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

[Caged]

There's https://fullfact.org/europe/ but it's not immune to the cries of bias from people who aren't prepared to admit they might be wrong.

 

[SlyReaper]

I can't disagree with anything you've said there.

It genuinely is a shame there isn't an unbiased 'Centre for Facts' or something which can dispel myths put about by both sides and provide actual information. There is utter rubbish on both sides, from the idea we wont be able to trade with Europe if we leave on the 'In' side through tot he nonsense about refugees on the 'Out' side.

Immigration is a complete red herring anyway. Any post-exit deal we strike with the EU will almost certainly retain the free movement clause. Why? Because the people who negotiate such a deal on the UK's behalf will have a vested interest in keeping it.

I'm much more interested in things like trade policy; putting the responsibility for negotiating trade deals back into the hands of a democratically elected government. Our government might be sub-optimal, but at least we can boot them out if we collectively decide they've been doing a poor job. That's not a luxury we have with the EU Trade Policy Committee.

Also TTIP. Because at this point, it seems all but certain the EU is going to sign that horrific thing. By leaving, we get to escape it, at least for a little while.

 

[danza]

In it like a car binnet.

 

[Outcast]

Also TTIP. Because at this point, it seems all but certain the EU is going to sign that horrific thing. By leaving, we get to escape it, at least for a little while.

Not sure of it's validity but....

http://www.waronwant.org/media/massive-document-leak-spells-end-ttip

[Edit]

On the beeb too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36185746

 

[Insanties_birth]

Immigration is a complete red herring anyway. Any post-exit deal we strike with the EU will almost certainly retain the free movement clause. Why? Because the people who negotiate such a deal on the UK's behalf will have a vested interest in keeping it.

I'm much more interested in things like trade policy; putting the responsibility for negotiating trade deals back into the hands of a democratically elected government. Our government might be sub-optimal, but at least we can boot them out if we collectively decide they've been doing a poor job. That's not a luxury we have with the EU Trade Policy Committee.

Also TTIP. Because at this point, it seems all but certain the EU is going to sign that horrific thing. By leaving, we get to escape it, at least for a little while.

Even if we do join back into a trade agreement is doesn't mean that we can't use that as an opportunity to negotiate ways to limit migration like with our welfare systems access and migration breaks etc. A vote to leave would show we were not content with the current level of controls and do allow further discussion on those issues even if it's not guaranteed. People will vote to try and change it if they feel it's wrong anyway though so migration still needs looking at. Like I said, no guarantees but if I'm against the current way of it happening then I still would consider an out vote, it's still the only chance we have to get more control on it as inside we clearly won't be able to change that stuff as the eu had there chance to give us compromises and didn't give enough in the referendum to limit it.

 

[Mulder]

I'm not so concerned about our ability to export if we were not in the EU. As you rightly point out we are a services based economy and most of our physical exports are specialist and high technology and not as price sensitive as they otherwise might - nobody is going to not buy a Range Rover in Germany because it's a bit more expensive because of tariffs. This is why I also do not believe a weak sterling helps our economy either - the damage done through increased import costs outweighs any export benefit for the above reasons.

My issue with the trade side of things comes from what we buy - not what we sell. Many of us buy goods from the EU on a regular basis and it's the impact on this that concerns many 'In' voters. Do I think I won't be able to buy any more BMW's if we leave the EU? Of course not - it's nonsense. I'll still be able to buy what I want, but the question is, at what price? A higher price, I'd imagine.

So we end up importing inflation through the increased costs involved with buying from the EU. Currently we can buy what we want from who want without any issues at all. Heck my last set of tyres were ordered from Germany and arrived here 2 days later with no hassle and no tariffs, for example. Doing business with another EU country is almost as easy as doing business with a company up the road. This is one thing I really value about the EU - as well as the free and easy travel, the excellent consumer protection legislation, harmonised standards, things like that.

