Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (April Poll)

[ReltonBFD]

https://youtu.be/uYTJGBBjkGo

Give that a watch, very balanced, had a laugh or two in it.

Vote Leave.

 

[Mulder]

Here we go with the extremes again

Did I say that? or did I say post Brexit regulations with Europe could hurt us? We do ~£20Bn financial services with the EU about 1.1% of GDP, so not insignificant.

It's a view that has been expressed already by plenty of people, so hardly 'nonsense'

But that's fine, because when people bring up unknowns and possibilities, it's all rubbish because you know it'll all be ok

Oh yea, don't forget to throw in a fear mongering in there too, boy, you guys do get scared easily!

You said "it could hurt us enormously" which I was pointing out is a little dramatic given the evidence. It's exactly that sort of tone coming out of the remain camp, disaster X "could" happen if we leave, disaster Y "might" happen if we leave.

The factors that lead to London being the #1 financial services centre globally won't change overnight if we leave, we'll still have the most respected legal system in the world, our ideal timezone between the US and Asia, our business friendly employment laws, taxes etc.

Given what I and many other Brexit supporters firmly believe we could switch your "it could hurt us enormously"statement around and say Brexit "could allow the UK's financial services sector to thrive", as the ex CEO of HSBC says. It just depends on what you believe and the evidence you've seen.

 

[Tefal]

Whats this i hear about people in germany being prosecuted for criticising the turkish pm/president?

 

[Tefal]

found an article

http://in.reuters.com/article/germany-turkey-merkel-idINKCN0XC1PQ

wtf how is this legal in a democratic nation!?

 

[Mr Jack]

Whats this i hear about people in germany being prosecuted for criticising the turkish pm/president?

It's the application of an old law, still standing on the statute books. The Germans are all a bit embarrassed about it and Merkel has promised to act to remove the law.

 

[Tosno]

Erdogan not a fan of poems any more?

The mosques are our barracks,

the domes our helmets,

the minarets our bayonets,

and the believers our soldiers.

- Erdogan

I say let his hypocrisy and his soldiers join the EUSSR

 

[Freakbro]

You said "it could hurt us enormously" which I was pointing out is a little dramatic given the evidence. It's exactly that sort of tone coming out of the remain camp, disaster X "could" happen if we leave, disaster Y "might" happen if we leave.

The factors that lead to London being the #1 financial services centre globally won't change overnight if we leave, we'll still have the most respected legal system in the world, our ideal timezone between the US and Asia, our business friendly employment laws, taxes etc.

Given what I and many other Brexit supporters firmly believe we could switch your "it could hurt us enormously"statement around and say Brexit "could allow the UK's financial services sector to thrive", as the ex CEO of HSBC says. It just depends on what you believe and the evidence you've seen.

Well I apologise I used an adjective though it was hardly a portent of doom was it, it was just trying to emphasise the difference from my previous post regarding tariffs, where I don't think they will cause us much issue.

Everyone is so hung up on the 'physical trade' side of things, which is a very small part of our economy, whereas people should be more focussed on the financial services sector, where small changes will have a greater impact.

 

[Mr Jack]

If you look up our '5th largest economy' (only by certain metrics, it's 9th by others) 78% of that is made up of financial services....so basically, the City of London being the financial services capital of Europe, if not the world.

Point of order: 78% of the economy is made up of services. Financial services makes up a smaller proportion of that.

 

[Tefal]

It's against the law in Germany to insult leaders of countries, although they're planning to get rid of that bit of their criminal code. The government have allowed the process to carry on/prosecutors to look at the case (they could have just blocked it, although obviously if they'd done that it could have backfired politically etc)... but that doesn't mean they're saying the comedian I think you're referring to is guilty, or will be prosecuted, or will be found guilty, or will serve any punishment... they've basically stood back and said, 'if the prosecutors think he's broken the law they can do what they feel is right'. It's not, as some have tried to suggest, Turks wading in and applying their laws in Germany/getting him extradited/whatever.

from reading the government was split and merkal approved it.

the law requires government approval for each case, sdo its not a case of them not blocking it its them giving it the go ahead.

It's very worrying that freedom of speech is being sacrificed to appease a dictator.

would Germany prosecute someone for insulting kim jong ill or putin or obama?

