I thought it was "It is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a camel to... than it is for a camel to."
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
I thought it was "It is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a camel to... than it is for a camel to."
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
All the financial institutions just want their loans to be paid. I doubt any of them would want 150million /week go missing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Why on earth would the leave campaign be allowed to take loans of 6 million from someone, do they plan on paying this back, or is it some form of tax write off?
Has any other paper descended into tabloid-levels of poor quality writing as quickly as the Telegraph has? It seems like a comparatively overnight change to them slugging it out with the Express for badly researched articles with no attempt made to disguise bias.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Obviously you should vote as you see fit but it does present a curious position where you effectively say "I think the option I'm picking leaves us worse off". I'm not going to argue with your reasoning, it's personal to you but it does read a little bit strangely when it looks as if you're saying you will vote in a way that you think is a worse option.
It's a viewpoint but realistically I think it's better if as many people vote as want to have their say. We've seen recently with the Scottish Referendum that it can be divisive but at least if the voter turnout is high then there can be fewer arguments about the result - whichever way it goes. Low turnout just makes it more likely that whichever side polls fewer votes will say "we wuz robbed" and agitate for a second referendum or say that this one doesn't count.
On Thursday night I went to a talk on the legal consequences of the UK voting to leave which was interesting as far as it goes. The presenter thought the likely timeframe for negotiations would be 5+ years and more likely to be the better part of a decade while pointing out that agreement is needed to extend the negotiation period beyond the two year limit and described five possible models for post-EU.
- EEA and EFTA (Norway & Iceland) - UK would still have to contribute to EU and adopt EU laws as well as accepting movement of workers under EU rules
- Bilateral trade agreements and EFTA (Switzerland) - no automatic implementation of EU legislation but would have to negotiate specific sector based treaties
- Customs union (Turkey) - big questions over customs restrictions and tariffs, was not viewed as particularly appealing
- Free trade agreements - one agreement with whole of EU, increases freedom for UK but loses internal rights in EU
- World Trade Organisation - would need to negotiate new trade deals, gives absolute control over border policy and trade with no obligation to accept EU legislation but may leave all UK goods subject to tariffs
- High risk - could we renegotiate trade deals on similar terms? Fluctuations in exchange rates impacting UK trade. EU funding of research projects disappearing. Status of EU citizens in the UK and vice versa would require a lot of negotiation. Loss of talent to other countries? A number of potential issues around tax and trade including possible import taxes and tariffs.
- Medium risk - access to finance and cost of borrowing to increase? Would investment requirements for pensions change? Intellectual property rules might require changes and more difficult to enforce outside UK borders if not part of the EU?
- Low risk - Procurement not likely to change much? Insurance requirements likely to remain similar. Contract law largely unaffected - risks around claims of force majeur in the event of an EU exit probably quite small.
Essentially though it looks like a very long period of negotiation and changes would be gradual, the ECHR has been used to great effect in a number of cases including Hillsborough and that an awful lot of this is still very much unknown and unknowable.
I hope I've done justice to the intent and content of the talk but any mistakes in interpretation will be mine. I've added it in here as it might be of interest to some. For what it is worth I'd be wary of any definitive statements regarding what will or won't happen but I do hope that anyone with an interest will vote so that it is as close to everyone being represented as possible. I might disagree with a number of views presented on either side but it's important that people do get their say.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
Its to highlight the uncertainty of the economic argument vs the higher certainty of the political argument. I agree it's a strange choice as well but it's also a reflection that economic predictions don't work as far as have been quoted, that the government has already failed to show correct statistics with the 4,300 figure, the misleading and biased position they've had had devolved us into not having trust in those either. This is also backed by earlier doom and gloom with taking on the euro currency so we see many reasons to doubt these figure and we might be a bit worse off but the in camp haven't sufficiently convinced me we will be massively worse off. They're failure to convince me whereas the out side speaks to me more in regards to future political structure had convinced me in that regard.
The EU is simultaneously a great idea and a practically dysfunctional system. It has many failings and operates very slowly which isn't good when trying to resolve issues on a time frame or without some other country having an issue with implementation and causing several months delays. I simply feel the economic argument is slightly pie in the sky so we're better off looking at the other issues but I'm not going to be ignorant or ignore it, I'll acknowledge it could be worse but like with tactical voting I am simply going to use my vote as a voice of protest to Brussels current misgivings.
Last edited:
Sounded pretty interesting SPW cheers for sharing.
I'm probably biased on the basis of the aforementioned talk I went to, but I do feel that the risks of companies moving entire operations abroad is overstated - why do that when there is already an able work force effectively carrying out those operations. I think London will still be the financial hub of Europe whatever happens.
I'm probably biased on the basis of the aforementioned talk I went to, but I do feel that the risks of companies moving entire operations abroad is overstated - why do that when there is already an able work force effectively carrying out those operations. I think London will still be the financial hub of Europe whatever happens.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Why on earth should the remain campaign be allowed any public money at all? It's BS. Both campaigns should have the same funding and resource and the Government should STFU and remain neutral.
LoL! Good luck with that.
The government should remain neutral? Does that include Boris Johnson and Michael Gove? Why does Nigel Farage get a pass because he isn't in government.
The government should always make a recommendations on referendums. That is what they were elected to do.
You're confusing the government with people in the government. It's perfectly reasonable for Cameron to take a position, it is not fair for him to use the machinery of government and state money to push a particular side in any public vote.
Holding a referendum is the government declining to fulfil their role as elected representatives, and instead passing it to the people. Having made that decision they should not then use the machinery of state to try and achieve a particular outcome. I realise that precedent is on their side; that does not make it the fairest way to run a vote.
Last edited:
Generally, they think we're kind of annoying, rubbish team players, and they're getting increasingly fed up of all the special treatment we get. Or, at least, that's the general view among the ones I've spoken to.
I agree with that bit and all of it should come from Leave side, as well as the cost of holding the referendum (or at least from voluntary donations no matter from which side). They're the ones that want change so should pay for all of it instead of wasting everybody's money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Last edited:
I love how the remain side bleat on just like Question Time the other night like the UK cannot achieve anything. The country cannot do anything without somebody holding its hand.
Just like the immigrant debate on it, portraying as if all the immigrants made the country and everyone else done nothing.
Hahahaha hahahahahaha
Yeah I can see why. As it said in the Paxman program we do moan about everything.
If no-one moaned, it would simply be a Bureaucratic empire with no opponents, because everyone would be so bored by the process that no one votes.
Last edited:
Half of the respondents in a recent survey of Europeans thought Britain will leave.
And a majority of those in France and Italy want their own referendum.
Could be the beginning of the EU actually taking the people seriously, rather than just continue on the same path of more countries, more powers, more integration, less democracy etc.
The Paxman programme is a worthwhile watch, here.
And a majority of those in France and Italy want their own referendum.
Could be the beginning of the EU actually taking the people seriously, rather than just continue on the same path of more countries, more powers, more integration, less democracy etc.
The Paxman programme is a worthwhile watch, here.
It's not the EU taking the people seriously but the countries themselves.
- Status