It's tough to say exactly what might happen to import prices post Brexit. The remain camp have admitted food prices will likely go down, as we'd almost certainly be exempt from CAP/CFP in the new negotiation. There would likely be a bit of re balancing e.g. the EU put a tariff on Norwegian fish imports for example, so the Norwegians in return put a tariff on EU cheese. The result, Norwegians buy less EU cheese and more from the rest of the world.

Here's a pretty good graphic of our imports in 2014.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

I've read about how the German car makers are nervous over Brexit. You can understand why:

About a fifth of all cars produced in Germany last year, or around 820,000 vehicles, were exported to the UK, making it the single biggest destination by volume.

That's a lot of cars.

The German car makers are saying "don't leave" because clearly it creates uncertainty for them in the short term. But once the vote is done, they'll just want to maximise profits again. If it's leave they won't want to "punish" us or do whatever the remain camp would have us believe the EU would want to do to us. It's very likely they would actually be putting pressure on to get a deal agreed. They don't have a political motive like the EU.

What's a shame about this debate is that it's not really a debate. It's a big argument interspersed with utterly pointless one liners like '100% OUT!1132435425345'. I mean really?

I just try and ignore all the noise and focus on the details. There are enough idiots on both sides, that's always going to be the case when the country is divided. The classic rules of argument apply, if you get personal/compare to trump etc then you've lost.

 

[Uther]

I'm sure the rhetoric will be ramped up on both sides as we get closer to the vote. A lot of the press are still concentrating on celebrities and other dross, whereas I naively assumed that this vote, being so important, would make some impact with the masses.
I am actually starting to think it could be a low turnout.

 

[Zethor]

It's tough to say exactly what might happen to import prices post Brexit. The remain camp have admitted food prices will likely go down, as we'd almost certainly be exempt from CAP/CFP in the new negotiation. There would likely be a bit of re balancing e.g. the EU put a tariff on Norwegian fish imports for example, so the Norwegians in return put a tariff on EU cheese. The result, Norwegians buy less EU cheese and more from the rest of the world.

Here's a pretty good graphic of our imports in 2014.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

I've read about how the German car makers are nervous over Brexit. You can understand why:



That's a lot of cars.

The German car makers are saying "don't leave" because clearly it creates uncertainty for them in the short term. But once the vote is done, they'll just want to maximise profits again. If it's leave they won't want to "punish" us or do whatever the remain camp would have us believe the EU would want to do to us. It's very likely they would actually be putting pressure on to get a deal agreed. They don't have a political motive like the EU.

I just try and ignore all the noise and focus on the details. There are enough idiots on both sides, that's always going to be the case when the country is divided. The classic rules of argument apply, if you get personal/compare to trump etc then you've lost.

The remain camp admitted food prices will likely go down? Where do you come up with this garbage? You started a wall of text with a falsehood, continued by rambling on about Norway, cheese and fish and you added an irrelevant link about imports(irrelevant to your initial claim regarding food prices).

And the ridiculous point about German car makers which apparently have enough influence to convince each country in the EU to sign a good deal for Britain because they sell a lot of cars.

You are a slightly more coherent version of Insanties_birth but you go off topic in almost every reply, you ignore counter arguments, you link to often irrelevant first page Google hits and your conclusions don't match the arguments you bring forward.

You basically followp the simple formula of Leave!! + spam + Leave!!.

 

[datalol-jack]

No worries, you're absolutely right; it is a simplistic way to look at it, but it is generally accepted (even by Datalol) that agriculture accounts for 2% of the EU's GDP but that the CAP accounts for almost 40% of total EU spending. A lot of which comes from the UK of course.

I and other leave supporters have an issue not just with the size of CAP spending though, but also how it's decided, who it benefits, whether it's a solution for the long term and what impact it has on our environment and countryside. CAP heavily favours larger farms, with most of the money going to huge farms rather than being more evenly distributed. It also promotes over production, so the EU dumps a lot of excess onto developing markets (mainly Africa), putting their farmers out of business. We're a net contributor to the CAP, so whilst it's true we get some funding back, it's a misnomer as on a net basis we're sending money to France/Germany/Spain for them to overproduce.

