EU referendum

As it explains about the report:- It was prepared for the Britain Stronger in Europe group that’s campaigning for the U.K. to remain an EU member in a referendum promised by Prime Minister David Cameron.

 

That's totally and utterly unbiased in every way then.

You were quite happy to use a quote from the CEBR to support your standpoint.

**** me , if Canadians had the same narrow negative outlook as the Remainians on here , it would be a state in the USA .

**** me , if Canadians had the same narrow negative outlook as the Remainians on here , it would be a state in the USA .

Remind me again. Are we aspiring to be just like Norway or just like Switzerland? I get so overawed by the positive breadth of ambition of the out campaign it makes my little negative, narrow head hurt, so it does.

Boris now throws his support to the leave campaign.

 

This has now taken on an intersting twist to liven up the next few months.

Always knew he was a ****. Farage, Johnson, Galloway and Gove supporting the 'leave' campaign. I know which way I'm voting. I wouldn't **** on any of them if they were on fire.

**** me , if Canadians had the same narrow negative outlook as the Remainians on here , it would be a state in the USA .

As far as I know Canada has never been a state of the USA.

Boris now throws his support to the leave campaign.

 

This has now taken on an intersting twist to liven up the next few months.

Sod Boris. Which way is trousers voting? If he's joining the political gargoyles the stay/in vote is lost.

Apparently, Boris joining the "Leave" campaign is big news. Not outside London, it's not as no-one I know who lives outside the M25 gives a toss about the crazy haired ***t.

Always knew he was a ****. Farage, Johnson, Galloway and Gove supporting the 'leave' campaign. I know which way I'm voting. I wouldn't **** on any of them if they were on fire.

But you'll accept opening up our NHS to American health care providers .

Genuine question - if we do decide to leave the EU, what implications will that have for our fellow EU players in the squad? Will players like Fonte be treated like a UK national as they have been working here for a long time, or will players like Clasie, Soares etc have to go through some long-winded work permit process to stay on? Or we will just "turf 'em all out"?

Genuine question - if we do decide to leave the EU, what implications will that have for our fellow EU players in the squad? Will players like Fonte be treated like a UK national as they have been working here for a long time, or will players like Clasie, Soares etc have to go through some long-winded work permit process to stay on? Or we will just "turf 'em all out"?

They will be treated exactly the same as Victor and Mane . We won't be able to treat different nationals differently . Pretty progressive stuff , treating people on the basis of their skills and content of their mind , rather than where they come from

Boris has opted for out as part of his Leadership campiagn, its about Boris not about what is best for the UK.

Apparently, Boris joining the "Leave" campaign is big news. Not outside London, it's not as no-one I know who lives outside the M25 gives a toss about the crazy haired ***t.

The media have obviously got it all badly wrong, devoting their headlines to the story. They should have polled all the people you know to gauge that there was no mileage the story.

I think the question is fundamentally quite simple and boils down to a choice between economic stability (relative) in the short/medium term and the fundamental principles that you want the country governed by (which is a much longer term argument).

I think the economic question clearly favours remaining and those that argue it does not have not come up with any convincing empirical or deductive argument that I can see.

I think the argument from principles clearly favours leaving. The European Union is not a good organisation, open borders is a stupid idea when there are large wealth disparities between the countries, rules are frequently flouted on political whim (see Greece's admission to the Euro, for example), sovereignty is ceded, "ever closer unity" seems to have irreversible momentum etc...

So, to me, it's a question of conviction largely, not economics. If the leave campaign can convince me the economic pain will not be so material as to render miserable a vast swathe of my life and other people's lives then I think it makes sense to lean towards "leave".

I think the question is fundamentally quite simple and boils down to a choice between economic stability (relative) in the short/medium term and the fundamental principles that you want the country governed by (which is a much longer term argument).

 

I think the economic question clearly favours remaining and those that argue it does not have not come up with any convincing empirical or deductive argument that I can see.

 

I think the argument from principles clearly favours leaving. The European Union is not a good organisation, open borders is a stupid idea when there are large wealth disparities between the countries, rules are frequently flouted on political whim (see Greece's admission to the Euro, for example), sovereignty is ceded, "ever closer unity" seems to have irreversible momentum etc...

