Probably because everyone voting to leave are all dithering old codgers with no education. Thickos.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
- Status
Probably because everyone voting to leave are all dithering old codgers with no education. Thickos.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
Or have the experience to know what is actually happening in the EU.
Keep drinking your frappuccino's and please be too self involved taking selfies to vote on the 23rd.
I voted leave.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
Oh, well please find time to put your frappuccino down and get to the voting booth.
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2016/06/05/how-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/
This comes across as quite a well balanced article. Worth a read!
This comes across as quite a well balanced article. Worth a read!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
80% of economic migrants from the EU would not get a visa had they applied as a non-EU citizen.
Unless a government chooses to have a special immigration policy for people from the EU despite us not being in it, then the effect of our current visa rules on new applicants from Europe would drop immigration by over a third overnight.
Haha project fear have now started the mud slinging at Farage (started a day or two ago actually but heating up now).
The next level of defence for politicians: If you can't win on facts, discredit your opponent... The next one if that doesn't work is to just cheat.
The next level of defence for politicians: If you can't win on facts, discredit your opponent... The next one if that doesn't work is to just cheat.
Sadly, I've got to take that risk. I'm away on holiday when the referendum happens. Hopefully I'll still be let back into the country if we vote to leave.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
How can any of you not want the basic principles of
Those worried about trade, do you honestly think in 2018 there will be no 18reg BMW driving on our roads. Something will get worked out. The other countries will lose too much if it isn't.
The points above to me are basic rights for any democratic country. Why would you want to give these away. I am shocked so many people even support remain. I'm bewildered.
- Democratic self determination.
- Lawmakers that are accountable to us the British people.
- Control of our own borders.
- Freedom to trade with the wider non EU world and not waiting for a 28 block nation to work out all the fine details of each country (slow progress)
Those worried about trade, do you honestly think in 2018 there will be no 18reg BMW driving on our roads. Something will get worked out. The other countries will lose too much if it isn't.
The points above to me are basic rights for any democratic country. Why would you want to give these away. I am shocked so many people even support remain. I'm bewildered.
You and me both. Its been said a thousand times in these threads.
Flogging a dead horse would be the most accurate way to describe to the remainers.
Every argument the remain camp has put forward can be challenged. The best they have is the economy "might" shrink.
We get more from outside the EU now, but that is somewhat targeted immigration, which is valuable to our country.
More needs to be done to ensure those that come over are actually needed and wanted, but to enter the UK from outside the EU, you need to pass a number of tests. You need to have good English, the ability to support yourself, a job, and/or family to join.
Much of this immigration is actually wanted. The problem we have is that the raw number of people entering the country is too high. Leaving the EU means that we could make EU migrants subject to the same controls as the rest of the world - a much fairer system.
Right now the government is trying to reduce migration, but because it doesn't have any say over the hundreds of thousands coming across the channel, it has to resort to other, less effective methods, that are somewhat morally dubious.
The UK has of the highest visa fees in the world, and they've increased massively in the last decade or so in response to increased immigration numbers. The partner visa we've applied for costs £1,200, plus an NHS surcharge of £200 per year, for a total upfront cost of around £1,700. That's a hefty sum, and an order of magnitude higher than those in Italy, Ireland or other places have to pay to bring their family over. Other deterrents have been introduced such as the ability to claim state support, and the removal of the graduate work visa.
Removal of the graduate work visa is particularly damaging, as it makes our universities fast less attractive to international students (their main source of income). The visa was introduced following the exposure of a number of poor quality "universities" which didn't track their students effectively, and many seemed to exist for the sole purpose of letting people work in the UK. The correct response to this would be to remove their right to grant higher education visas, but the government decided this would be a PR headache, and now we have the current system.
Places like Australia, America and Canada are our competition for attracting international students to fund our universities, and these all still have the graduate with visa. This has directly resulted in a drop of student numbers and quality.
This is all because the only method the government has at the moment to reduce raw numbers of immigrants, is to deter them from applying. As if they system tougher, by increasing the amount of points you needed to get in, then they run the risk of falling a skills shortage in certain areas.
Theresa May herself, which we are no fan of in this household, has said that we cannot control immigration whilst being in the EU. She is campaigning for remain, but it seems rather reluctantly, if she wasn't so allied to David Cameron, she might be voting out.
When we leave the EU, we can apply controls to all immigrants. This means we will immediately reduce the numbers of unskilled migrants. Also, because we would have complete border control, we would have more scope to raise the bar on the quality of migrant when applying without risking skill shortage.
I don't think that the Tory target of 10,000's is feasible, but around 150,000 net could be achieved, and would ease pressure on our services and infrastructure.
More needs to be done to ensure those that come over are actually needed and wanted, but to enter the UK from outside the EU, you need to pass a number of tests. You need to have good English, the ability to support yourself, a job, and/or family to join.
Much of this immigration is actually wanted. The problem we have is that the raw number of people entering the country is too high. Leaving the EU means that we could make EU migrants subject to the same controls as the rest of the world - a much fairer system.
Right now the government is trying to reduce migration, but because it doesn't have any say over the hundreds of thousands coming across the channel, it has to resort to other, less effective methods, that are somewhat morally dubious.
The UK has of the highest visa fees in the world, and they've increased massively in the last decade or so in response to increased immigration numbers. The partner visa we've applied for costs £1,200, plus an NHS surcharge of £200 per year, for a total upfront cost of around £1,700. That's a hefty sum, and an order of magnitude higher than those in Italy, Ireland or other places have to pay to bring their family over. Other deterrents have been introduced such as the ability to claim state support, and the removal of the graduate work visa.