Most people accept CAP has got serious issues (including those above and increasing food prices for everyone in the EU), but they've struggled to change it. Why? Because the French don't want it to change, it benefits their large farms hugely.

Any post Brexit type of CAP arrangement should focus on efficiency, innovation, sustainability and animal welfare/environmental protection. Rather than just pumping vast subsidies to generally large, French farmers who just continue to overproduce knowing whatever they make will be bought (and then dumped).

Some important corrections are in order.

The CAP allocation of the EU budget has decreased massively over the years, from 73% in 1985 to 39% now. It is on a downwards trend.

The average spend on food and non-alcoholic drinks has also fallen as a percentage of disposable income in the UK from 26% in 1970 to 14% now -- hardly a penury inducing trend either. Prices can always be lower; but they'll never hit IEA's wildest dreams -- even they know we are an island, at the end of the day. And given government's forecasts, whatever we save on the food bill, if we actually end up doing so, will be swallowed up by the overall loss figure on the volume of trade in all three Brexit scenarios. But you knew that.

Increasing production was the whole point. In that the CAP has worked as intended.

Brexit won't stall the move towards industrial farming in Europe in its own right, though it'll deprive smaller farms of vital subsidies. And removing our influence means France will have a pleasant respite from pressure to reform, which of course affects the common market we will remain a part of in some form or another. Further, the animal welfare lobby will be weakened, not strenthened by our departure.

As for the legal reach of the CAP directives, Norway has to copmly with a slew of them anyway and makes a sizeable contribution to the EU budget as a percentage of its GDP. It does not look like it managed to deviate significantly from the CAP countries or agree significant 'innovation' clauses.

 

[Insanties_birth]

!.

I feel you threw my name in out of some personal reasons that you felt matters but can't for the life of me work out where the childish snipe originated from. Oh well, can't argue with random insults but just hope people grow up and debate without the need to drag up digs at others.

 

[datalol-jack]

Also TTIP. Because at this point, it seems all but certain the EU is going to sign that horrific thing. By leaving, we get to escape it, at least for a little while.

How would we escape it for a little while without quitting the common market entirely?

I understand why OldCoals is worried, but this is off incomplete negotiations, partly weighed down by our upcoming referendum, and it does not appear the Leave have offered an explanation of whether the concerned will effectively be voting against TTIP with their Brexit vote at all.

Needless to say, even Mulder includes 'trading with the US' in his 'trading with the rest of the world bit'. The real choice seems to be getting the details of TTIP with a full veto intact or without one on the periphery. Sure, they'll chat to us, but we won't be able to say no on the periphery.

Indeed, if the deadline is to sign TTIP before the end of the year, then you already know what the current president of the US thinks of our (Brexit) attempt to negotiate a separate deal without the EU. And trading under WTO rules by saying no to both partners, or trying to angle for something custom and out of the park of all standard arrangements, would be the worst possible economic shock of the lot, and not even Boris would be foolhardy enough to attempt to sell it to the public as a big win for Blighty.

Finally, the volume of trade projected to be lost from us to the EU would be more than amply compensated by free trade from a massively larger market -- the US. What's our leverage?

 

[Mulder]

The remain camp admitted food prices will likely go down? Where do you come up with this garbage?

Paddy Ashdown admitted it on Question time the other week. Are you disputing that the EU/CAP has led to higher food prices in the UK?

The EU is a customs area. It sets an external tariff with those outside the EU. This is aimed at protecting agriculture and manufacturing, and results in people across the EU paying more for the prices of these things compared with world markets. If we left we could buy at market levels, rather than artificially high EU levels.

And the ridiculous point about German car makers which apparently have enough influence to convince each country in the EU to sign a good deal for Britain because they sell a lot of cars.

I didn't say that

I made the point that the UK is the #1 destination for German car exports and that should we leave, VW/Audi etc would want a deal to be put in place that minimises any disruption. They're profit driven, not politically driven. They won't care about what the deal looks like, they'll just want to be able to sell as much as they do now. Would they put pressure on? Yes they would.

