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

First topic message reminder :

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

Yeah...what exact facts are ever produced in any election? All you get is versions of opinion that you either believe or don't believe.

There is nothing factual about "We might have to....", "That might happen if...", "There is a possibility that this could...." "If.........."

Exactly - it's what makes Britain great!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Exactly - it's what makes Britain great!

Or rather, democracy.

For I imagine this is something that afflicts every democratic state.

Well, I like to think we do ignorance better than everyone else.

I should bloody well hope so if it's Johnny Foreigner we're up against.

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.

eh! How do you think Hollande got into power?

Why do you think the US is going to choose between Clinton and Trump?

We are seeing the "Rise of the Idiocracy"

Better a colourful idiot than a grey one. They look better on the shoulder.

Well so far from the remain campaign if we leave

The Calais jungle will move to Kent
We will be 4000 worse off per household by 2030
We may lose Gibraltar
The us will put us "at the back of the queue"
An Australian points system will increase migration
We could have recession worse than since the first world war
Housing prices will fall
Pensions will be at risk
Stephen Hawking says we should stay so....you know, it's Stephen Hawking so he must be right
The continent will be more at risk of war etc
They claim putin backs brexit (I challenge anyone to find anyone to find a statement from Putin or the Russian government on this and also all the other claims point by point on how they have been based and formed, and come to these conclusions)
Oh and the Eu is now reformed so everything is tickety boo.

The leave campaign says

We can get back control of the 350 million(a figure that is misleading as any job advertising  salary) connected to our Eu membership
We can control our immigration numbers
We can get back our sovereignty,
We can make our own trade deals

Remainers need to be honest with themselves if you back staying you will be mandating and validating the united states of Europe.  You will be following exactly what the government wants you to do, diminishing their democratic accountability while strengthening and enhancing more power to the Eu bodies which is precisely what they want yet throughout the campaign haven't had the bottle to say it in black and white terms and instead based their argument mainly on economics.

If all u care about jobs and economics above democracy, fair enough, I personally think that's insane but again fair enough, but there are options that are worth looking at like joining the efta, which contrary to what has been said these countries do have substantial input into Eu trade regulations, but more importantly they can make their own trade deals, and there court systems are supreme etc (bar the echr, not connected to the Eu). We can't.

If that's what you want fine but at least be honest and spell out what u actually want, its not just about trade and it's not just about jobs, a vote for remain is a mandate for the us of e (or usse) without the democratic accountability.  Don't pretend otherwise.

I'll be voting leave but I fully expect through delusion, propaganda and apathy for remain to win.

Volcanicash wrote:
Stephen Hawking says we should stay so....you know, it's Stephen Hawking so he must be right

He's in favour of undocumented aliens, so he was always going to be in the Remain camp...

Coxy001 wrote:

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.

This sounds like pure drivel and hyperbole. We will still trade with the eu, probably as efta/eea/customs union members, Dyson and JCB have no concerns, I remember working for a manufacturing company who imported thousands of pounds worth of components from china. 24th June your business will be good to go.

ShahenshahG wrote: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.

Gove has highlighted that the experts that are advocating in have got it woefully wrong in the past, proving their "expertise" is highly questionable, thats a fair point. And to say the remain don't need to make a positive case when there is the possibility of leaving, is frankly ludicrous.

It does seem a bit have your cake and eat it when it comes to the leave campaign. Dyson and the JCB come out in support and they're only too happy to quote them. Governor of the Bank of England and countless others say it's folly and we say well they've got stuff wrong before. Does come across as only listening to the business experts who sat what you want to hear.

There is not a complete consensus amongst experts but you have to either listen to them all or none. Not listening to any experts on the subject seems misguided, so surely the fairest thing to do is go with the majority and even the leavers must surely acknowledge the majority of experts in the field consider remaining the better course of action.

Volcanicash wrote:Well so far from the remain campaign if we leave

Let's think about these:

The Calais jungle will move to Kent - Responsibility for managing the migrants will fall to the ferry companies, so prices and hassle will increase. More migrants will get through, so some provision will have to be made in Kent for them.
We will be 4000 worse off per household by 2030 - That is not a claim from the Remain camp. That is a broad consensus from economists, and is backed up fully by the views of the currency markets.
We may lose Gibraltar - Not sure if anyone has said that. The UK will probably live with the alternative of no trade deal until Spain accepts Gibraltar (ie never).
The us will put us "at the back of the queue" - That's pretty much what Obama said.
An Australian points system will increase migration - Probably false. Migration is primarily driven by economics. A weaker UK economy will attract fewer migrants. As far as Poles are concerned, UK salaries have already dropped 10% and a Brexit vote would knock another 20% off salaries.
We could have recession worse than since the first world war - Who said that? We'd have a few percent off growth for a few years. That would of course jeopardise the deficit recovery plans.
Housing prices will fall - Certainly in $/€ terms. Recessions always put pressure on house prices, so they could fall.
Pensions will be at risk - A poorer country won't be able to afford to keep increasing pensions.
Stephen Hawking says we should stay so....you know, it's Stephen Hawking so he must be right -Yes
The continent will be more at risk of war etc - Certainly western Europe would be weakened, and once Scotland splits, then NATO is seriously weakened. That is why Russia is hoping for a Brexit.
They claim putin backs brexit (I challenge anyone to find anyone to find a statement from Putin or the Russian government on this and also all the other claims point by point on how they have been based and formed, and come to these conclusions) - I doubt you'll find a Putin a statement, though Russia Today and the Krembots are probably pushing Brexit. Anyone read that crap?
Oh and the Eu is now reformed so everything is tickety boo. - LOL, it will always be a messy battleground between Governments and bureaucracy. As an example: The "democratic deficit" exists because sovereign Governments don't want to give too much power to another elected body. So EU Governments make the decisions, not the EU bureaucrats.

The leave campaign says

We can get back control of the 350 million(a figure that is misleading as any job advertising  salary) connected to our Eu membership - We'll get back some, as long as we don'tr want to pay for access to the single market as Norway does.
We can control our immigration numbers - migration numbers will fall as the economy falls. The economy is the main driver of immigration.
We can get back our sovereignty - We never lost it. We pool some of it. If you see this as a loss, then we must leave NATO at once.
We can make our own trade deals - Sounds expensive.

Remainers need to be honest with themselves if you back staying you will be mandating and validating the united states of Europe.  

Europe is at a high water mark for "closer union". There is no appetite for "Ever closer union" across Europe. Only Brussels bureaucrats still dream this and they're not in charge. The only further centralisation of power will be where it is essential to make pre-agreed schemes work: Predominantly for the Euro area (nothing to worry the UK), and to some extent the Single Market (which benefits the UK). A United States of Europe or Ever Closer Union is history.

...

If that's what you want fine but at least be honest and spell out what u actually want, its not just about trade and it's not just about jobs, a vote for remain is a mandate for the us of e (or usse) without the democratic accountability.  Don't pretend otherwise.

Democratic accountability: Would you like a sovereign EU parliament able to make any law it sees fit and strike down national laws, without recourse to national Governments? Then you'd have democratic accountability at a EU level.

The Governments don't want that as they want to stay in charge. That's why they appointed irrelevants like Baroness Ashton in her role. That's why it's France and Germany who go and push Russia and Ukraine to talk, and not the EU. That's why any country can and will block Turkey other countries (Turkey, the UK?) from joining the club.

I'll be voting leave but I fully expect through delusion, propaganda and apathy for remain to win.

For your sake, I hope that's the case. People need to understand that an England outside of the EU will be poorer and less influential outside of the EU. A Britain inside will be richer and will be able to influence the EU and the wider environment.

Volcanicash wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote: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.

Gove has highlighted that the experts that are advocating in have got it woefully wrong in the past, proving their "expertise" is highly questionable, thats a fair point.    

Economics is not that bad. Normally the economic forecasters are quite accurate. Where they go wrong, it's due to "events" - and in particular, ones they can't predict. They can't predict recessions or earth quakes - which would have screwed up their 2011-2014 forecasts for Japan. But if you give them an event, they can generally predict the consequences.

It may not be very accurate - because humans are irrational - but the direction is normally correct. Aside from "events".

And to say the remain don't need to make a positive case when there is the possibility of leaving, is frankly ludicrous.

Indeed. But it's difficult when the politicians have spent the last decade blaming the EU for every mistake of theirs.

Here's a positive case: If we stay in the EU, we can continue to blame them for every little thing that goes wrong. (See the comment above where a Welsh council was blaming the EU for its high business rates).

Alex_Germany wrote:
=
The us will put us "at the back of the queue" - That's pretty much what Obama said.
Stephen Hawking says we should stay so....you know, it's Stephen Hawking so he must be right -Yes
The continent will be more at risk of war etc - Certainly western Europe would be weakened, and once Scotland splits, then NATO is seriously weakened. That is why Russia is hoping for a Brexit.
We can get back our sovereignty - We never lost it. We pool some of it. If you see this as a loss, then we must leave NATO at once.
We can make our own trade deals - Sounds expensive.
For your sake, I hope that's the case. People need to understand that an England outside of the EU will be poorer and less influential outside of the EU.