 

So, to me, it's a question of conviction largely, not economics. If the leave campaign can convince me the economic pain will not be so material as to render miserable a vast swathe of my life and other people's lives then I think it makes sense to lean towards "leave".

A excellent summery and I think we're both in a very similiar ''place'' when it comes to this difficult question.

its about Boris not about what is best for the UK.

Just like Corbyn then .

Just like Corbyn then .

Is it? Corbyn has been largely anonymous on the EU and is unlikely to make any politcal capital out of it whatsoever. I would think the stay campaign will want him nowhere near them.

Is it? Corbyn has been largely anonymous on the EU and is unlikely to make any politcal capital out of it whatsoever. I would think the stay campaign will want him nowhere near them.

Corbyn has been consistent in his approach towards the EU , until he needed to keep his front bench together . He voted to Leave , voted against Maastricht and even talked of leaving during his leadership hustings. If anybody put his career & party before his principles it is him , rather than Boris

Corbyn has been consistent in his approach towards the EU , until he needed to keep his front bench together . He voted to Leave , voted against Maastricht and even talked of leaving during his leadership hustings. If anybody put his career & party before his principles it is him , rather than Boris

You are right Corbyn is as much an oppertunist as Johnson, the difference is Corbyn will never be PM, Johnson might.

To me, it's a question of conviction largely, not economics. If the leave campaign can convince me the economic pain will not be so material as to render miserable a vast swathe of my life and other people's lives then I think it makes sense to lean towards "leave".

The trouble is no-one knows what will happen if we leave. We won't find out the full consequences until 10-20 years afterwards.

Half of Britain's trade is with the EU. A lot of investment here - such as the Japanese car plants - was predicated on access to the EU market. Economically the most upside I can see is that we escape relatively unscathed - but the downside could be really, really serious. As Cameron said, its "a leap into the dark". I'd want a little more than a hope and a prayer before jumping.

For me the biggest risk is the reaction of the remaining 27 EU countries. The out campaigns wildly optimistic claims that they will fall over themselves to do a trade deal with us does not fill me with hope. We would still be required to contribute to the cost of running EU institutions, we would just be a non voting shareholder, bit like the plucky skates owning their football club without any real control or influence.

For me the biggest risk is the reaction of the remaining 27 EU countries. The out campaigns wildly optimistic claims that they will fall over themselves to do a trade deal with us does not fill me with hope. We would still be required to contribute to the cost of running EU institutions, we would just be a non voting shareholder, bit like the plucky skates owning their football club without any real control or influence.

You can reach that conclusion even before there has been any horse-trading over new trade deals should we vote to leave the EU? Power to your crystal ball.

You can reach that conclusion even before there has been any horse-trading over new trade deals should we vote to leave the EU? Power to your crystal ball.

You don't really think that we would get free access to the EU markets for free, do you?

You don't really think that we would get free access to the EU markets for free, do you?

Who knows what would be negotiated? I just queried the rather random thought that we would be required to contribute to the cost of running "EU institutions", whatever they may be.

You don't really think that we would get free access to the EU markets for free, do you?

In 2014 we exported £226bn to the EU. We imported £288 bn - they stand to lose more by getting stupid about trade

The trouble is no-one knows what will happen if we leave. We won't find out the full consequences until 10-20 years afterwards.

 

Half of Britain's trade is with the EU. A lot of investment here - such as the Japanese car plants - was predicated on access to the EU market. Economically the most upside I can see is that we escape relatively unscathed - but the downside could be really, really serious. As Cameron said, its "a leap into the dark". I'd want a little more than a hope and a prayer before jumping.

Initially the costs would be great, but how long would the pain be before any benefit materialised?

In the event of a vote to leave the EU, the economic costs would outweigh the benefits, Moody’s said. Exports would likely suffer, as would investment, and policymakers would get tied up in lengthy renegotiations of the UK’s trade relations.

“We consider it positive that the referendum will take place as soon as June, as a lengthy period of uncertainty on the part of firms and investors would damage the UK’s economic growth prospects. That said, the outcome of the referendum remains wide open. In our view, a decision to leave the EU would be credit negative for the UK economy,” said Kathrin Muehlbronner at Moody’s.

Moody’s currently rates the UK Aa1, one notch below the top triple-A score. The agency said that if the public vote to leave the EU, it would consider assigning a “negative outlook” to that rating, compared with a “stable” outlook now. Such an outlook would imply a greater chance of a downgrade to the Aa1 rating in the future.