You are a slightly more coherent version of Insanties_birth but you go off topic in almost every reply, you ignore counter arguments, you link to often irrelevant first page Google hits and your conclusions don't match the arguments you bring forward.

You basically followp the simple formula of Leave!! + spam + Leave!!.

Getting personal again, nice touch.

 

[datalol-jack]

Haha, for a laugh Mulder, you should try selling more liberalised economic policies to the Labour swing voters in this referendum. You'll learn what personal means then.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm not sure whether it would materially affect the demand for German cars - we'd just end up paying more for them. I wouldn't switch my preferred choice of brand just because it got 10% more expensive to own one, but I would be irritated by that.

 

[Zethor]

I feel you threw my name in out of some personal reasons that you felt matters but can't for the life of me work out where the childish snipe originated from. Oh well, can't argue with random insults but just hope people grow up and debate without the need to drag up digs at others.

To be fair if albania, turkey and the other lot do join the EU then we will definitely have an EU that is even less efficient and capable of doing it's job (more people voting = less likelhihood of getting what we want, more vested interests etc.). While I accept migration isn't always bad (it's largely good and we have benefited from it in many cases) only those turning a blind eye to all the problems in germany, switzerland and france would believe that letting turkey and all the other countries in so close to a migration crisis would be a good idea.

The EU has simply overplayed it's hand in that regard and anyone watching vids on youtube from the people themselves such as the resident of calais vid, the german mayor stating people should just avoid walking in there own streets, the violence in switzerland and even the increasing racism and swing to the far right that will be occuring in germany, austria etc. This isn't exactly what we want the future to look like but the EU has been relatively hapless and useless at preventing it while still seeking expansion. The migration argument always gets swept under the rug as racism but there's real examples of issues with the integration of some areas and the current countries the EU wants to expand to represent those issues as well. I don't think migration is typically a big issue and don't have a problem with freedom of movement of europeans but the expansion into turkey is most definitely a warning light that most pro EU seem to just ignore in favour of liberal rhetoric that all people are perfect in the world except those from the UK who clearly are racist beasts.

So I'm not throwing it out there as a be all and end all argument but just reminding people to not get overly complacent and ignorant towards the real world examples we're seeing. Something tells me the far right swing will get bigger in the UK as well if (just like a lot of the pro EU crowd) there is complete and utter ignorance of how migration is effecting some communities. Need we mention how our country has already shown it'd fail to handle these subjects properly just like the rotherham and sheffield rape scandals? We're not going to do any more than france and germanies molly coddling of criminals and no, they're not all criminals and they do have something to contribute but come freedom of movement you don't decide which are the good and bad ones, you just wave them all in and scream racist at the people getting the brunt of it because that's the PC british way. Like I said I will not post this as a be all and end all argument though and there are good migrants so don't get me wrong, it's just the way the EU is handling it with freedom of movement that undermines best interest and causes pro EU people to rally like crazy that there couldn't be any or even many bad people come to the UK because stuff.

This wall of text consists of a point about letting Turkey, Albania and 'the other lot' in the EU, followed by mentioning rape scandals, immigrant criminals in the EU and the obligatory nod towards political correctness all of which somehow being connected to the problems of freedom of movement.

If we were face to face I would probably briefly smile at you, excuse myself and be on my way. Since that is not the case, I will be blunt: the point you try to make is a completely incoherent mess. The last sentence makes no sense whatsoever, it's as if you continuously typed what was going through your mind at the time without any attempt to build a syntactic structure.

 

[Outcast]

I feel Zethor is the Leave campaigns biggest asset !

 

[Mulder]

My thoughts in yellow.

Some important corrections are in order.