Just taking a few of these at random:

1) Being at the back of the queue is still a better position than we're in currently, as we're not even in the queue.
2) Mr. Hawking says we need to be part of a group of nations for security and trade - does he mean the UN Security Council, Nato and the WTO, I wonder?
3) Scotland will not split. There is no appetite for another Scottish referendum, even if the UK does exit the EU, and the SNP would never push for a second referendum when they know they would lose (fallen oil prices).
4) The UK is not a sovereign nation. The highest law-making power in our land is the European Commission, responsible for influencing and making up to 50% of our laws, according to the House of Commons Library, whilst FullFact.org goes up as far as 62%.
5) Huge long-term benefit.
6) The UK was rich before it ever was inside the EEC/EU (4th largest economy in the world in 1960), and its influence is not because of its membership of the EU.

Not necessarily referendum related per se, but has anyone ever thought a good way to reduce immigration could be to reduce wealth inequality across nations and improve standard of living in poorer countries?

I don't recall Trump demanding a wall be built on the American/Canadian border.

Rowley wrote:Not necessarily referendum related per se, but has anyone ever thought a good way to reduce immigration could be to reduce wealth inequality across nations and improve standard of living in poorer countries?

I don't recall Trump demanding a wall be built on the American/Canadian border.

Probably because it's illegal to stop Americans seeking refuge in civilised countries

If we vote leave will we get proper duty free when travelling in Europe?

Volcanicash wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

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.

This sounds like pure drivel and hyperbole.  We will still trade with the eu, probably as efta/eea/customs union members, Dyson and JCB have no concerns, I remember working for a manufacturing company who imported thousands of pounds worth of components from china.  24th June your business will be good to go.

You just don't get it, do you? "Oh yeah bruv, we'll still trade as why would they not want to trade wiv us innit".

You clearly have little idea or concept of what "trade" is. I've given you a factually based statement of what will happen to British brand businesses in the event of a leave vote - I'll say it again: In the event of a leave vote all investment in to expanding in to mainland Europe will cease due to the massive uncertaintity of what the fu*k will happen with tariffs, as an example. Yet you have the temerity to simply dismiss that with "your business will be good to go" - erm, not it won't you bloody idiot as we already have plans to "not go with any further investment".

Do you honestly think, know or believe any of the stuff you come out with? The EU aren't simply going to let the main financial HQ (London) sit outside of it's borders. There will be a landgrab scenario whereby the big banks and so forth simply end up in Frankfurt or Dublin. It takes someone massively ignorant to think that this particular scenario doesn't hold water. We offer (whether you think this is right or not depending if you're a socialist git) fairly good concessions to big banks to HQ in London... Would said banks like the idea of uncertaintity over being slapped with penalties from the EU and thus make less money? Nope. There's a fairly grounded scenario that they will simply up sticks and start migrating their HQs to mainland Europe... They won't wait for any trade deals, banks don't deal in risks and as much bullsh*t as you leavers come out with leaving the EU is a monumental risk.

Donald Tusk has come out today saying that the leave campaign is full of bullsh*t as it would take years to get a trade agreement and there will be 0% chance of us not having to take hits on tariffs. No doubt more "scaremongering". The problem is that there are no an avalanche of economists, banks, business, political figures etc etc who all say that leaving is an idiotic idea vs. erm a few bosses and non notable economists? Oh and you've got the NZ PM saying "we'll still trade with you"!!!

A quote from HSBC:

"Euro-area institutions may use any British exit to try and bring a greater share of euro-denominated trading and settlement within the eurozone, taking business away from the City," says Simon Wells at HSBC. "This is a very real threat."

Doubt Duty or Volcanicash have the IQ to spend time reading this, but read this on my way into work this morning:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2016-05-09-britain-eu-sovereignty-myth-niblett-final.pdf

Fairly balanced, well presented view that a few people on here would find hard to digest due to having the IQ of a braindead rabbit.

[quote="Duty281"]

Alex_Germany wrote:

4) The UK is not a sovereign nation. The highest law-making power in our land is the European Commission, responsible for influencing and making up to 50% of our laws, according to the House of Commons Library, whilst FullFact.org goes up as far as 62%.

13% according to the House of Commons Library.

The FullFact figure goes on to include "Regulations" - for example, the maximum power of a vacuum cleaner. If you include those, you should also perhaps include local regulations, like where you can and can't build a house, which might impact much more on our lives. As FullFact says:

We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.

Thank fully, the EU doesn't have 27 sets of bureaucrats regulating the method of olive oil analysis. It only has one. It is an example of where it makes sense to pool sovereignty. Deciding whether you can build an extension to your house is, for now, the sovereign right of your local authority.

NATO for example also has regulations. These cover the dimensions and properties of certain ammunitions. They are made at a NATO level to ensure interoperability. Oh Dear, what a loss of sovereignty!
The various bodies of aircraft safety have pooled rules and procedures. UK pilots MUST give altitude in FEET. The UK can't decide alone to switch to metres. Oh Dear, what a loss of sovereignty!

