The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

Hopefully it will stop the arguments about Gib and we can tell Spain to pee off

Vote remain.

Here's a well thought out blog from someone who was neutral initially and then weighed up all the points:

https://medium.com/@jamiemutton/in-or-out-my-journey-to-a-decision-on-the-eu-referendum-9231bc2e964c#.b9mnzvsbb

Hero wrote:Here's a well thought out blog from someone who was neutral initially and then weighed up all the points:

https://medium.com/@jamiemutton/in-or-out-my-journey-to-a-decision-on-the-eu-referendum-9231bc2e964c#.b9mnzvsbb

I started reading and... oh dear:

"We know that David Cameron has negotiated some concessions to the existing arrangements that exist"

No he hasn't. They still have to be ratified by the various bodies of the European Union before becoming binding, and the chances of that happening are very minimal (if we vote Remain).

For someone who has 'weighed up all the points' that's a glaring omission.

He has though negotiated them, where is the lie in that?

Hero wrote:He has though negotiated them, where is the lie in that?

Well the lie comes underneath that with the various lines "the UK has secured agreement that [...]" or " the UK has secured a firm commitment [...]" - we haven't, and the author makes no comment as to that truth.

These agreements are not secure in the slightest. I would have thought that someone who has looked into it with as much detail as this fellow says he has would be aware of that.

I've skimmed through the rest of the text, and have come to the conclusion that this gentleman is about as 'neutral' when weighing up the data as Mr. Cameron is.

LordDowlais wrote:I posted this on the other thread:-

I'm out. As a small business Brussels are crippling us. Why am I paying the same business rates as businesses in Cardiff ?

I challenged my local authorities about this and they are telling me it is out of their hands all these decisions are made in Brussels. How the feck can somebody who has never been to Merthyr decide what rates we pay ?

The EU is costing me about £30,000-£40,000 a year and the rates are going to go up !!!!!

I am fed up of it all.


I might just add though, that it is not my only gripe. I have lots of other issues with the EU.

Obviously nonsense. But blaming Brussels is a common theme. Especially when politicians need to do something necessary but unpopular - "Oh, Brussels are making us do this".

As a small business, you are almost certainly better off in the EU. South Wales has a of big Japanese firms I recall? Those firms will be staying in the EU, one way or another.

Amazing how in BOTH of the times you quote it you emit on purpose these three words.

We know that David Cameron has negotiated some concessions to the existing arrangements that exist (in their words):

Clearly you've done that on purpose to put your little spin on it when the author in question was simply quoting.

Hero wrote:Amazing how in BOTH of the times you quote it you emit on purpose these three words.

We know that David Cameron has negotiated some concessions to the existing arrangements that exist (in their words):

Clearly you've done that on purpose to put your little spin on it when the author in question was simply quoting.

Hence why I've added after the quotations - "we haven't, and the author makes no comment as to that truth."

He doesn't point out that these negotiations haven't been ratified yet - a neutral author surely would.

This graphic was recently published by the FT:
http://prntscr.com/bbuo5n

From this discussion, we know that rugby fans (plus some other sports fans) give a 34% lead to Remain.

Clever bunch - up there with graduates and young people.

No Duty you were trying to spin it and bare face lie, yet got caught out.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:BREXIT

What about Northern Ireland?

And Gibraltar!

Would be stuffed by a Brexit. Spain won't agree any trade deal without major concessions on Gibraltar, and without the EU, can decide to close the border whenever they want.

Hero wrote:No Duty you were trying to spin it and bare face lie, yet got caught out.

Spin what?

He's supposedly neutral. He says that we know Cameron has negotiated some concessions. He copy and pastes these concessions.

He makes no personal comment that these negotiations have not yet been ratified by the various institutions - he is either ignorant to this fact (not a good sign); or he is not a neutral observer at all and is trying to mislead people.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:BREXIT

What about Northern Ireland?

And Gibraltar!

Would be stuffed by a Brexit. Spain won't agree any trade deal without major concessions on Gibraltar, and without the EU, can decide to close the border whenever they want.