Removal of the graduate work visa is particularly damaging, as it makes our universities fast less attractive to international students (their main source of income). The visa was introduced following the exposure of a number of poor quality "universities" which didn't track their students effectively, and many seemed to exist for the sole purpose of letting people work in the UK. The correct response to this would be to remove their right to grant higher education visas, but the government decided this would be a PR headache, and now we have the current system.
Places like Australia, America and Canada are our competition for attracting international students to fund our universities, and these all still have the graduate with visa. This has directly resulted in a drop of student numbers and quality.
This is all because the only method the government has at the moment to reduce raw numbers of immigrants, is to deter them from applying. As if they system tougher, by increasing the amount of points you needed to get in, then they run the risk of falling a skills shortage in certain areas.
Theresa May herself, which we are no fan of in this household, has said that we cannot control immigration whilst being in the EU. She is campaigning for remain, but it seems rather reluctantly, if she wasn't so allied to David Cameron, she might be voting out.
When we leave the EU, we can apply controls to all immigrants. This means we will immediately reduce the numbers of unskilled migrants. Also, because we would have complete border control, we would have more scope to raise the bar on the quality of migrant when applying without risking skill shortage.
I don't think that the Tory target of 10,000's is feasible, but around 150,000 net could be achieved, and would ease pressure on our services and infrastructure.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
We give 350 million to them a week and they tell us what we can spend SOME of it on.
Whose to say in a couple of years this figure won't go through the roof and with more countries joining the percentage we get back can get smaller.
This is a bigger risk than anything !
Whose to say in a couple of years this figure won't go through the roof and with more countries joining the percentage we get back can get smaller.
This is a bigger risk than anything !
We have democratic self-determination now. In fact, we probably have more than we would have outside of the EU. By working with the EU, and pooling sovereignty on certain issues, we exert more control over the global factors that influence the UK. Leaving the EU would make our country far less influential globally and - critically - in the region closest to us and with the most influence over us. And, of course, it remains the case that the UK government has far more control over our lives than the EU on almost every important policy area - education, tax, healthcare, benefits, etc.
The same point applies to having lawmakers accountable to us. The vast majority of UK law is made in Westminster, and being part of the EU means we have direct democratic representation in the international arena, whereas if we leave the EU our only representation on the international stage will be by proxy. Should we - as I still think is most likely - rejoin the EEA soon after leaving the EU, we'll end up being bound by most of the same laws but with far less control over those laws. I do not see this as an improved accountability.
As for control of our bodies: we do have border controls (except with the Irish Republic) as we're not part of Shengen. Freedom of movement means that every British citizen can live, study, and work anywhere in the EU (and a few bonus extra countries) which is such an enormous benefit and freedom to us all I am amazed how cavalierly the Leave camp want to abandon it. For now, it also means our country, exchequer, and economy are benefiting from high levels of immigration. Also a good thing.
We can currently trade with the world, and we do. What you're talking about is throwing away our preferential trading arrangement with our largest market in order to possibly, some time in the future, make some new deals with other markets we do much less trade with. This does not seem to me to be a net benefit for the UK.
No-one is saying this. Trade with the EU will continue post-Brexit regardless of whether we remain in the single market or not. What will change is the terms under which we trade and the tariffs we impose and face. Because the UK market is much less important to the EU than the EU is to the UK (8% of their trade compared to 44% of ours) it is us who will suffer the most. In fact, this understates the risk because much more of our exports are fungible. People will still want to buy BMWs because of their strong brand, much less of what the UK exports has that brand cachet. So, yeah, there will be 18reg BMWs on our roads but they'll cost more than they do now and less British pharmaceuticals will be sold in France.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
All countries are in the EU through democratic means, and can leave if that's what their democratically elected representatives choose.
Our MEPs could help eg. get rid of the Commission. Unfortunately UKIP don't engage properly with the EU, and just insult everyone, so our potential power is nerfed somewhat.
We'd control our borders outside the EU? So we wouldn't be in the single market? What will that cost the economy? How many people will we let in when we have control?
Can you show that 'freedom to trade' (we already can trade, btw) will more than make up the cost/damage done to trade with the EU following a Brexit and not being part of the single market? Or is it just a risky gamble?
No one's saying we won't have BMWs here... just that if we're not in the single market they will cost significantly more.
Please don't say we have any meaningful effective method of getting rid of the EU lawmakers compared to our own government. It is pathetic to even suggest this. I really hate it when remainers spout this.
Self determination and freedom to trade and to set up trade deals with any country in the world is worth a little tax hike in the long run.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,932
On sky news this morning it was reported that Sony had said it would be dangerous for us to leave the eu.
wtf
wtf
Did you honestly all think a mainstream party leader would take part in something that isn't heavily controlled/scripted? Cameron would have run away from a real improvised debate like a scared child like he has done before.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
Misleading figure. Project fear
Who's to say the figure won't go through the roof? Well, we have a veto on increases to the budget.
I don't trust Cameron with the veto. The EU will bribe us with something else to make us increase the budget.
I've been using a figure of 8% for the proportion of the EU exports that go the UK. I've just done some checking and this figure is too low. It should be around 16% (but it depends a bit on which calculation you use).
My bad.
My bad.
And again, if you can't do something it's guaranteed that it won't be done.
- Status