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:
=
The us will put us "at the back of the queue" - That's pretty much what Obama said.
Stephen Hawking says we should stay so....you know, it's Stephen Hawking so he must be right -Yes
The continent will be more at risk of war etc - Certainly western Europe would be weakened, and once Scotland splits, then NATO is seriously weakened. That is why Russia is hoping for a Brexit.
We can get back our sovereignty - We never lost it. We pool some of it. If you see this as a loss, then we must leave NATO at once.
We can make our own trade deals - Sounds expensive.
For your sake, I hope that's the case. People need to understand that an England outside of the EU will be poorer and less influential outside of the EU.

Just taking a few of these at random:

1) Being at the back of the queue is still a better position than we're in currently, as we're not even in the queue.
2) Mr. Hawking says we need to be part of a group of nations for security and trade - does he mean the UN Security Council, Nato and the WTO, I wonder?
3) Scotland will not split. There is no appetite for another Scottish referendum, even if the UK does exit the EU, and the SNP would never push for a second referendum when they know they would lose (fallen oil prices).
4) The UK is not a sovereign nation. The highest law-making power in our land is the European Commission, responsible for influencing and making up to 50% of our laws, according to the House of Commons Library, whilst FullFact.org goes up as far as 62%.
5) Huge long-term benefit.
6) The UK was rich before it ever was inside the EEC/EU (4th largest economy in the world in 1960), and its influence is not because of its membership of the EU.

I truly wish you were correct, but sadly you are not. There is massive appetite for a second referendum up here, which is why Sturgeon had to raise the prospect in her latest election manifesto. Alex Salmond has gone as far as to say a Leave vote makes a referendum in Scotland inevitable. You'd like to think that the fallen oil prices would rule one out, but for most "Yes" voters this isn't about the economy at all. After all, they (45% of those who voted on an 85% turn out) voted for it last time when it was abundantly obvious that it would harm Scotland's economy.

Coxy001 wrote: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.

There are no "vetos" for the Maastricht treaty! That's the whloe point. The veto as you call it, is actually in section 2, which we insisted on:

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.

Michael Portillo put that in the treaty or we wouldn't sign it. It's not a veto, it's a safety net, meaning so long as were in NATO they can't override us. But look at it again, people are chipping away at Nato, and want it closed down, because if it is shut down this Article 42 is activated and we're FORCED into the EU army. Any time you read anything on closing down Nato you should be very worried. I find it amazing when you say I'm lying when that's taken directly off the EU website! I've even posted a direct link to it, not to mention given you the initial merged units of the EU army, their commanders and their motto! Does someone have to drive a tank on your lawn before you believe it?

Shifty wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: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.

There are no "vetos" for the Maastricht treaty!  That's the whloe point.  The veto as you call it, is actually in section 2, which we insisted on:

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.

Michael Portillo put that in the treaty or we wouldn't sign it.  It's not a veto, it's a safety net, meaning so long as were in NATO they can't override us.  But look at it again, people are chipping away at Nato, and want it closed down, because if it is shut down this Article 42 is activated and we're FORCED into the EU army.  Any time you read anything on closing down Nato you should be very worried.  I find it amazing when you say I'm lying when that's taken directly off the EU website!  I've even posted a direct link to it, not to mention given you the initial merged units of the EU army, their commanders and their motto!  Does someone have to drive a tank on your lawn before you believe it?  

I'm only reading what you've posted but I think you're taking 2+2 to equal 5. The section in bold will still apply regardless of whether NATO continues to exist or not. Still, the way you wrote "FORCED" in capital letters was particularly compelling.

Nobody in the USA says "back of the queue" - definitely a script from his pal Cameron if ever there was one. BS scaremongering tactics like this just make us believe in our cause even more.

Coxy001 wrote:Doubt Duty or Volcanicash have the IQ to spend time reading this, but read this on my way into work this morning:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2016-05-09-britain-eu-sovereignty-myth-niblett-final.pdf

Fairly balanced, well presented view that a few people on here would find hard to digest due to having the IQ of a braindead rabbit.

My IQ is in the top 2% of the country, but thanks for the concern.

Sovereignty is supreme power - in this instance, law-making. You cannot pool it or share it, you either have it or you don't.

So many don't get this.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

4) The UK is not a sovereign nation. The highest law-making power in our land is the European Commission, responsible for influencing and making up to 50% of our laws, according to the House of Commons Library, whilst FullFact.org goes up as far as 62%.

13% according to the House of Commons Library.