Well a trade deal wouldn't be negotiated with Spain, it would be negotiated with the EU as a whole, in which Spain would make up 1/27.

Because you initially quite obviously missed it off.
And then on your next post tried to play off the quote as his own comments.

You tried dirty tricks and got caught out.
Unlucky.

Hero wrote:Because you initially quite obviously missed it off.
And then on your next post tried to play off the quote as his own comments.

You tried dirty tricks and got caught out.
Unlucky.

No I didn't, I made it quite clear:

"Well the lie comes underneath that with the various lines "the UK has secured agreement that [...]" or " the UK has secured a firm commitment [...]" - we haven't, and the author makes no comment as to that truth."

Why did you intentionally remove those three words if not to mislead others?

Which three words?

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:BREXIT

What about Northern Ireland?

And Gibraltar!

Would be stuffed by a Brexit. Spain won't agree any trade deal without major concessions on Gibraltar, and without the EU, can decide to close the border whenever they want.

Well a trade deal wouldn't be negotiated with Spain, it would be negotiated with the EU as a whole, in which Spain would make up 1/27.

Would Spain have a right of veto?

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:BREXIT

What about Northern Ireland?

And Gibraltar!

Would be stuffed by a Brexit. Spain won't agree any trade deal without major concessions on Gibraltar, and without the EU, can decide to close the border whenever they want.

Well a trade deal wouldn't be negotiated with Spain, it would be negotiated with the EU as a whole, in which Spain would make up 1/27.

Would Spain have a right of veto?

I believe they would, but it wouldn't be an absolute dismissal, it would just mean further negotiations.

For instance, the EU's free trade deal with Canada is currently being held up by Romania.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/immigration-and-wages-getting-numbers-right#.V1wsavkrJpk

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:BREXIT

What about Northern Ireland?

And Gibraltar!

Would be stuffed by a Brexit. Spain won't agree any trade deal without major concessions on Gibraltar, and without the EU, can decide to close the border whenever they want.

Well a trade deal wouldn't be negotiated with Spain, it would be negotiated with the EU as a whole, in which Spain would make up 1/27.

Would Spain have a right of veto?

I believe they would, but it wouldn't be an absolute dismissal, it would just mean further negotiations.

For instance, the EU's free trade deal with Canada is currently being held up by Romania.

So Spain would hold it up just long enough for Nissan and Toyota to give up and move to the EU.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:BREXIT

What about Northern Ireland?

And Gibraltar!

Would be stuffed by a Brexit. Spain won't agree any trade deal without major concessions on Gibraltar, and without the EU, can decide to close the border whenever they want.

Well a trade deal wouldn't be negotiated with Spain, it would be negotiated with the EU as a whole, in which Spain would make up 1/27.

Would Spain have a right of veto?

I believe they would, but it wouldn't be an absolute dismissal, it would just mean further negotiations.

For instance, the EU's free trade deal with Canada is currently being held up by Romania.

So Spain would hold it up just long enough for Nissan and Toyota to give up and move to the EU.

We will still be trading with the EU whilst negotiating a free trade deal.

I wouldn't worry about the Trade Agreement, this will be like all divorces, it will almost certainly go through quickly and smoothly with the minimal amount of acrimony and once it's all done I'm sure both parties will feel they have got a deal that is both fair and mutually beneficial.

the fact all 28 countries have a veto, irrespective of size, GDP, history, or anything, is why the EU absolutely cannot reform itself.

far, far, far better out than in.

ask yourself, would the UK join it now if we werent already in?

average tariffs imposed by the EU with major trading partners are c1%....tariffs in the 1950s were far higher. that is no longer the case. this argument is complete bs from the remainers and is designed to intimidate and scare.

I'm voting out myself, I haven't met anyone who's voting in. At least I hope we vote out, I stuck £15 on it and will get £40 back if we leave.

