EU - In or Out + Poll.

[tim2000s]

On the question of reasons for voting out, I'm sure many were surprised to hear today that the Leave campaign had received a £600,000 donation from a former BNP member. Sadly that doesn't look too great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaylee]

From what I've read/listened to/viewed on both sides of this debate? Including the "reps" on my side of it. (I'm IN by the way.) both sides are weak, short sighted, personal, petty & political.. & dare I say it..? Selfish. They are all " politicians" it's "political" we all are being "played". (On all sides.) It's a "smoke screen" for something bigger!
America also has something else going on right now with the fools as candidates that could end up running their country.. ( I won't go into that.)

I was outnumbered round the table at lunch, at work today by "Brexit".. Same as on FB...

This country is just "flipping a coin"... It's a "gamble". & with any bet, you should only put down what you can afford to lose...

You can bet yer **** one thing. Whatever you vote. The rich will weather the storm. & the workers will plough on a little more jaded than before....

 

[tim2000s]

As someone else I spoke to today said, "Whatever the outcome, no-one wins".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[olijp]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...g-vote-leave-are-on-immigration-a7083476.html

Just gonna leave this here...

Inform yourselves people before making the mistake to vote leave

 

[poshtotty]

On the question of reasons for voting out, I'm sure many were surprised to hear today that the Leave campaign had received a £600,000 donation from a former BNP member. Sadly that doesn't look too great.

In order for that comment to be taken in context, you need to mention who funded the Remain campaign. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley wasn't it? None of whom are squeaky clean

 

[ickihun]

Look. Use a bit foresight.
If we are deep in financially with EU now. How deep will we be in by the time we decide the EU hasn't got our interests?
We feel we have no choice but to stay now. What will be the feeling next time?
You are giving them too much control and the redress isn't affective.
Lost control of the whole purpose of being an European.
I wonder how many Europeans are happy with the EU at present time?
Too much compromise and it can cause war. Just because we are members doesn't stop fighting. Does being part of your family stop you wanting to split from a member who is taking or manipulating too much? Familiarity doesn't stop that, in fact, makes it worse. You have them too close and decisions get muddled and personal.
Keep a healthy distance so decision making can be healthy?

 

[tim2000s]

In order for that comment to be taken in context, you need to mention who funded the Remain campaign. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Grenfell wasn't it? None of whom are squeaky clean

Based on the data on the Electoral Commission website (which I would assume to be correct), none of the above have contributed to the remain campaign between 1st January and 16th June (Source)

The two US banks that have (who are the largest FX and Equities trading houses in Europe respectively) are Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.

 

[Catlady19]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...g-vote-leave-are-on-immigration-a7083476.html

Just gonna leave this here...

Inform yourselves people before making the mistake to vote leave

I think you will find the majority of people on this thread have been informing themselves! The point is whether they are from the EU or non EU countries, immigration needs to be addressed. This is more difficult if we remain in the EU.

 

[tim2000s]

Look. Use a bit foresight.
If we are deep in financially with EU now. How deep will we be in by the time we decide the EU hasn't got our interests?
We feel we have no choice but to stay now. What will be the feeling next time?
You are giving them too much control and the redress isn't affective.
Lost control of the whole purpose of being an European.
I wonder how many Europeans are happy with the EU at present time?
Too much compromise and it can cause war. Just because we are members doesn't stop fighting. Does being part of your family stop you wanting to split from a member who is taking or manipulating too much? Familiarity doesn't stop that, in fact, makes it worse. You have them too close and decisions get muddled and personal.
Keep a healthy distance so decision making can be healthy?

I'd consider that the UK already does this. We haven't adopted the Euro and don't have to bailout Eurozone countries when they need it, whilst managing to retain the lion's share of Euro trading, clearing and settlement in London, well outside the Euro zone. We have deliberately not adopted the Schengen zone so retain passport control for anyone at our borders (if we choose to use it). We also retain an opt-out on matters of Justice and Home Affairs. These are all documented in the various treaties we have signed.

No other country within the EU has adopted the "I'm not sure" approach to the EU like we have. I think it's a remarkable position to be in. We can never be accused of being wholly enthusiastic about EU membership while having the ability to freely travel and work around Europe ad infinitum.

When you say "How deep will we be in financially with the EU", I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. There is a set model that is applied for membership fees dependent on population and GDP. We don't have to pay into Eurozone bailouts. What do you expect additionally?

 

[Stallen]

I Wasn't overly impressed with Cameron when I watch the morning news today, he was summing up everything in one word, TOGETHER certainly heard that before as in, (we are all in together)when clearly were not.