The FullFact figure goes on to include "Regulations" - for example, the maximum power of a vacuum cleaner. If you include those, you should also perhaps include local regulations, like where you can and can't build a house, which might impact much more on our lives. As FullFact says:

We may all be equal before the law, but not all laws are created equal; it's hard to say that an EU regulation on the methods of olive oil analysis is as important as an Act of Parliament restructuring the NHS.

Thank fully, the EU doesn't have 27 sets of bureaucrats regulating the method of olive oil analysis. It only has one. It is an example of where it makes sense to pool sovereignty. Deciding whether you can build an extension to your house is, for now, the sovereign right of your local authority.

NATO for example also has regulations. These cover the dimensions and properties of certain ammunitions. They are made at a NATO level to ensure interoperability. Oh Dear, what a loss of sovereignty!
The various bodies of aircraft safety have pooled rules and procedures. UK pilots MUST give altitude in FEET. The UK can't decide alone to switch to metres. Oh Dear, what a loss of sovereignty!

That is an exception to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, just like common law.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:
=
The us will put us "at the back of the queue" - That's pretty much what Obama said.
Stephen Hawking says we should stay so....you know, it's Stephen Hawking so he must be right -Yes
The continent will be more at risk of war etc - Certainly western Europe would be weakened, and once Scotland splits, then NATO is seriously weakened. That is why Russia is hoping for a Brexit.
We can get back our sovereignty - We never lost it. We pool some of it. If you see this as a loss, then we must leave NATO at once.
We can make our own trade deals - Sounds expensive.
For your sake, I hope that's the case. People need to understand that an England outside of the EU will be poorer and less influential outside of the EU.

Just taking a few of these at random:

1) Being at the back of the queue is still a better position than we're in currently, as we're not even in the queue.
2) Mr. Hawking says we need to be part of a group of nations for security and trade - does he mean the UN Security Council, Nato and the WTO, I wonder?
3) Scotland will not split. There is no appetite for another Scottish referendum, even if the UK does exit the EU, and the SNP would never push for a second referendum when they know they would lose (fallen oil prices).
4) The UK is not a sovereign nation. The highest law-making power in our land is the European Commission, responsible for influencing and making up to 50% of our laws, according to the House of Commons Library, whilst FullFact.org goes up as far as 62%.
5) Huge long-term benefit.
6) The UK was rich before it ever was inside the EEC/EU (4th largest economy in the world in 1960), and its influence is not because of its membership of the EU.

I truly wish you were correct, but sadly you are not. There is massive appetite for a second referendum up here, which is why Sturgeon had to raise the prospect in her latest election manifesto. Alex Salmond has gone as far as to say a Leave vote makes a referendum in Scotland inevitable. You'd like to think that the fallen oil prices would rule one out, but for most "Yes" voters this isn't about the economy at all. After all, they (45% of those who voted on an 85% turn out) voted for it last time when it was abundantly obvious that it would harm Scotland's economy.

OK. I'm only going by the polling data that I have seen.

mikey_dragon wrote:Nobody in the USA says "back of the queue" - definitely a script from his pal Cameron if ever there was one. BS scaremongering tactics like this just make us believe in our cause even more.

Wouldn't matter either way.

If we never got into the EEC/EU, we would have negotiated a successful trade deal with the USA already, but we have been held back. We are still reliant on the blundering EU to do it for us, unless we vote Leave.

In the queue at the back is better than not being in it at all.

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.

It's actually advice. But if you want to throw it away (costing you money) then that's up to you.

Anyone see Jeremy Corbyn on the Last Leg, Friday night?

Thought he did ok, and fair play to go on it, it's a fairly left-leaning show so not exactly the lions den but still takes some balls to appear extensively in such a show/environment.

He's still as dull as dishwater and about as enigmatic. Turd of a leader but I thought he came across honest and thoughtful. Wish he'd stand louder and prouder about his reasons for REMAIN, they're good ones and an angle we're not seeing much of, he could really champion.

Shifty wrote:

Coxy001 wrote: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.

There are no "vetos" for the Maastricht treaty!  That's the whloe point.  The veto as you call it, is actually in section 2, which we insisted on:

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.

Michael Portillo put that in the treaty or we wouldn't sign it.  It's not a veto, it's a safety net, meaning so long as were in NATO they can't override us.  But look at it again, people are chipping away at Nato, and want it closed down, because if it is shut down this Article 42 is activated and we're FORCED into the EU army.  Any time you read anything on closing down Nato you should be very worried.  I find it amazing when you say I'm lying when that's taken directly off the EU website!  I've even posted a direct link to it, not to mention given you the initial merged units of the EU army, their commanders and their motto!  Does someone have to drive a tank on your lawn before you believe it?  

No what you've done is taken something and somehow twisted it based on a bunch of ideological make believe what-if load of tosh.