 

[Tefal]

It's the application of an old law, still standing on the statute books. The Germans are all a bit embarrassed about it and Merkel has promised to act to remove the law.

oh no she dopesnt want to remove the law, she wants to remvoe the section that means the government has to approve each case

Merkel said the German government plans to remove the section of the criminal code that requires it to grant permission for prosecution in such cases.

so that there wont be any future embarrassments of her approving it the prosecution will just go forward as any other case would.

 

[Tefal]

Why does everyone have to go to the extreme every time, do you really think some tariffs are going to cripple industry?

l

Cause spiteful tarrifs to **** over the uk as the poster suggest would have to be extreme

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I cant see us losing free movement regardless of the vote and what the people want.

 

[platypus]

Cause spiteful tarrifs to **** over the uk as the poster suggest would have to be extreme

It's not an extreme outcome though is it? France and Germany especially are massively envious of the UK Banking industry, they are already offering golden hellos to try and entice bankers over. It's not scaremongering to expect them to want to try and take some of this market off the UK by introducing tarriffs in the event of an EU exit.

Nor has anyone said it would destroy the UK banking sector and/or economy as an extension of that.

 

[Mulder]

No, I'm saying that the big issue for the majority of Brexit supporters is migration, then the vast majority think the EU interferes too much here. So a Brexit where we then have a deal like anyone else with good access to the single market and have to accept the free movement of people, whilst also having to accept vast swathes of laws we have no say in, will mean that those people will have supported Brexit but not got what they wanted. If that happens, and they'd known about it before, would they have supported Brexit? We'd've left on a false prospectus...

We'll have them interfering with no say in it, we'll have them letting in new countries whose citizens will be able to come here with no say in it, etc. You might then claim that we wouldn't veto Turkey's joining of the EU when it eventually comes (a long way down the line, imo) but if we're in the EU it's not just a choice between vetoing or accepting... there are all sorts of partial controls/opt outs/etc we could conceivably negotiate, which we wouldn't be able to do outside of the EU.

You constantly talk about "vast swathes of laws we have no say in", but do you get the fundamental point about the difference between being in the EU and not? What that means for the supremacy of our own laws, our ability to control VAT, not having to be in CAP/CFP etc. These are tangibles examples of controls we get back (the most important of course being sovereignty and not handing that to unaccountable, unelected Bureaucrats overseas). There's a good summary table further back in this thread that summarises it.

People wanting to leave just don't believe the "loss of influence" line and only see "vast swathes" (as you put it) of EU law/regulations that we don't want. Even the Government accepts that. Even the EU accepts it in fact! When Juncker recently admitted they interfere too much. Funny that Barroso said that as well, but nothing at all changed and the EU just continued its core mission of "more countries, more power, more centralisation, less sovereignty for national Governments."

 

[Roar87]

The other problem I have is that being part of the Union of European Socialist Republics doesn't have as good a ring too it as the USSR did, and the logo definitely won't be as cool as the Hammer and Sickle

 

[Metallifux]

The other problem I have is that being part of the Union of European Socialist Republics doesn't have as good a ring too it as the USSR did, and the logo definitely won't be as cool as the Hammer and Sickle

Most likely be a burning sheep on a BMW.

 

[Mulder]

Where's CAP and CFP on the list of priorities for people who support Brexit? (And, if we're not part of those two, would it be better for our fishermen and farmers, and the country as a whole?)

Where is migration/pretty much unrestricted free movement of people and laws which we have because of the single market on their list of priorities?

You ignored sovereignty, which for many leave supporters (me included) is the key here. EU law is currently supreme to UK law, and for me that's just not acceptable. I'm all for trade/cooperation/mutually beneficial agreements etc, but it's clearly crossed a line where we've given up the ability for our elected, local legislature to be the supreme law making body, and handed that to a bunch of un-elected, unaccountable Bureaucrats to whom we have no recourse to. The EU is taking power away from us, not the other way around.

And I wouldn't belittle CAP/CFP, they're important for the wrong reasons too. It's proven CAP has led to higher food prices in the UK, quoted from here:

Imagine there was a Food Tax which had the effect of raising food prices by, say, 17% on average. The tax revenue was collected centrally, and then disbursed to agricultural producers. That tax would be incredibly unpopular, especially in times of rising food prices. The Food Tax would be too obviously recognisable as an instrument of redistributing money from sales assistants and cleaners to wealthy landowners.
The Food Tax is no fiction, of course. Ultimately, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has precisely that effect. It differs from my hypothetical Food Tax only insofar as it is infinitely more complex, consisting of literally hundreds of different support instruments.

