EU referendum

[hypochondriac]

I think we watch this type of programmes and see what we want to see. So the impression I'm getting here that Remain are getting their point across better is surely unreliable. Nevertheless that is how it seems to me.

 

That Ruth women is a bit of a star methinks.

I don't think that's true, only if you are biased. I think remain have performed better here undoubtedly. Well Ruth and sadiq have.

[Trader]

If you like John Oliver. Mildly amusing and mentions our instinct is to tell Europe to fck off

 

 

Nice balanced report there - I do hope he's paid loads of compensation for routinely taking the p*ss out of his own country.

[Batman]

Tim Farron is a bit of a berk

[CB Fry]

Being honest I think remain have won this debate. Will be interesting to see if it changes any minds this late on though.

I went in expecting Remain to get annihilated but actually Davison and Sadiq have been very good and leave have been weak. Think they should have freshened up the squad from the previous debate, take some lessons from our Roy.

 

Agree that Caroline Lucas has been underused. She always comes across well.

 

Can't imagine it will change many minds though.

[hypochondriac]

I went in expecting Remain to get annihilated but actually Davison and Sadiq have been very good and leave have been weak. Think they should have freshened up the squad from the previous debate, take some lessons from our Roy.

 

Agree that Caroline Lucas has been underused. She always comes across well.

 

Can't imagine it will change many minds though.

People say they are undecided but the reality is that the vast majority made their minds up ages ago. I can't imagine a debate at the eleventh hour will have changed much. I expect remain to win relatively comfortably as I have done since the referendum was first announced. I do hope that it's close enough that the EU dont see it as a mandate to do whatever they like.

[Batman]

Boris gets the biggest cheer at the end.

 

To be fair, can't believe anyone was undecided before watching that anyway.... Apart from maybe Tim

[hypochondriac]

Tim Farron is a bit of a berk

Indeed he is. Comes across as a bit manic and try hard. If we have learnt nothing from this campaign it's that we should be promoting the capable and engaging women in politics more. Almost all the blokes have been deeply unimpressive.

[Batman]

Indeed he is. Comes across as a bit manic and try hard. If we have learnt nothing from this campaign it's that we should be promoting the capable and engaging women in politics more. Almost all the blokes have been deeply unimpressive.

 

And see more of Katya Adler!!!!

[Goatboy]

People say they are undecided but the reality is that the vast majority made their minds up ages ago. I can't imagine a debate at the eleventh hour will have changed much. I expect remain to win relatively comfortably as I have done since the referendum was first announced. I do hope that it's close enough that the EU dont see it as a mandate to do whatever they like.

 

Good luck with that.

[CB Fry]

I'm quite happy that Katya Adler is going to be on the TV quite a lot over the next 72 hours. I made my mind up about her many weeks ago and am remaining.

[Batman]

I'm quite happy that Katya Adler is going to be on the TV quite a lot over the next 72 hours. I made my mind up about her many weeks ago and am remaining.

 

She is beautiful. What a fox

[shurlock]

Indeed he is. Comes across as a bit manic and try hard. If we have learnt nothing from this campaign it's that we should be promoting the capable and engaging women in politics more. Almost all the blokes have been deeply unimpressive.

 

 

At least, he tries to distance himself from the 'project fear' jibe and present a positive and upbeat case, even if it borders on the manic

[hypochondriac]

At least, he tries to distance himself from the 'project fear' jibe and present a positive and upbeat case, even if it borders on the manic

Caroline lucas accomplished that much better. Regardless, remain finally performed well.

[whelk]

Hey you guys there has been a good game of football and cricket on. What is happening to the men of this country!

[buctootim]

Im not sure I discussed it, but as you ask, I have a 'useless' degree from a 'new' 'university'. Not sure that qualifies me to weigh up the arguments for leaving or remaining, considering turning up would get you a 2:2

... but I also have 20+ years experience in building a successful multi-million pound business.

 

I'm not sure what I should rely on... that useless piece of paper or years of valuable experience. Maybe you could enlighten me???

 

Or maybe intelligence is not just defined by a piece of paper... maybe some people are fortunate enough to get one, whilst there are more intelligent people that aren't so lucky?

 

Why do intellectual lefties like to play the cum stained certificate card?

 

Of course there are many intelligent people without academic qualifications. No-one said otherwise. That table simply shows a correlation between voting intention and age / academic success. I'm sure giving everyone an IQ test would produce a higher correlation but its not really practical is it? I would have thought you'd be intelligent enough to recognise that.

[Lord Duckhunter]

See Cameron's buddy Sugar getting it from both sides after saying Giesla a German shouldn't tell Brits what to do . Doubt the bbc will mention it though , it's not like Farage said it .

[hypochondriac]

Hey you guys there has been a good game of football and cricket on. What is happening to the men of this country!

