps being married to a French woman, knowing at least four couples that are english-<EU nationality> I would say I could however the aspect that concerns me is how the non-democratic EU policies are pushed through without any form of vote.
It's interesting that NL and France themselves rejected the original proposal to make a "state" through their own referendums. I know from conversations that normal french have the same fears of migration, job security, economic stability and loosing their national identity/capacity to manage their own citizen's problems through their own parliament.
I suspect that it's the same in many countries once you talk to the normal people and not the EU power hungry bureaucrats. Hence putting a democratic vote in there would probably be the only way that would be accepted across the EU.. not some old-boys club.
So although I am open to the EU, open to even being an EU citizen in the long term.. I also see that the way that it is being done and what is being done is not acceptable to most of the normal EU citizens.
So I'm am now faced with not a decision based on economy, or jobs or trade but one of democratic principle.
I now look at the Yes/No vote as simply being - do you wish to participate in the EU based on the current democratic principles?
I seem to remember reading a few years ago that we would be sharing an aircraft carrier with the French.
Yeah we could be a little bit worse off in the short term, but I don't think it'll be anything too substantial and I think the trade off will easily be worth it. What are the economic benefits of allowing in a lot of skill migrants from 1st world countries as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of unskilled labour we're currently getting in from the EU for example?
I think some of the European standards things are good, I'm not eager to change things that work, I'm looking at making sure we don't wake up one day answering to a President of the United States of Europe - this will happen if we remain. It might not be in 5 years, but it'll happen eventually
Not really. It's evidence-based modelling; not a sure thing but it needs a little more consideration than "Project Fear", especially when you consider that it matches up reasonably well with what all the other economic modellers and economists are saying.
The silly headline figure of "£4300 per household" has been rightly ripped a new one; you can't take figures of GDP change and divide by number of households and get a meaningful figure. But a few Brexiters squawking doesn't constitute the research being "torn to shreds": neutral fact checkers have attacked the presentation of the figures but none have picked up serious issues with the underlying data.
The fact is that we can be reasonably sure that Brexit will reduce the UK's GDP.
I really don't think that's an option. The EU is on a journey and constantly looking for more countries, more powers and more integration. We're either with them and will move toward a federalist Europe or on the 2nd tier with Norway, Switz etc.
David Cameron's "deal" isn't worth anything, it's not legally binding, it still would need to be approved, and they've already talked about how it will likely need to be amended to get through. The EU is deliberately not dealing with the Dutch/Swiss "no" referendums until after Brexit as they know it will generate bad press and promote the Brexit campaign.
The EU has a track record of not doing what its people want, and I have zero faith that they will suddenly have a change of heart when we vote to stay. Frankly a leave vote may be the only thing that will actually get them to listen to the people and understand that certain countries in Europe do not want a superstate.
We've always been on the sidelines and hesitant to go further toward integration but the EU marches ahead regardless. It's either negotiate our way to a trade based relationship now, and reap the benefits over the longer term, or stay in and continue to prop up the failing EU project.
Would you accept that it is by definition biased?
- Status