EU referendum poll:
Remain: 43% (-)
Leave: 41% (-)
(via Opinium, online / 07 - 10 Jun)

There has been a huge swing towards Leave with this polling company recently, but the latest survey has been static.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:BREXIT

What about Northern Ireland?

And Gibraltar!

Would be stuffed by a Brexit. Spain won't agree any trade deal without major concessions on Gibraltar, and without the EU, can decide to close the border whenever they want.

So we don't worry about the wishes of 63 million Brits, but we bend over backwards for a small place of 30,000 people? No offense but most of us don't give a toss about Gibraltar. If they want to remain a dominion of the UK then they will accept the result either way. The rock of Gibraltar has been a real thorn in the backside of UK - Spanish relations for too long.

I think the people of this country have had enough of experts. - Michael Gove. Do you think Gove will let me remind him of this should he ever need heart surgery.

I've seen loads of episodes of ER.

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Will there be an EU army in the future?? straws well and truly clutched!

You are so astonishingly ignorant.

The original plans for the EEC contained an idea for implementing a European Army and a European Minister of Defence. The current President, Mr. Juncker, has recently revived such an idea. That is the basis of the question.

How about you read a bit more about the European Union, and its predecessor, before making embarrassing posts?

Any country who signed the Lisbon treaty in 2007, we are already committed to a EU army.  

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html



Article 42

Print Email
1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.


Background

The common security and defence policy (CSDP) is an intergovernmental competence and an integral part of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The implementation of this policy will be led by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
The UN Charter must be respected in the implementation of the CSDP.
Paragrph 4 specifies that the instruments used for the implementation of the CSDP can come from both the Union and the EU Member States.
fff
Comments

If the EU is to expand the CSDP it must allocate a specific budget to this policy. Resources for the CSDP must not be taken from other external policies such as development cooperation and humanitarian aid.
The allocation of a specific budget for the CSDP would reduce the risk of funds which have been earmarked for long-term development cooperation from being used for short-term security priorities.
The various components of the EU's external relations (CFSP, CSDP, development cooperation, humanitarian aid, external trade etc) are put on an equal footing in the Lisbon Treaty. Using resources which have been allocated for one policy would contravene the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty.
Replaces

Draws on Article 17 TEU

What section 3 means is the European council can at any time take control of our military assets and use them as they see fit.  

Secondly if any EU nation gets invaded we have to fight for them.  

We legally agreed to this in 2007, the EU army has been around for years.  German, Dutch and Czech military units are being merged into a single army.  The Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade was subsumed into the German 1st Armoured Division, following the takeover of the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade by German command earlier.
The start of the EU army is called the The Division Schnelle Kräfte (Rapid Forces Division), wth the motto "Einsatzbereit, jederzeit, weltweit!", translation "Ready for action, at any time, worldwide!".  The Brigadier General is Eberhard Zorn (German), he is supported by Jörg Vollmer (German) who cut his teeth commanding German forces in Afganistan.


Although people assume Germany is now pacifist, the truth is they have 30,000 MORE full time active military personel than the UK (150k full time, 182k reservists).  Germany has 180k full time, and 145k reservists.  Typically 10% of the British ful time military personel are classed as "unfit" for duty and cannot be sent into combat duties.    Both countries have a similar amount of tanks, both countries have 400, though Germany has one or two more.  Both countries have 170 fixed wing attack air craft, but Germany has double our fighters / interceptors 90 to 170.  Britain have 3 more Frigates than Germany, 13 to 10.  Britain has 6 Destroyers, while Germany has none.  Neither Germany or the UK has an air craft carrier, HMS Illustrious was taken out of service in 2014, and her replacement the HMS Queen Elizabeth won't be in service till at least 2020.  Briatin has 10 Subs, to Germany's 5.
For the Bundeswehr (German army), it started fighing properly in Afganistan since 2001 and has been pretty active ever since, the Germans have been getting back into the swing of things for a while now.  It's just not reported because reporting Germany having as army isn't a good thing!

