Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (March Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
You said it, estebanrey! That’s about the level of the Leave argument, yes.
If they know next to nothing on the topic, no, they shouldn’t. The EU28, the US, China, Japan, Brazil, Russia, r-G20 – 85%-90% of world trade; tell me, how many aren’t, or are not linked to, an economic bloc? The great ‘independent’ rump of 10%-15% percent is your vision of the reality on the ground; the future? Please.
You’re the one trading in utopian visions. The blocs that are out there aren’t perfect, but they cover a significant chunk of world trade and the globe geographically; with the trend towards more integration of trade in goods and services, not less. The political agreements follow on from that. With what great advantage do you propose to face pooled power worldwide? Would you oppose other, more local pooled institutions like labour trade unions on the same grounds?
So you don’t know, again, and are just saying things for the sake of saying them? It is and they do, with all the democratic Westminster deficiencies in tow. Plus our representatives are present at all EU decision-making levels. Or do you maintain the lunacy that our MEPs and the PM aren’t directly elected? Or that the EU’s equivalent of a cabinet is somehow less democratic than the appointment of ministers to the cabinet of this country?
We can leave the EU when we choose, and repeal all parliamentary acts to do with the EU. So this totemic ‘sovereignty’ issue isn’t even there – it never was!
Yes, we know you like living without plan, and you can do what you like. But if it’s the case for Out -- no thanks.
Should have started and stopped at this, before posting your little outburst of aimless passion, then.
And apparently you speak for the sensible branch of the Leave movement? Is protectionist trade better? Where did you demonstrate that? How can you separate trade, wealth and living standards?The OBR’s report covers many of your questions, but I’ll boil it down to the essentials: look at where we stand GDP-wise; any downward ‘slipping’ in our ranking neighbourhood would lose enough output and demand to shed ~1m jobs per place dropped. And as the post-crash consensus demonstrates, we aren’t very kind to those who lose their place in the rat race.
Why are you so keen on being a chancer?
Far fewer conditions? You’ve got to be joking! At least check out some of the FTA texts and drafts already available in the public domain before you make that claim! What about domestic acts of parliament? Were we ever a bureaucracy-free nation (how far do you want to regress!)?
With your disregard for trade however, you may also have missed the important point that it is actually more difficult and administratively laborious to maintain several FTAs versus having to deal with trade blocs with more harmonized rules – the EU, amazingly enough for Brexit minds, actually acts to minimize duplication and replication of needless paperwork, with the UK as the chief proponent of freer, easier trade. What would our departure do to that part of the project? Don’t care either?
Okay, but say the sensible Brexit prevails (ha!), and we are still in the EEA: you have exactly the same rules of trade to abide by re the EU, and are now piling on separate FTAs on top of that; on what planet is this a recipe for looser regulation?
But I suppose in your Free Socialist Republic of Britannia, the poor can eat red tape?
Soldato
Personally I would send Jacob Rees-Mogg after them, I'd expect at least a bacon bap back.
Soldato
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...rexit-Budget-will-make-us-all-better-off.html
We will certainly be better off. Plus industry would be safer too as we can actually subsidise where necessary rather than hoping it doesn't have a problem a few quarters in a row and then sink while we watch helplessly.
We will certainly be better off. Plus industry would be safer too as we can actually subsidise where necessary rather than hoping it doesn't have a problem a few quarters in a row and then sink while we watch helplessly.
Its not special treatment, its business. Ultimately what the Europhiles are saying is the the EU will cut their own nose off to spite their own face as long as we are made to suffer.
Frankly, if their politics is a stupid to even contemplate doing that, then why are we stupid enough partner with them?
Let them throw barriers up, its the politics of morons.
You need to learn to debate properly, put forward an argument instead of just asking constant ridiculous rhetorical/hypothetical questions such as "what if all trade suddenly stopped". If you think we'll be better off in the EU then put forward arguments for that in a clear manner.
Last edited:
Soldato
http://www.cityam.com/237371/eu-ref...e-briton-30000-better-off-by-2020-says-report
We will be better off out.
We will be better off out.
Soldato
What an absolute joke!
The assumptions in that article are:
-We can gain a strong control over EU immigration (despite needing to cater to current migrants, cater to EU immigration negotiations, needing to draw up and pass this radical immigration reform)
-We would be significantly better off with this strong control over immigration, despite what it could cost (economically to run and politically to obtain).
-We would face no issues with EU trade despite leaving
-The non EU market trade deals will be as profitable, with the UK able to negotiate from a position of strength rather than desperation that we will have.