The warning follows comments in December from rival agency Fitch that a vote to leave could hurt the UK’s credit score. Standard & Poor’s, the only big ratings agency still giving Britain the top ranking, has also flagged risks from the referendum to the UK’s financial services sector, its exports, and the wider economy.

Economists have said that even before the referendum outcome is known, the UK’s growth prospects could be hit by the uncertainty. Such fears were reflected on financial markets, where sterling hit a seven-year low of $1.4067, down 2.3% on the day, putting it on track for its biggest one-day fall since early 2009.

You can reach that conclusion even before there has been any horse-trading over new trade deals should we vote to leave the EU? Power to your crystal ball.

The clue is in the word risk: an event that has a likelihood and impact i.e. not a certainty. My risk assessment is that the likelihood of the EU playing hardball of over trade negotiations is high and that the impact of this will be severe to the UK economy. Simple risk management stuff, and for me on balance the risks of leaving are far greater than risks of staying in, no emotion, no bias or crystal ball.

Who knows what would be negotiated?

Six words that sum up the lunacy of the No/Leave/Little England campaign. Who knows what will be negotiated - for 50% of the UK's entire trade?!

This morning's sharp drop in the pound's value against the dollar is just a small taste of what will come if the naysayers win.

My views are firmly in the 'stay' camp despite what the politicians think, but I wouldn't trust the opinions of either of these two clowns on anything.

It's interesting that you dismiss Farage as 'a clown'. Are you not aware that we wouldn't even have a referendum if it wasn't for him? Farage, like him or loath him, has been the key driving force in shaping this whole debate we see today. He's no doubt done that through damn hard work and by becoming one of the best orators around. My understanding of a clown is certainly not someone who has had as much of an impact on the political landscape as he's had.

I was at the grassroots meeting on friday in London and this isn't about 'Farage & Galloway', there was a host of speakers from David Davis (ex Europe minister it's worth noting), a brilliant speech from Kate Hoey, Tory and UKIP MEPs, economists, trade unionists, business owners etc. I got a pro EU leaflet through the post recently, and of course they're trying to play the man not the ball- making this into some sort of referendum on Farage. The truth is they're having to do this because their positive arguments for the EU as an institution are running thin. But maybe their next leaflet will more clearly outline the benefits of an unelected commission, the common agricultural policy and open borders. I won't hold my breath though.

In 2014 we exported £226bn to the EU. We imported £288 bn - they stand to lose more by getting stupid about trade

Thats £288bn split between 27 countries, only 11% of their total. We will get the same deal Norway and Switzerland got deal - all of the same rights and responsibilities but without the vote. We wont get a better deal because when it comes down to it the EU can say 'take it or leave it'. For all the posturing we wont be able to leave it because its 50% of our trade and we have no plan B.

Initially the costs would be great, but how long would the pain be before any benefit materialised?

 

In the event of a vote to leave the EU, the economic costs would outweigh the benefits, Moody’s said. Exports would likely suffer, as would investment, and policymakers would get tied up in lengthy renegotiations of the UK’s trade relations.

 

“We consider it positive that the referendum will take place as soon as June, as a lengthy period of uncertainty on the part of firms and investors would damage the UK’s economic growth prospects. That said, the outcome of the referendum remains wide open. In our view, a decision to leave the EU would be credit negative for the UK economy,” said Kathrin Muehlbronner at Moody’s.

 

Moody’s currently rates the UK Aa1, one notch below the top triple-A score. The agency said that if the public vote to leave the EU, it would consider assigning a “negative outlook” to that rating, compared with a “stable” outlook now. Such an outlook would imply a greater chance of a downgrade to the Aa1 rating in the future.

 

The warning follows comments in December from rival agency Fitch that a vote to leave could hurt the UK’s credit score. Standard & Poor’s, the only big ratings agency still giving Britain the top ranking, has also flagged risks from the referendum to the UK’s financial services sector, its exports, and the wider economy.

 

Economists have said that even before the referendum outcome is known, the UK’s growth prospects could be hit by the uncertainty. Such fears were reflected on financial markets, where sterling hit a seven-year low of $1.4067, down 2.3% on the day, putting it on track for its biggest one-day fall since early 2009.