I had both on. Excellent goal by Croatia

[Wes Tender]

The most wounding thing for the Remain camp last night was the interview with the advisor to the Turkish President who was scathing towards Cameron and his duplicity over the prospects of Turkey joining the EU. Exposing the leader of the Remain campaign as a liar means that the electorate can place little trust in Dave's word. Also coming on top of the information that the British Embassy in Ankara has a pledge on behalf of the British Government stating that it wants Turkey to join the EU and there remains quite some credibility to the prospects of their membership in a much nearer time scale than Dave's ridiculous end of the Century.

 

On a side note, the remain side of the debate did well to ditch the three shrill harridans from their last effort and although the Union lady and Sadiq Khan were also shrill, it was a clever move to bring in Ruth Davidson, who performed very well and has done her chances of replacing Dodgy Dave as PM no end of good.

[Johnny Bognor]

Of course there are many intelligent people without academic qualifications. No-one said otherwise. That table simply shows a correlation between voting intention and age / academic success. I'm sure giving everyone an IQ test would produce a higher correlation but its not really practical is it? I would have thought you'd be intelligent enough to recognise that.

 

I'm intellegent enough to recognise that when the race card doesn't work, waving stained certificates around makes lefties feel better about themselves ;-)

[John B]

And their records are so impeccable that we have to believe them. All these organisations in the past have been disastrously wrong in all sorts of predictions and forecasts over the years.

 

 

Trade costs matter what about this is that wrong too

 

 

“New EU trade deal raises admin burden for UK exporters”. Cue gasps of outrage from Eurosceptics, but, if we leave the EU, this headline will be entirely of our own making. The EU could offer us the best trade deal on the planet and it would still increase the cost of regulation for UK exporters, reducing their ability to compete. As exporters are typically our most productive and most innovative firms, and more than 80% of them trade with the EU, this could be bad for our long-term prosperity.

The reasons for increased regulation are simple – the EU is structured precisely to keep the costs of crossing a border down. This means that taking away even one component of that structure raises the regulatory costs of trading with the EU. As highlighted below, examples of this are how EU structures deal with tariff evasion, as well as reducing regulatory costs through passporting.

Tariff evasion

Governments oppose tariff evasion, meaning any trade deal needs a mechanism to ensure it cannot happen. Under the EU’s common trade policy, the tariffs due on imports from third countries are the same throughout the EU. Therefore there are no opportunities for firms to avoid tariffs, so goods can move freely throughout the EU without the need for special documentation.

However, this is not the case for the movement of goods between the EU and countries with a trade deal allowing them preferential access to EU markets (such as Switzerland and Norway), because the existence of separate trade deals with third countries creates opportunities for tariff evasion. For example, if following a vote to leave the UK and EU introduced a free trade agreement, but the EU also had separate deals with third countries that did not have agreements with the UK, then exporters from those countries could ship their goods to the EU first (to take advantage of tariff free entry to the EU) and then from the EU across the border to the UK, so avoiding UK tariffs. This is not something the UK government would allow, and governments in the remainder of the EU would be similarly concerned.

For this reason all preferential trade agreements contain what are known as rule of origin regulations. These set out how companies must demonstrate that enough of the production of the goods they are shipping originated in their home market and are therefore eligible for the reduced tariffs.

Rule of origin regulations are complex and depend on the product. There are several different ways in which the rules can be specified and for some products more than one type of rule will apply. ‘Notice 828: tariff preferences – rule of origin for various counties’ sets out the rules for imports and exports covered by the trade agreements between the EU and Albania, Norway and Switzerland amongst others (including some parts of trade with Turkey). In other words, it covers the main alternatives to EU membership, at least if we do not want to pay tariffs.

Notice 828 runs to 140 pages and is extremely detailed. For example, if you are a bicycle manufacturer, whoever is responsible for administration will need to understand the manufacturing process, because the rules set out in Chapter 87 include a separate set of rules for bicycles without ball bearings, including what materials are allowed and the maximum share of non-originating materials.

Complying with rule of origin regulations is therefore costly, particularly as you may need to keep track not only of what you are doing, but also where inputs from all of your suppliers come from. Furthermore, as the EU is the biggest cross-border market for intermediate inputs in the world, costs could be increased at multiple stages in the value chain.

Estimates suggest that the rule of origin regulations for EU trade deals increase compliance costs by 8% and general administrative costs by 6.8%. The cost of these rules will be particularly high for small and medium sized firms, who typically lack the scale to justify sophisticated tracking systems, meaning some may conclude that it is simply easier pay any tariffs due, rather than fill out the paperwork. Either way the increased costs of trading will undermine the competitiveness of UK exporters and push up the cost of UK imports from the EU. As over 80% of UK exporters export to the EU, the impact on some of the UK’s most productive firms will be widespread. The CEPR has calculated that the increase in costs from having to apply rule of origin regulations to trade with the EU will reduce UK exports by 1.3% of GDP per annum.