And as for the CFP, that's pretty much universally hated by UK fisherman who think it's destroying/has destroyed our fishing industry.

" Of all the European policies that govern the exploitation of natural resources there is none that attracts the same level of criticism and public bafflement as the Common Fisheries Policy"

The Scottish Government agrees and has talked about "the fundamental failures of the existing policy."

 

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

As a fully fledged Left wing ****** and a Welsh man (I'm doomed).... I've kind of swayed a little more toward Leave.

Purely on the basis that a few high profile economists have dispelled the myth's that we would be like Sweden and be forced to take a high proportion of immigrants (not that I really care about that either)... But more a case of the GDP is likely to increase to 4% over a longer term as we would be able to trade more freely with the wider world while being more selective on the people we take in. I am worried that if Turkey blackmailed its way into the EU we would be completely overrun with migrant workers taking advantage of the new HUGE living wage.

However, we in Wales get up to 10times more out than we put in... I see on a daily basis how EU money is being spent.... and spent well. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of wasted projects, but the one's I see and have worked on are very good. I just don't trust a tory scum party to continue to allocate funds like the EU do presently if we pulled out.

.... So I'm slightly still on the fence!

 

[Mulder]

Why's signing up to fewer laws - but still a ridiculously huge number - where we have zero influence better in terms of sovereignty than signing up to a greater number of laws we do have a proportional influence over? Isn't that likely to happen given what (limited) stuff we've heard from Brexiters? (Limited because of the inconvenient truth of how choosing to be part of the single market means being part of the single market..)

If we're in the EU our laws are inferior and EU law is supreme. If we're outside the EU then our laws are supreme. Do you understand that point? It's easy to say "oh but we have to agree to loads of their laws anyway" but you keep dodging this key point, which is fundamental for a lot of leave supporters.

Define "a ridiculously huge number." By definition by leaving we will have to adhere to fewer EU laws, there's no "could" about that.

This sums it up quite well, and quotes:

Courtesy of Article 2.4 of the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (agreed in 1994), the EU is subordinate to the WTO and is obliged to adopt international standards where they exist. So nowadays, having a say over the Single Market rules means having an independent voice and veto on the international bodies making these rules - something Norway has but which the UK has surrendered to the EU

...so having "influence" in the EU (which many people agree we don't have) is meaningless anyway as the WTO sets a lot of the international rules. We've given up our seat at that table due to being in the EU, Norway hasn't. So you could argue leaving actually gives us more influence over EU rules.

Fancy answering my questions? That'd be more useful than eg. wheeling out a quotation saying people say they don't like something, given that doesn't tell us if it's in reality bad or not.

You ask a lot of questions but ignore a lot of my points.....

Your question was "Where's CAP and CFP on the list of priorities for people who support Brexit?". My response suggested it's higher up the list than you may think, given it's led to higher food prices in the UK and the destruction of our fishing industry.

 

[Mulder]

I didn't ask a single question. Are you willing to actually debate in good faith? If so, answer the questions I asked, then I'll engage further. If you think you're right, and can show it, you'll do that. If you don't, you won't, and that'll be apparent to everyone.

Huh? You didn't ask a single question, but are demanding I answer your questions?

You've said we lose influence on EU rules/regulations if we leave - I've made the point and provided evidence that in fact the opposite is true.

You've said we'd still have to abide by swathes of EU law - I've made the point that whilst this is true to an extent depending on our post Brexit negotiation, we'd take back control of many areas and crucially, we'd retain our sovereignty. You haven't commented on the latter point once, despite how important it is for many leave supporters.

You've asked why CAP/CFP are important and do people really care about them, I've made the point that actually a lot of people do care, particularly given they've led to higher food prices in the UK and the destruction of our fishing industry.

You've asked how important immigration is to many leave voters, and I don't dispute it's important to many but I've said for me it actually isn't that important.

I'm trying to debate the issues here and have a proper debate.....what additional question are you insisting I answer?