The CAP allocation of the EU budget has decreased massively over the years, from 73% in 1985 to 39% now. It is on a downwards trend. Agreed but that is masked by the fact that the EU is spending on a whole bunch of other areas that it never used to back in the 70/80s, when agriculture was one of its primary purposes. It's still too high and the CAP is still a complete disaster

The average spend on food and non-alcoholic drinks has also fallen as a percentage of disposable income in the UK from 26% in 1970 to 14% now -- hardly a penury inducing trend either. Prices can always be lower; but they'll never hit IEA's wildest dreams -- even they know we are an island, at the end of the day. And given government's forecasts, whatever we save on the food bill, if we actually end up doing so, will be swallowed up by the overall loss figure on the volume of trade in all three Brexit scenarios. But you knew that. You're quoting the three Brexit scenarios as published by.....the Treasury? I thought we could all agree that's a completely biased piece of propaganda and can't be relied upon

Increasing production was the whole point. In that the CAP has worked as intended. Yes but it's gone way too far. The whole concept of producing way more than you need using highly industrialized methods, then dumping it onto developing markets doesn't make any sense

Brexit won't stall the move towards industrial farming in Europe in its own right, though it'll deprive smaller farms of vital subsidies. And removing our influence means France will have a pleasant respite from pressure to reform, which of course affects the common market we will remain a part of in some form or another. Further, the animal welfare lobby will be weakened, not strenthened by our departure. The CAP favours larger farms. We could (not saying we will, I can't predict the future) continue subsidizing all our farmers without sending a net balance to France/Germany/Spain. We could also (same caveat) focus the funds on efficiency, innovation, rural development etc. Sweden for example has taken the position that all EU farm subsidies should be abolished, except those related to environmental protection.

As for the legal reach of the CAP directives, Norway has to copmly with a slew of them anyway and makes a sizeable contribution to the EU budget as a percentage of its GDP. It does not look like it managed to deviate significantly from the CAP countries or agree significant 'innovation' clauses.

I disagree. Taken from here:

"Because we are outside the Common Agricultural Policy, Norway is free to maintain an agricultural policy in accordance with local needs. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Norway is free to find the best balance between coastal fishing and offshore fishing. That way our fisheries can benefit coastal communities and create employment." And also

Some people say that Norway is forced to accept all EU regulations. In fact, despite the EEA agreement, most EU regulations do not apply to Norway. Between 2000 and 2013, Norway adopted 4,723 directives and regulations through the EEA agreement. In the same period, the EU adopted 52,183 pieces of legislation. Of all EU legislation, only 9 per cent was adopted into the EEA agreement.

 

[datalol-jack]

This wall of text consists of a point about letting Turkey, Albania and 'the other lot' in the EU, followed by mentioning rape scandals, immigrant criminals in the EU and the obligatory nod towards political correctness all of which somehow being connected to the problems of freedom of movement.

If we were face to face I would probably briefly smile at you, excuse myself and be on my way. Since that is not the case, I will be blunt: the point you try to make is a completely incoherent mess. The last sentence makes no sense whatsoever, it's as if you continuously typed what was going through your mind at the time without any attempt to build a syntactic structure.

Not to derail the discussion, but there's an Alan Ginsberg joke lurking in there somewhere.

 

[datalol-jack]

My thoughts in yellow.

There's a big gap between 'all' and significantly different, and I suspect the CAP vs CFP trade-off was the compromise they took. Brexiters aren't saying what our trade-off would look like, particularly re subsidies.

The Treasury weren't the only ones out with their figures, which if you'll note no Brexiter countered with a publication of their own full strategy brief and forecasts. Yes, the figure ranges from £2000 -- £4300 per household. It's still a lot to give up for a few quid off a beef burger (I like expensive burgers -- shoot me ).

 

[Zethor]

Some people say that Norway is forced to accept all EU regulations. In fact, despite the EEA agreement, most EU regulations do not apply to Norway. Between 2000 and 2013, Norway adopted 4,723 directives and regulations through the EEA agreement. In the same period, the EU adopted 52,183 pieces of legislation. Of all EU legislation, only 9 per cent was adopted into the EEA agreement.

What did I tell you about using the first Google link, which happens to be an opinion piece?

An independent study commissioned by the Norwegian Government in 2012 calculated that, in return for its access to the EU market, Norway has had to incorporate approximately three-quarters of all EU laws into its own domestic legislation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._the_UK_outside_the_EU_Accessible.pdf#page=20