If the ratings agencies got anything correct, 2008 would never have happened. Smart people listen to what they say & look for the weakness in their arguments.................

There is something quite sinister about the "stay" argument that if we leave we are going to get screwed over by the remaining members. We're not trying to screw anyone, just potentially to reflect the result of a plebiscite. But apparently if we vote "out", our lives will be made miserable by a group of 27 countries pursuing vindictive policies.

It's a strange sort of club that is akin to the mafia or a drug cartel when it comes to leaving it.

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave....

There is something quite sinister about the "stay" argument that if we leave we are going to get screwed over by the remaining members...... apparently if we vote "out", our lives will be made miserable by a group of 27 countries pursuing vindictive policies.

Which posts have said that?

It's interesting that you dismiss Farage as 'a clown'. Are you not aware that we wouldn't even have a referendum if it wasn't for him? Farage, like him or loath him, has been the key driving force in shaping this whole debate we see today. He's no doubt done that through damn hard work and by becoming one of the best orators around. My understanding of a clown is certainly not someone who has had as much of an impact on the political landscape as he's had.

 

I was at the grassroots meeting on friday in London and this isn't about 'Farage & Galloway', there was a host of speakers from David Davis (ex Europe minister it's worth noting), a brilliant speech from Kate Hoey, Tory and UKIP MEPs, economists, trade unionists, business owners etc. I got a pro EU leaflet through the post recently, and of course they're trying to play the man not the ball- making this into some sort of referendum on Farage. The truth is they're having to do this because their positive arguments for the EU as an institution are running thin. But maybe their next leaflet will more clearly outline the benefits of an unelected commission, the common agricultural policy and open borders. I won't hold my breath though.

Whats wrong with the Common Agricultural Policy?

The 'have your say' comments section on Brexit on the BBC news website seems to have mysteriously disappeared after showing over 800 comments this morning.

Could it be that the famously impartial BBC is being pressurised by the establishment, because the vast majority of comments seemed to be favouring a 'leave' position?

I find it amusing that a significant number of posters seem to think that the Rump EU will go out of their way to screw us over in any trade deal should the UK vote to leave. We are Germany's second largest trading partner after China; the German Car industry relies on components manufactured in the UK to make their cars, on a just-in-time delivery model. Do any of you seriously think they would go out of their way to mess that up? Do you think BMW, VAG and Mercedes will advocate tariffs on these components that will drive up their COGs price and adversely affect their bottom line? European countries are still reeling from the negative impact the imposition of sanctions on Russia has had on their respective GDP's. Frankly, I believe we would be in a strong position to negotiate an equitable trade deal with the EU should the Country vote to leave.

Whats wrong with the Common Agricultural Policy?

It isn't difficult to find arguments critical of the CAP

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.VssyyOzJrXY

In the interests of balance, there are the plus points, but then again, there are pros and cons on every aspect of our membership. After so many years of existence, it is appalling that there still exist so many negatives to the system. I can well remember the farcical aspects of the CAP within the first few years of our membership, the wine lakes, butter mountains of over-production of subsidised farming benefiting the peasant farmers of France and Southern Europe at the time. And then when we couldn't find any better solution to deal with the butter mountain, we sold the surplus to the Soviet Union at ridiculously low prices. Our fruit orchard industry was also decimated by cheap imports from France flooding our market. The Common Fisheries Policy of the EU was equally as stupid, decreeing that fish caught that were not included in the quota of the fishermen had to thrown back into the sea dead. Some of their policies over the years have just been truly mental.

It isn't difficult to find arguments critical of the CAP

 

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.VssyyOzJrXY

 

In the interests of balance, there are the plus points, but then again, there are pros and cons on every aspect of our membership. After so many years of existence, it is appalling that there still exist so many negatives to the system. I can well remember the farcical aspects of the CAP within the first few years of our membership, the wine lakes, butter mountains of over-production of subsidised farming benefiting the peasant farmers of France and Southern Europe at the time. And then when we couldn't find any better solution to deal with the butter mountain, we sold the surplus to the Soviet Union at ridiculously low prices. Our fruit orchard industry was also decimated by cheap imports from France flooding our market. The Common Fisheries Policy of the EU was equally as stupid, decreeing that fish caught that were not included in the quota of the fishermen had to thrown back into the sea dead. Some of their policies over the years have just been truly mental.