We cannot be "forced" in to an EU army. It's simply not possible:

“Hell will freeze over before that happens,” says Nick Witney from the European Council on Foreign Relations. Any step towards common defence would have to be decided unanimously. Not only would the UK have to hold a referendum, but other EU nations would be hesitant to give Brussels such control.

And that's after invoking Article 42.

And as you mention think tanks, what if one was to ram facts up your arse so hard you've be spewing sense instead of tosh? :

The German plans build on a provision in the treaty that would allow a subset of countries to press ahead with their own military projects – which Juncker refers to as “permanent structured cooperation”. But, as the Commission’s own internal think-tank has noted, that would have to be voluntary. “One could fantasise that that might happen… but there is no appetite currently,” Witney says. Notwithstanding Berlin’s positive noises, he reckons “Germany is not going to allow its troops to be deployed or its defence budget spent by anyone other than its own government and parliament”. Witney should know. He was the first boss of the intergovernmental and voluntary European Defence Agency.

And to finish off:

In the meantime, EU defence policy is more cadet than field marshal. Operations under the common security and defence policy, while worthy, are episodic and ad hoc. Current projects include training anti-jihadists in Mali and disrupting human traffickers in the Mediterranean. Witney says the policy entails few obligations. Member states can veto each operation and largely decide how much to contribute on a case-by-case basis. So stand at ease, Corporal Farage.

In fact, the UK has been remarkably pragmatic about military cooperation. Our NATO membership requires us to take part in collective defence should Turkey or Estonia be attacked, and the UK has also signed defence deals with France. If any of that represents a loss of sovereignty, few seem to find it controversial. Nonetheless, the prospect of the UK getting dragged into an EU army against its will are zero.

If NATO collapses then there is absolutely 0% chance/or way of us being forced in to an EU army against our will. It really, really isn't that hard to understand.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Anyone see Jeremy Corbyn on the Last Leg, Friday night?

Thought he did ok, and fair play to go on it, it's a fairly left-leaning show so not exactly the lions den but still takes some balls to appear extensively in such a show/environment.

He's still as dull as dishwater and about as enigmatic.  Turd of a leader but I thought he came across honest and thoughtful.  Wish he'd stand louder and prouder about his reasons for REMAIN, they're good ones and an angle we're not seeing much of, he could really champion.

Problem he as he's dull as dishwater the press are more likely to report about which Tory has had a bloody street fight with barbed baseball bats against another Tory. If remain does indeed win will be very interesting how this rather large amount of infighting and bitching plays out post June 23rd. Gove and BoJo for instance will never ever be able to quote official statistics again as they would be ridiculed beyond belief, so god knows what happens to them both.

Duty281 wrote:

Sovereignty is supreme power - in this instance, law-making. You cannot pool it or share it, you either have it or you don't.

So many don't get this.

You can delegate law making. Britain chooses to delegate some of it, like the rules on measuring olive oil purity, to the EU.

The very fact that Britain can take sovereignty back, by leaving the EU, or by leaving NATO if it chooses, makes Britain sovereign.

Scotland on the other hand cannot leave the UK by its choosing. Its people could vote to leave, in which case the sovereign Parliament of the UK would enact legislation to allow it to leave and become sovereign.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Sovereignty is supreme power - in this instance, law-making. You cannot pool it or share it, you either have it or you don't.

So many don't get this.

You can delegate law making. Britain chooses to delegate some of it, like the rules on measuring olive oil purity, to the EU.

The very fact that Britain can take sovereignty back, by leaving the EU, or by leaving NATO if it chooses, makes Britain sovereign.

Scotland on the other hand cannot leave the UK by its choosing. Its people could vote to leave, in which case the sovereign Parliament of the UK would enact legislation to allow it to leave and become sovereign.

Yeah, and The Southern States of America tried to leave their Union.  That caused a bit of a fuss with centuries less cultural friction.

It's all very well saying Single Nation States still hold Sovereignty within the EU.  The entire EU project has a determined goal to end that concept.  

And how do you end the concept?  The big bad idea of immigration is certainly one of them.  Sorry folks, but it keeps cropping up, even when uninvited.  

As peoples mix, as cultures fuse, as taxes merge, as the currencies become one, as EU armies and potential Police forces come into being, as the knowing dilution takes place slowly but surely - who in the end is going to vote for what?  

The fusion has already taken place.  The ancient 'old fashioned' Nationalists who then want to maintain an idea of the Sovereignty of a certain State have become nothing more than 'terrorists' out to threaten the United States of Europe.  To be jailed rather than to be given the vote.

Now, some might say they see no problem with further and further integration of Europe to the extent that the population have scant knowledge of single State roots, identity, culture, what-have-you.  Fine.  