He can repeat it as many times as he likes, but I find it distasteful when he thinks he's has a place amongst the more common person, I say that as a West Ham fan, or was that a Villa fan, he'll cling on, saying whatever he thinks is the right lines at any given time, 2 faced more like 50 shades of...bull.....:***: Poo.

 

[olijp]

I think you will find the majority of people on this thread have been informing themselves! The point is whether they are from the EU or non EU countries, immigration needs to be addressed. This is more difficult if we remain in the EU.

How exactly is it more difficult in the EU? In the EU, we get seats on the EAP, who define the conditions for free movement of workers and people. Out of the EU, we are like Switzerland and Norway...we just get told what the conditions are and we either take them and trade in the ECR, or decline them and lose trading (which I highly doubt would ever be a decision made by anyone). The UK can't just stop trading with the 2nd largest market in the world...

 

[Stallen]

I'd consider that the UK already does this. We haven't adopted the Euro and don't have to bailout Eurozone countries when they need it, whilst managing to retain the lion's share of Euro trading, clearing and settlement in London, well outside the Euro zone. We have deliberately not adopted the Schengen zone so retain passport control for anyone at our borders (if we choose to use it). We also retain an opt-out on matters of Justice and Home Affairs. These are all documented in the various treaties we have signed.

No other country within the EU has adopted the "I'm not sure" approach to the EU like we have. I think it's a remarkable position to be in. We can never be accused of being wholly enthusiastic about EU membership while having the ability to freely travel and work around Europe ad infinitum.

When you say "How deep will we be in financially with the EU", I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. There is a set model that is applied for membership fees dependent on population and GDP. We don't have to pay into Eurozone bailouts. What do you expect additionally?

U.K. Tax payers money bailed out Ireland not so long ago.

 

[tim2000s]

U.K. Tax payers money bailed out Ireland not so long ago.

Indeed. In 2010 if I remember correctly. As bilateral loans that we elected to offer and not under the terms of an EU mandated Eurozone bailout package, in which we don't participate. Seems to me as though we were in control of our own actions, acting under our own sovereignty.

I believe the statement from the Chancellor at the time was "What we have committed to do is to obviously be partners as shareholders in the IMF in an international rescue of the Irish economy. But we have also made a commitment to consider a bilateral loan that reflects the fact we are not part of the euro… but Ireland is our very closest economic neighbour."

 

[ickihun]

I'd consider that the UK already does this. We haven't adopted the Euro and don't have to bailout Eurozone countries when they need it, whilst managing to retain the lion's share of Euro trading, clearing and settlement in London, well outside the Euro zone. We have deliberately not adopted the Schengen zone so retain passport control for anyone at our borders (if we choose to use it). We also retain an opt-out on matters of Justice and Home Affairs. These are all documented in the various treaties we have signed.

No other country within the EU has adopted the "I'm not sure" approach to the EU like we have. I think it's a remarkable position to be in. We can never be accused of being wholly enthusiastic about EU membership while having the ability to freely travel and work around Europe ad infinitum.

When you say "How deep will we be in financially with the EU", I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. There is a set model that is applied for membership fees dependent on population and GDP. We don't have to pay into Eurozone bailouts. What do you expect additionally?

@tim2000s are you telling me no changes are going to take place financially in the next 15yrs or more within the Eurozone and no expection on the uk to comply?
How can that be compared it the changes in the last 15yrs?
What commitments are we commiting to? Even you dont know that answer. As neither do i. But, we will be expected to comply. As a member!
Not as a non- member.
If negotiation is so easy with the EU body. We could surely be able to negotiate to join at a later date. Surely!

 

[Prem51]

Hmm, informative, is there no end to your areas of expertise?

It's well known that Lord Rothermere, owner of the DM supported Moseley and the British Union of Fascists. The DM ran a front page article headlined 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts'. They might not so openly support fascist groups now, but their politics are still well to the right, and their bias and racism still encourages the Far Right.

 

[tim2000s]

@tim2000s are you telling me no changes are going to take place financially in the next 15yrs or more within the Eurozone and no expection on the uk to comply?
How can that be compared it the changes in the last 15yrs?
What commitments are we commiting to? Even you dont know that answer. As neither do i. But, we will be expected to comply. As a member!
Not as a non- member.
If negotiation is so easy with the EU body. We could surely be able to negotiate to join at a later date. Surely!

As per the EU Act 2011 that the UK parliament passed, if certain aspects of our relationship with the EU change (essentially relating to changes to treaties and impinging on our current opt outs), the UK has a mechanism to reject those changes and in law must put some of them to a referendum.