As you say Wes, those problems were 35 years ago.

The CAPs principal purpose is to make sure the continent can feed itself - its a question of food security just as we have energy security. You cant solely rely on fluctuating global markets to feed a country. If Britain weren't in the EU we would have a similar programme supporting farmers here.

The CAP has secondary benefits - environmental and food diversity. Hedgerows and wildlife margins around fields stop Europe looking like Iowa's prairies. It also means protection of geographic foods and why you have hundreds of cheeses, for example, in Europe rather than just Monterey Jack and fake cheddar.

I see Russell Brand has piped up on the subject, with his wacky voice and silly tone

It isn't difficult to find arguments critical of the CAP

 

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-agricultural-policy/#.VssyyOzJrXY

 

In the interests of balance, there are the plus points, but then again, there are pros and cons on every aspect of our membership. After so many years of existence, it is appalling that there still exist so many negatives to the system. I can well remember the farcical aspects of the CAP within the first few years of our membership, the wine lakes, butter mountains of over-production of subsidised farming benefiting the peasant farmers of France and Southern Europe at the time. And then when we couldn't find any better solution to deal with the butter mountain, we sold the surplus to the Soviet Union at ridiculously low prices. Our fruit orchard industry was also decimated by cheap imports from France flooding our market. The Common Fisheries Policy of the EU was equally as stupid, decreeing that fish caught that were not included in the quota of the fishermen had to thrown back into the sea dead. Some of their policies over the years have just been truly mental.

The butter mountains and wine lakes are largely things of the past because the link was broken some time ago between subsidies and farm output. Whereas in the bad old days farmers were guaranteed a price no matter how much they produced, now they're paid for stewardship for the land, which has increased environmental diversity, which in turn has increased diversity in food production.

Odd that you want to have a debate about what's already been reformed. It's as if you had a blind spot about the EU. May I recommend a ukippectomy?

You don't really think that we would get free access to the EU markets for free, do you?

We don't now.

if we remain, the NHS could be in the firing line of the EU....and their big business buddies.

how long before we have to make serious changes and we are 'governed' by the EU in doing so

if the Tories wanted to bring is just smidge of this (which often portrayed that they do) there would be riots....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

Thats £288bn split between 27 countries, only 11% of their total. We will get the same deal Norway and Switzerland got deal - all of the same rights and responsibilities but without the vote. We wont get a better deal because when it comes down to it the EU can say 'take it or leave it'. For all the posturing we wont be able to leave it because its 50% of our trade and we have no plan B.

Trade will not just disappear - we will still buy mercs and they will still buy dysons

if we remain, the NHS remain in the firing line of the EU....and their big business buddies.

how long before we have to make serious changes and we are 'governed' by the EU in doing so

 

if the Tories wanted to bring is just smidge of this (which often portrayed that they do) there would be riots....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

You seem to have missed the second comment under that article. Also I'd trust the EU to negotiate a better deal for average citizens over multi nationals more than I would a Conservative government

"First point is based on what can best be described as a misunderstanding, the NHS (along with other Public Services) has been expicitly exclude from TTIP (see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_152999.2%20Services.pdf and http://www.nhsconfed.org/regions-and-eu/nhs-european-office/influencing-eu-policy/transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership) so I am discouting the rest of the of what is a poorly researched article."

Trade will not just disappear - we will still buy mercs and they will still buy dysons

Of course. We'll get the Norway and Switzerland deal - free trade and EU standards, adopt free movement of labour - but you dont get a vote.

Has anyone actually provided any kind of argument as to why we should remain in this mess of an organisation?

Apart from them not liking a couple of blokes in the Leave campaign?

Of course. We'll get the Norway and Switzerland deal - free trade and EU standards, adopt free movement of labour - but you dont get a vote.

is that a fact?

where is that written..?

cheers

is that a fact?

where is that written..?

 

cheers

He's making it up. The usual sign of someone without a coherent argument.

I just cannot see what is not to like

we are one of the world major economies and we have a chance to GET BACK control over our own affairs. Or cary on and turn into a state in the USofE

I wonder if the were voting to JOIN the EU in June (as it stands today), what the public opinion would be....overwhelmingly, a NO in my opinion

as for Buctootim saying we would have to go for the same deal as Norway. The PM has just this very second dismissed that out of hand when asked.