Others say that's not the Europe for them and therefore the best way of stopping that concept is by protecting the concept of Individual State Sovereignty before the dilution happens, not after.

Duty281 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Doubt Duty or Volcanicash have the IQ to spend time reading this, but read this on my way into work this morning:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2016-05-09-britain-eu-sovereignty-myth-niblett-final.pdf

Fairly balanced, well presented view that a few people on here would find hard to digest due to having the IQ of a braindead rabbit.

My IQ is in the top 2% of the country, but thanks for the concern.

Sovereignty is supreme power - in this instance, law-making. You cannot pool it or share it, you either have it or you don't.

So many don't get this.

This really is too simplistic, even for a Leaver.

The UK, for example, is a constitutional monarchy, with powers devolved by the Parliament in Westminster to Assemblies in NI and Wales, and the Scottish Parliament, and also to Councils and Mayors across the country. The UK also voluntarily joined the EU and, in case you missed it, is now seeking a mandate from the people of the UK as to whether to leave the EU or stay.

SecretFly wrote:

Yeah, and The Southern States of America tried to leave their Union.  That caused a bit of a fuss with centuries less cultural friction.

Are you suggesting that if Britain wants to leave the EU, the EU army (you know - the one imagined earlier in this thread) will invade Britain?

It's all very well saying Single Nation States still hold Sovereignty within the EU.  The entire EU project has a determined goal to end that concept.  

You are fighting the battles of the 1990s. There is no determined goal. Ever closer union is dead. The only major "getting closer" will be where it's essential to save the Euro, which really has nothing to do with Britain.

And how do you end the concept?  The big bad idea of immigration is certainly one of them.  Sorry folks, but it keeps cropping up, even when uninvited.  

As peoples mix, as cultures fuse, as taxes merge, as the currencies become one, as EU armies and potential Police forces come into being, as the knowing dilution takes place slowly but surely - who in the end is going to vote for what?

The fusion has already taken place.  The ancient 'old fashioned' Nationalists who then want to maintain an idea of the Sovereignty of a certain State have become nothing more than 'terrorists' out to threaten the United States of Europe.  To be jailed rather than to be given the vote.

Right - so after 400 years, obviously Scotland is completely NOT a nation, what with all that fusion. It will have lost all its cultural identity. I suppose "Britain" will lose its cultural identity as we swap our Boddingtons and Fosters for Erdinger and Cianti.

Armies and police forces! We already have NATO and Interpol, and at this moment British police officers working in Marseilles. In / Out will change zero in that respect.

Taxes - there was a move in the 1990s to encourage tax collusion, but that pretty much got squashed. It might come back in at some point to deal with Tax Avoidance and Tax Deal Shopping. But only if your electred sovereign Government agrees.

Now, some might say they see no problem with further and further integration of Europe to the extent that the population have scant knowledge of single State roots, identity, culture, what-have-you.  Fine.  

Others say that's not the Europe for them and therefore the best way of stopping that concept is by protecting the concept of Individual State Sovereignty before the dilution happens, not after.

There is no further integration. If there is, it will make the hand of Le Pen and Wilders and the Austrian right wing chap (not Hitler, the more recent one) stronger. There are people in Brussels who want to enhance their power (1st role of every bureaucracy), but the nation states hold the power.

Oh God Alex... how can I answer that in one go?

Okay...one step at a time.

On your first point.  No, I'm not saying an EU army will invade the UK.  I'm saying the EU has a goal, the institutions and those controlling them have a goal - a United States of Europe.

It won't be tomorrow or maybe even for another 50 years.  But it's the process.  Too many EU officials has stated that openly.  So, it'll stall as long as required to keep people from fretting, and say it's all only a 'mutual appreciation club' and nobody should get uneasy.  But the treaties with the mucho complex details that nobody reads or understands keep coming.  And bit by bit, after two, five or ten years, the more driven ideal comes to the fore again - only this time the 'treaties' have tied Nations down much more on the methods used to extricate themselves from the complex web.

So no - not now - not perhaps 50 or 60 years yet.  But this is the beginning not the end.  A Untied States of Europe is the project. If you're in the EU you are part of that project.

Alex_Germany wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
It's all very well saying Single Nation States still hold Sovereignty within the EU.  The entire EU project has a determined goal to end that concept.  

You are fighting the battles of the 1990s. There is no determined goal. Ever closer union is dead. The only major "getting closer" will be where it's essential to save the Euro, which really has nothing to do with Britain.

The future isn't in the 1990s.  The future is ahead of us.  How can you be so certain the ideal of Ever Closer Union is dead?  A treaty today is easily renegotiated or ripped up, or modified by new administrations and new generations.