-All the extra admin and control needed for immigration control would come at no extra cost
-Language barrier gives a significant disadvantage in this modern world and it is hindering our trade within the EU
Caporegime
How are they unreasonable assumptions?
Soldato
How will we even gain the power to put such strict restrictions from the negotiations let alone be able to put them into place effectively while also catering to current migrants?
How can we expect easy trade negotiations with the EU on leaving and then expect easy negotiations with these other countries after alienating ourselves from the EU?
What lala land do you think these complex immigration restrictions will cost nothing?
The costs of this stuff is insane
Language barrier makes any significant difference at all? C'mon its 2016, the company i work for deal in trade and retail all over the world and exports trade have two languages at their disposal since there really isn't even a need to know more than just English to deal with the rest of the world.
Caporegime
How? By living in the real world, by not being overly pessimistic, by holding our government to account on these trade negotiations.
As we aren't allowed to set our own immigration rules until after we Leave the EU, it's a bit early to talk about costs. It's true that I favour a points based immigration system, the costs of which will be met partially at least by the working visa applicants themselves. That doesn't mean we'll get one though. As we aren't part of Schengen (thank goodness!), that does mean we do already have the infrastructure to deal with incoming immigrants from outside the EU - we just need to extend it to cope with immigrants from the EU as well. How exactly will be up to the government of the day.
I agree it doesn't make any significant difference at all - so lets do business with the whole world and not just the bit of it that's been in permanent crisis for the last few years.
Caporegime
*reads article*
New World Wealth report said:
*face-palm*
If they can't even get very basic details correct, you wonder about their conclusions.
Soldato
How? By living in the real world, by not being overly optimistic, by holding our government to account on these trade negotiations.
Fixed
Btw, how are you going to hold them accountable? we struggle enough as it is.
As we aren't allowed to set our own immigration rules until after we Leave the EU, it's a bit early to talk about costs. It's true that I favour a points based immigration system, the costs of which will be met partially at least by the working visa applicants themselves. That doesn't mean we'll get one though. As we aren't part of Schengen (thank goodness!), that does mean we do already have the infrastructure to deal with incoming immigrants from outside the EU - we just need to extend it to cope with immigrants from the EU as well. How exactly will be up to the government of the day.
Not early to talk about costs, we can look at what sort of spending bump the land down under has had to give us an idea on the sort of costs there are. With all these immigrants gone and increase taxes to pay for it, will we have to pick up the cheque?
Maybe the gap in employment will be filled by non EU migrants who seem to come with their own set of costs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...y-but-non-eu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html
I agree it doesn't make any significant difference at all - so lets do business with the whole world and not just the bit of it that's been in permanent crisis for the last few years.
You want to risk business with a significant part of it to have a gamble at the rest of it. You didn't sound like you agreed that it made little difference when you said the assumptions made by the article was reasonable
Soldato
The UK supports free trade not protectionism which is why it did not sign up to the lesser duty rule. It wasn't the right way to go about it as it would just have penalised industries that imported the steel. Effectively moving the problem elsewhere.
I'm on the fence, but I've got to say the past few pages are just comical. The economic argument posed by the Brexit crowd is about as watertight as a colander. "If we get everything our own way post-Brexit we'll be better off. Ergo, we will be better off because nobody would dare disagree with the world's 5th largest economy! [que chest beating]".
If we leave, there are no guarantees that everything will go our way. To argue otherwise is just silly, demonstrating an almost religious fervor for leaving the EU. Just look at the claims made by 'Yes, Scotland' before the independence referendum for a prime example of how such things can go wrong.
There are always risks. Discussing them isn't scaremongering. It's simply being sensible.
If we leave, there are no guarantees that everything will go our way. To argue otherwise is just silly, demonstrating an almost religious fervor for leaving the EU. Just look at the claims made by 'Yes, Scotland' before the independence referendum for a prime example of how such things can go wrong.
There are always risks. Discussing them isn't scaremongering. It's simply being sensible.
Soldato
Most EU businesses would disagree. VW and the rest will be first to put pressure on Brussels to ensure they still have competitive access to the UK market.
Caporegime
No-one's disputing there aren't risks, but there are also risks of staying in with a lot more impact and a higher probability imo. Plus when people start suggesting that countries like Spain are going to hit us with food sanctions if we leave the EU then you know it's a ridiculous argument.
Soldato
Using VW again, they would want to be able to sell a car at a competitive price in comparison to other cars available in the market.
- Status