The French have by far the best military in the EU, 205k full time military personel, 195k reservists.  420 tanks.  284 fixed wing air craft, 284 fighters, interceptors.  As well as the  Charles de Gaulle air craft carrier they have 11 Frigates and Destroyers, and 10 subs.

Duty281 wrote:EU referendum poll:
Remain: 43% (-)
Leave: 41% (-)
(via Opinium, online / 07 - 10 Jun)

There has been a huge swing towards Leave with this polling company recently, but the latest survey has been static.

And YouGov's polling continues to see-saw merrily about:

EU referendum poll:
Remain: 42% (-1)
Leave: 43% (+1)
(via YouGov, online)

LordDowlais wrote:Ah, cracking, I have given my decision on here, I have given one iota of my reasons, I know what I am talking about, yet I get insulted.

That's the remain campaign to a 'T'.


Every debate I have watched have been the same. Boris Johnson had it last night.

Scare mongerring and insults, that's the remainers for you.

You're making things up for Christ sake man!!! Google the aforementioned act, you are either lying like the leave campaign is doing or making things up or just plain stupid.

And I'm not insulting you, you are indeed mentally challenged as you are dealing with things that you have no factually based reasoning behind. I'm not differing with your 'opinion' and calling you stupid, I'm saying only an idiot would contradict facts.

Again - the EU have 0% say over business rates. And that is 100% fact. More make believe bullcrap from a leaver.

The thing that has really irritated me is stupid c*nts saying Remain are making a negative case. Well of course it's a negative case, because we're already part of the club. If they were making a case for joining then it would be a positive message. But I think what tickled me most about this whole thing is the Gove - I think the people of this country have had enough of experts- line. Essentially, we're fed up of people who know what they're doing so vote for us because we haven't a f*cking clue.

Shifty wrote:What section 3 means is the European council can at any time take control of our military assets and use them as they see fit.  

Secondly if any EU nation gets invaded we have to fight for them.  

We legally agreed to this in 2007, the EU army has been around for years.  German, Dutch and Czech military units are being merged into a single army.  The Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade was subsumed into the German 1st Armoured Division, following the takeover of the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade by German command earlier.
The start of the EU army is called the The Division Schnelle Kräfte (Rapid Forces Division), wth the motto "Einsatzbereit, jederzeit, weltweit!", translation "Ready for action, at any time, worldwide!".  The Brigadier General is Eberhard Zorn (German), he is supported by Jörg Vollmer (German) who cut his teeth commanding German forces in Afganistan.


Although people assume Germany is now pacifist, the truth is they have 30,000 MORE full time active military personel than the UK (150k full time, 182k reservists).  Germany has 180k full time, and 145k reservists.  Typically 10% of the British ful time military personel are classed as "unfit" for duty and cannot be sent into combat duties.    Both countries have a similar amount of tanks, both countries have 400, though Germany has one or two more.  Both countries have 170 fixed wing attack air craft, but Germany has double our fighters / interceptors 90 to 170.  Britain have 3 more Frigates than Germany, 13 to 10.  Britain has 6 Destroyers, while Germany has none.  Neither Germany or the UK has an air craft carrier, HMS Illustrious was taken out of service in 2014, and her replacement the HMS Queen Elizabeth won't be in service till at least 2020.  Briatin has 10 Subs, to Germany's 5.
For the Bundeswehr (German army), it started fighing properly in Afganistan since 2001 and has been pretty active ever since, the Germans have been getting back into the swing of things for a while now.  It's just not reported because reporting Germany having as army isn't a good thing!

The French have by far the best military in the EU, 205k full time military personel, 195k reservists.  420 tanks.  284 fixed wing air craft, 284 fighters, interceptors.  As well as the  Charles de Gaulle air craft carrier they have 11 Frigates and Destroyers, and 10 subs.

Getting fed up of people lying or just being plain thick.

We have a veto, we used it in 2011 on this very subject. We in no way shape or form will 'be made' to give any defence resources to an EU army. There is however a clause that says if 9 states come oh ether then they can form this army between themselves.