There is nothing 1990s about the guy in the European Parliament not so long ago berating Angela Merkel and Hollande (seemingly our unofficial EU 'Leaders' ) to increase the pace of the project - closer Union; not to be put off or to listen to critics but to forge ahead on the only path that makes sense (to him).  
He's a right popular guy too there - mad.. but popular

Sorry SecretFly - you are out of date. "Ever Closer Union" was the fashion when the European Iron and Steel Community was set up. Now the only people pushing it are the bureaucrats, who obviously want to expand their role.

But the leaders of the countries make the decisions, and they will only proceed with closer union
1) If they have to - to stop something falling apart. So spendthrift countries who destabilise the Europe will get budget checks.
2) If their electorates want it. Right now, their electorates don't want it. It won't happen.

There will be more and more common standards. But that is good, as long as the effect is not disproportionate - No one's going to make Britain drive on the right, or force Germany to standardise on the British plug (a vastly superior plug by the way).

In 50 years? Scotland has been in union with England for 400 years, and some 10% of Scottish residents were born in England. Yet I don't see the union getting closer, no matter what James I intended. And Scotland is certainly a nation, with different attitudes to England. (Though I gather the men have started wearing trousers in normal life).

United States: I think that's poor description, but you can define anything as States United. Hell, we're part of a "United Nations".

Interesting case in point: Scotland has decided to adopt the widespread 50mg drink driving level. England is staying on 80 for now. Some EU countries are ?10. France has introduced a requirement for motorists to carry a breathalyser, which I'd would say is an infringement of rights of free movement. But nations are free to do what they want.

If you're in the EU you are part of that project.

The project is whatever Germany, France, UK and Italy agree on, and none of the other countries object to.

SecretFly wrote:

Alex_Germany wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
It's all very well saying Single Nation States still hold Sovereignty within the EU.  The entire EU project has a determined goal to end that concept.  

You are fighting the battles of the 1990s. There is no determined goal. Ever closer union is dead. The only major "getting closer" will be where it's essential to save the Euro, which really has nothing to do with Britain.

The future isn't in the 1990s.  The future is ahead of us.  How can you be so certain the ideal of Ever Closer Union is dead?  A treaty today is easily renegotiated or ripped up, or modified by new administrations and new generations.

There is nothing 1990s about the guy in the European Parliament not so long ago berating Angela Merkel and Hollande (seemingly our unofficial EU 'Leaders' ) to increase the pace of the project - closer Union; not to be put off or to listen to critics but to forge ahead on the only path that makes sense (to him).  
He's a right popular guy too there - mad.. but popular

Martin Schulz? He shot to fame when Berlusconi likened him to a Nazi concentration camp guard. Berlusconi was fun. Mad and evil, but fun.

So he berated Merkel? But who wears the trousers?

That's actually the issue of the "democratic deficit" in Europe. The national leaders don't want a strong parliament, or EU tax raising powers, as it takes away power from them.

For the future - the UK can always leave if it wants to, if the EU does want to become a "United States". (Actually - that's one reason why everyone wants Britain - to stop a German / France dominated USE. Even the French and Germans).

No not Schultz. Guy Verhofstadt

Back to the EEC (modern version to meet a modern world) and dismantle that EU parliament.

That's the ideal Europe (in my opinion). Friends, companions, buddies, cooperative neighbours but no One House with One Key policy.

Everyone's Happy!

Well.......................... not Guy.

"Friends, companions, buddies, cooperative neighbours"

Quoted directly from Nigel Farage on the ITV debate.....

Did he say that???

Good man, Farrage... he got my speech in time.  I was worried that he's have nothing to say when he got on to me that he needed it quick!

EU referendum poll:
Remain: 44% (+1)
Leave: 49% (+1)
(via ICM, online / 10 - 13 Jun)

EU referendum poll:
Remain: 45% (+3)
Leave: 50% (+5)
(via ICM, phone / 10 - 13 Jun)

Beautiful. SkyBet has Leave at 11/8 now.

There are two EU referendum polls in the Sunday papers – YouGov in the Sunday Times and Opinium in the Observer. Both of them have the race neck-and-neck: YouGov have REMAIN 49%, LEAVE 51%, Opinium have REMAIN 51%, LEAVE 49%. Tables for YouGov are here, for Opinium are here.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

I find those polling figures depressing. Almost as depressing as the fall in the FTSE and Sterling prompted by the narrowing of such polls.

As a lawyer I suppose there's one upside of a Leave vote. More work.

are you superflyweight in disguise??

Or, by chance, do we have two Edinburgh lawyers on the forum....??

Duty281 wrote:
My IQ is in the top 2% of the country, but thanks for the concern.

AHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

This thread has peaked. This forum has peaked.

What's a top IQ?


Am I showing my lack of one by not knowing?