The structure relating to contributions is agreed in those treaties, so changes to that structure would invoke the EU Act. It gets a whole lot more detailed than that though. So if changes come, we have a way to assess and decide whether to continue.

 

[Prem51]

Question: If we were not already members of EU would you be wanting to join? This could be your guide.

I think if we weren't already a member we would be banging on the door asking to be admitted for the trading advantages, as we did before we joined the Common Market and De Gaulle didn't want to let us in.

 

[Stallen]

Indeed. In 2010 if I remember correctly. As bilateral loans that we elected to offer and not under the terms of an EU mandated Eurozone bailout package, in which we don't participate. Seems to me as though we were in control of our own actions, acting under our own sovereignty.

I believe the statement from the Chancellor at the time was "What we have committed to do is to obviously be partners as shareholders in the IMF in an international rescue of the Irish economy. But we have also made a commitment to consider a bilateral loan that reflects the fact we are not part of the euro… but Ireland is our very closest economic neighbour."

Which pretty much shows us that wether the uk is in or out, we are a compassionate country, despite the xenophobia hysteria being banned about, the average man/woman will put their hand in their pockets for charity and to help a niebhours on the whole regardless of their Ethnicity.

An example being Jo Cox fund will help lots of minority causes as did feed the world back in the 80s.

I hate the way anyone wanting to leave is instantly viewed and cast as racist if thinking about voting leave, in my case it is pretty odd, as I used to sit on a NUJ panel when I lived London and that panel always voted 100% no platform to the old BNP.

I may not get to vote tomorrow as I'm just recovering from surgery, but however the public decides to vote, I'm sure that I'll respect the result a **** sight better than some of the politicians will.

 

[britishpub]

I think it's quite ironic how the Free Movement concept appears to be one of the main drivers of Brexit, whereas the single overwhelming reason why the Eurozone is in such an economic mess, and why the Euro as a single currency cannot possibly work is that there is not enough movement of labour within the zone.

For the EU and especially the Euro to work there has to be movement of labour in order to economic differences to be balanced out.

I don't think that any UK Government since the 1970's has really understood the implications of this, especially with the way our benefits and health systems work, providing the UK with an "unfair advantage" when it comes to attracting labour from other parts of the EU.

If previous Governments and the EU had recognised this earlier and done something to address this we wouldn't face many of the issues we do today when many parts of the EU are still in recessionary conditions.

 

[Dark Horse]

Quite a lot of the Brexit campaign has revolved around “controlling immigration” with the implication that this means “reducing immigration”. Cynically, I think that this appeals to our basic instincts where we feel that ‘more for immigrants’ means ‘less for us’. This was probably a reasonable rule of thumb throughout a lot of human history but the modern world is very different. Sometimes the truth is very counterintuitive. It’s very difficult for our intellect to triumph over our instincts but this is one area where our instincts are failing us.

There was a very good article in the New Scientist on 9 April 2016 which discussed a lot of the evidence relating to immigration. I’ve tried to summarise some of the relevant points:-

People worry that increased immigration means competition with the native British for jobs and depression of wages. Modern economies do not work like this.

· As migrants take low-paid unskilled jobs, natives with the advantage of their language skills tend to move into better-paid jobs

· The effect of immigrants on wages is very small – in the worst estimates, a 1% rise in immigrants depresses wages by 0.2% - mainly the wages of the immigrants themselves – but this can be counteracted by having a minimum wage

People worry that immigrants are a drain on the British economy because they qualify for benefits. Research shows this is not the case.

· EU immigrants take less in benefit than natives, mainly because they are younger.

· EU immigrants bring in the benefit of education which has been paid for by their home country

· Many EU immigrants work for a period in the UK, paying taxes, then return to their home country before they need social security

· The UK fiscal watchdog has calculated that doubling immigration would cut UK debt by almost 1/3 whereas stopping immigration would increase the debt by nearly 50%

· The UN’s International Labour Organisation estimates that for every 1% increase in population through immigration, GDP grows by 1.25-1.5%

We need immigrants. Because of the falling birth-rate, we have a top-heavy age distribution in the UK and the number of workers supporting retired people is falling. By 2050 we need 14% of the British population to be immigrants otherwise the numbers of people paying our pensions and supplying our services will be insufficient to maintain our current living standards.

The effects of immigration on the availability of schools, housing and other services tend to be short-term and local. If we have worries about this, we need the Government to invest so that it can be managed. Any short-term effects are outweighed by the long-term benefits so the investment is worthwhile.

I do wonder whether the Brexit leaders do know all of this as they have never explicitly said they will reduce immigration, but have only implied it.