We would simply use our veto like we did in 2011 and there ain't Jack sh*t that would happen involving scenarios of our military joining said army.

Coxy001 wrote:

Shifty wrote:What section 3 means is the European council can at any time take control of our military assets and use them as they see fit.  

Secondly if any EU nation gets invaded we have to fight for them.  

We legally agreed to this in 2007, the EU army has been around for years.  German, Dutch and Czech military units are being merged into a single army.  The Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade was subsumed into the German 1st Armoured Division, following the takeover of the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade by German command earlier.
The start of the EU army is called the The Division Schnelle Kräfte (Rapid Forces Division), wth the motto "Einsatzbereit, jederzeit, weltweit!", translation "Ready for action, at any time, worldwide!".  The Brigadier General is Eberhard Zorn (German), he is supported by Jörg Vollmer (German) who cut his teeth commanding German forces in Afganistan.


Although people assume Germany is now pacifist, the truth is they have 30,000 MORE full time active military personel than the UK (150k full time, 182k reservists).  Germany has 180k full time, and 145k reservists.  Typically 10% of the British ful time military personel are classed as "unfit" for duty and cannot be sent into combat duties.    Both countries have a similar amount of tanks, both countries have 400, though Germany has one or two more.  Both countries have 170 fixed wing attack air craft, but Germany has double our fighters / interceptors 90 to 170.  Britain have 3 more Frigates than Germany, 13 to 10.  Britain has 6 Destroyers, while Germany has none.  Neither Germany or the UK has an air craft carrier, HMS Illustrious was taken out of service in 2014, and her replacement the HMS Queen Elizabeth won't be in service till at least 2020.  Briatin has 10 Subs, to Germany's 5.
For the Bundeswehr (German army), it started fighing properly in Afganistan since 2001 and has been pretty active ever since, the Germans have been getting back into the swing of things for a while now.  It's just not reported because reporting Germany having as army isn't a good thing!

The French have by far the best military in the EU, 205k full time military personel, 195k reservists.  420 tanks.  284 fixed wing air craft, 284 fighters, interceptors.  As well as the  Charles de Gaulle air craft carrier they have 11 Frigates and Destroyers, and 10 subs.

Getting fed up of people lying or just being plain thick.

We have a veto, we used it in 2011 on this very subject. We in no way shape or form will 'be made' to give any defence resources to an EU army. There is however a clause that says if 9 states come oh ether then they can form this army between themselves.

We would simply use our veto like we did in 2011 and there ain't Jack sh*t that would happen involving scenarios of our military joining said army.

What's the point of being in a Federal European project if you're just going to veto things?

Either commit, or have no part in it, surely? Vetoing is a halfway-house measure that pleases no one.

Duty281 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Shifty wrote:What section 3 means is the European council can at any time take control of our military assets and use them as they see fit.  

Secondly if any EU nation gets invaded we have to fight for them.  

We legally agreed to this in 2007, the EU army has been around for years.  German, Dutch and Czech military units are being merged into a single army.  The Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade was subsumed into the German 1st Armoured Division, following the takeover of the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade by German command earlier.
The start of the EU army is called the The Division Schnelle Kräfte (Rapid Forces Division), wth the motto "Einsatzbereit, jederzeit, weltweit!", translation "Ready for action, at any time, worldwide!".  The Brigadier General is Eberhard Zorn (German), he is supported by Jörg Vollmer (German) who cut his teeth commanding German forces in Afganistan.


Although people assume Germany is now pacifist, the truth is they have 30,000 MORE full time active military personel than the UK (150k full time, 182k reservists).  Germany has 180k full time, and 145k reservists.  Typically 10% of the British ful time military personel are classed as "unfit" for duty and cannot be sent into combat duties.    Both countries have a similar amount of tanks, both countries have 400, though Germany has one or two more.  Both countries have 170 fixed wing attack air craft, but Germany has double our fighters / interceptors 90 to 170.  Britain have 3 more Frigates than Germany, 13 to 10.  Britain has 6 Destroyers, while Germany has none.  Neither Germany or the UK has an air craft carrier, HMS Illustrious was taken out of service in 2014, and her replacement the HMS Queen Elizabeth won't be in service till at least 2020.  Briatin has 10 Subs, to Germany's 5.
For the Bundeswehr (German army), it started fighing properly in Afganistan since 2001 and has been pretty active ever since, the Germans have been getting back into the swing of things for a while now.  It's just not reported because reporting Germany having as army isn't a good thing!

The French have by far the best military in the EU, 205k full time military personel, 195k reservists.  420 tanks.  284 fixed wing air craft, 284 fighters, interceptors.  As well as the  Charles de Gaulle air craft carrier they have 11 Frigates and Destroyers, and 10 subs.

Getting fed up of people lying or just being plain thick.

We have a veto, we used it in 2011 on this very subject. We in no way shape or form will 'be made' to give any defence resources to an EU army. There is however a clause that says if 9 states come oh ether then they can form this army between themselves.

We would simply use our veto like we did in 2011 and there ain't Jack sh*t that would happen involving scenarios of our military joining said army.

What's the point of being in a Federal European project if you're just going to veto things?

Either commit, or have no part in it, surely? Vetoing is a halfway-house measure that pleases no one.

Because we secured an omission from an ever closer union? We get access to the single market, ain't part of the Schengen zone and we can opt out of anything we don't want to be part of?

So now you're trying to belittle our veto. Which has protected us against such things as this EU army. You have no bounds for bullsh*t do you. It's a pretty sweet deal in that we are halfway in/out as we ain't bound by an ever closer union (which I disagree with btw) yet get all the benefits of being in the single market.

And your hero has just made an absolute horror of a shocker on live TV.... A weakened £ "so what"... Nigel a weaker £ means our domestic prices rise, it's called inflation. And who takes the hit when that happens? The poor. Guy is clueless and a fecking moron.

Shifty wrote:I'm voting out myself, I haven't met anyone who's voting in.  At least I hope we vote out, I stuck £15 on it and will get £40 back if we leave.

I'd have thought a big pay cut would be more of a concern than a £40 win.

I have assets in the UK, so obviously I'm voting Remain.

Shifty wrote:What section 3 means is the European council can at any time take control of our military assets and use them as they see fit.  

Unless we veto the move, or don't want to send the army.

The EU "army" is voluntary battalions, given voluntarily by member states, for missions such as stabilisation in the Balkans. Any heavy fighting is up to NATO and the USA.

If Europe wants to do something without the USA/NATO, then it's basically up to France and Britain to decide, as the two EU countries with capable armies (Poland may soon join that list).

Secondly if any EU nation gets invaded we have to fight for them.  

That's NATO you're thinking of.

It would be interesting if non NATO EU members get invaded .... Ireland, Sweden, Finland?

Alex_Germany wrote:

It would be interesting if non NATO EU members get invaded .... Ireland, Sweden, Finland?

If we [Ireland] get invaded, the US of A will come to our aid.  We're fine.

Duty281 wrote:

We will still be trading with the EU whilst negotiating a free trade deal.

Large multinationals - who make up most of Britain's strongest companies - don't really see it as "trading" with other countries.

They see a European market, and build their supply chain in the most appropriate places to serve that market.

They will prefer final assembly to be within that market, and won't wait for a trade deal to be agreed, and then potentially vetoed over some minor issue like Gibraltar or lamb welfare.

Like wise with the banks - Britain's biggest exporters. The Euro zone wanted to require banks trading in the Euro zone to be head-quartered in the Euro-zone. Britain could block that, as a member of the single market. Outside it can't. It might try and negotiate it, but the banks won't wait around. They'll be off to Frankfurt.

SecretFly wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

It would be interesting if non NATO EU members get invaded .... Ireland, Sweden, Finland?

If we [Ireland] get invaded, the US of A will come to our aid.  We're fine.

Given Ireland's geography, the USA is one of two countries that could physically invade Ireland.

Bringing this back to important things, like rugby (and other team sports).......

A Brexit vote will lead to the £ being about 20%-30% lower against the Euro than a Remain vote.

As top rugby players are "tradable", it means French clubs can pay a further 20-30% higher salary than the English, Welsh and Scottish clubs. That could help re-establish the dominance of French clubs.

In football, the premier league has more export value, so that might help counter the fall in the pound. Nevertheless, it would provide an advantage to continental clubs.

Alex_Germany wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

It would be interesting if non NATO EU members get invaded .... Ireland, Sweden, Finland?

If we [Ireland] get invaded, the US of A will come to our aid.  We're fine.

Given Ireland's geography, the USA is one of two countries that could physically invade Ireland.

...As could Germany. Do you want me to state which one I'd prefer??

PS, I don't think the US needs geographical proximity to invade.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

We will still be trading with the EU whilst negotiating a free trade deal.

Large multinationals - who make up most of Britain's strongest companies - don't really see it as "trading" with other countries.

They see a European market, and build their supply chain in the most appropriate places to serve that market.

They will prefer final assembly to be within that market, and won't wait for a trade deal to be agreed, and then potentially vetoed over some minor issue like Gibraltar or lamb welfare.

Like wise with the banks - Britain's biggest exporters. The Euro zone wanted to require banks trading in the Euro zone to be head-quartered in the Euro-zone. Britain could block that, as a member of the single market. Outside it can't. It might try and negotiate it, but the banks won't wait around. They'll be off to Frankfurt.

This where leave get it totally and utterly wrong.

Am privy to my own companies stance which is officially "no opinion". Yet in the event of a leave our expansion in to Europe and the ROW would simply stop. Why? Risk. There is simply little point in us moving in to territories that could leave us open to all sorts of tariffs and would be running at such a low profit margin that would mean small drops in demand would leave us looking down the barrel.

We wouldn't simply continue trading. Investment would cease. And you're right with the banks, they simply wouldn't wait around for 10 years for a deal to be made - they, like most other cross sector companies, will cease investment and move their HQs to what they perceive as a low risk scenario. In my instance we don't have that luxury as we're a British brand and that's our identity.

SecretFly wrote:

...As could Germany.  Do you want me to state which one I'd prefer??

PS, I don't think the US needs geographical proximity to invade.

Just France and England planning invasions next year:

Saturday 25th February 2017
Ireland v France at Aviva Stadium, Dublin 4:50pm

Saturday 18th March 2017
Ireland v England at Aviva Stadium, Dublin 5:00pm

Alex_Germany wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

...As could Germany.  Do you want me to state which one I'd prefer??

PS, I don't think the US needs geographical proximity to invade.

Just France and England planning invasions next year:

Saturday 25th February 2017
   Ireland v France at Aviva Stadium, Dublin 4:50pm

Saturday 18th March 2017
   Ireland v England at Aviva Stadium, Dublin 5:00pm

Was going to get tickets. If we leave then a pint of Guinness will probably cost £20 after the £ bombs.

Alex_Germany wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

...As could Germany.  Do you want me to state which one I'd prefer??

PS, I don't think the US needs geographical proximity to invade.

Just France and England planning invasions next year:

Saturday 25th February 2017
   Ireland v France at Aviva Stadium, Dublin 4:50pm

Saturday 18th March 2017
   Ireland v England at Aviva Stadium, Dublin 5:00pm

Aye. We're practising early right now in South Africa to prepare for those invasions. We've claimed Cape Town already but we think there might be a major counter attack planned for next weekend... Fingers crossed we claim all of South Africa over the next few weeks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-a7074311.html

It's quite funny really. The outcome of the vote (either way) will almost certainly be determined by huge numbers of people who don't know that facts. There is something quintessentially British about that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-a7074311.html

It's quite funny really. The outcome of the vote (either way) will almost certainly be determined by huge numbers of people who don't know that facts. There is something quintessentially British about that.

Isn't this the case of every vote?