Reducing regulatory costs through passporting

For exporters one of the big costs is the need to meet different standards and talk to different regulators. The EU aims to reduce these costs through the Single Market, by ensuring that standards are common. Common rules mean that governments do not need to worry about whether different standards create risks, including the risk of unfair competition. Therefore a firm regulated in one part of the EU can operate elsewhere under the same rules.

While the Single Market is not complete, many of the gaps reflect our preferences. For example, enabling a UK pension provider to sell the exact same product in both the UK and Germany would require the harmonisation of pension tax regimes across EU states, and this is something that politicians have preferred not to tackle. However, in other areas the Single Market has had a significant beneficial impact on how markets function. This is particularly true in sectors such as financial services, where passporting rights can allow firms to serve multiple EU markets while only dealing with one regulator.

The use of passporting is pervasive. Almost 50% of authorisation requests for firms’ activities received by the Prudential Regulation Authority between March 2014 and February 2015 related to passporting, roughly two-thirds of which were requests from UK financial services firms wanting to passport their services elsewhere in the Single Market.

Over 60% of firms operating in the UK’s general insurance market are headquartered in another European market and passport in under the EU Third Non-Life Directive and almost 50% of those operating in the UK’s life insurance market do the same under the EU Third Life Directive. If passporting did not exist, then these firms would have to decide whether they can still compete in the UK after the additional expense of dealing with two sets of regulators, the relevant UK regulator and their domestic regulator. The alternative will be for them to withdraw from the UK market, reducing competition and choice. The same will be true for UK firms currently operating in the rest of the EU under passporting rules.

Passporting rights are associated with the Single Market, and are possible because membership of the Single Market depends on applying an equivalent set of regulatory rules. If the UK did not want to be part of the Single Market after it left, these rights would not be available. Without passporting UK financial services firms would need to set up a separate entity, domiciled in the EU, to handle any EU business, with all the inefficiencies entailed in duplicating regulatory processes and increasing the costs of managing capital requirements. It is not hard to suspect that the UK’s withdrawal from the Single Market could bring significant disruption.

Summary

Historically the 11% of UK firms that export have been responsible for 60% of our productivity growth – hardly surprising as in general they are our most productive and most innovative firms. Unfortunately for our future prosperity, leaving the EU would increase costs for these firms, reducing their ability to compete. While a depreciation of sterling might help compensate for these cost increases, it will do so at the cost of rising import prices, with the associated fall in living standards, and a reduction in the value of our assets. Politicians may bemoan its structure, but the reasons that the EU is structured the way it is are precisely to keep the cost of crossing internal EU borders down. It is one case where the maxim “rules are there for a reason” holds true.

[John B]

The most wounding thing for the Remain camp last night was the interview with the advisor to the Turkish President who was scathing towards Cameron and his duplicity over the prospects of Turkey joining the EU. Exposing the leader of the Remain campaign as a liar means that the electorate can place little trust in Dave's word. Also coming on top of the information that the British Embassy in Ankara has a pledge on behalf of the British Government stating that it wants Turkey to join the EU and there remains quite some credibility to the prospects of their membership in a much nearer time scale than Dave's ridiculous end of the Century.

 

On a side note, the remain side of the debate did well to ditch the three shrill harridans from their last effort and although the Union lady and Sadiq Khan were also shrill, it was a clever move to bring in Ruth Davidson, who performed very well and has done her chances of replacing Dodgy Dave as PM no end of good.

 

How is Ruth going to be PM she not even an MP but I agree she seems pretty good but yes Cameron is usually a lying toad but on the EU he happens to be right.

 

Turkey about to join the EU is a complete lie they may well well do so later but not in our lifetime not only does the UK have the veto but other countries do too Both France and Austria will put the question of Turkish accession to a referendum, so Turkey it would need to get approval from the popular vote in each country. So it is not going to happen

[moonraker]

The most wounding thing for the Remain camp last night was the interview with the advisor to the Turkish President who was scathing towards Cameron and his duplicity over the prospects of Turkey joining the EU. Exposing the leader of the Remain campaign as a liar means that the electorate can place little trust in Dave's word. Also coming on top of the information that the British Embassy in Ankara has a pledge on behalf of the British Government stating that it wants Turkey to join the EU and there remains quite some credibility to the prospects of their membership in a much nearer time scale than Dave's ridiculous end of the Century.

 

On a side note, the remain side of the debate did well to ditch the three shrill harridans from their last effort and although the Union lady and Sadiq Khan were also shrill, it was a clever move to bring in Ruth Davidson, who performed very well and has done her chances of replacing Dodgy Dave as PM no end of good.

 

I am unable to find a pledge about Turkeys Membership what it does say is "The overall aim of the RE Programme is to support countries in the Western Balkans and Turkey on their path towards EU accession. The programme focuses, in particular, on stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities" note the conditions, even you must be able to admit that Turkey under its current leadership and direction are not going to meet any of these criteria any time soon. Additionally even without the EU angle, I fully support UK Diplomatic objectives that focus, on stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities, seems a very British set of things to aspire to.

Edited 22 June, 2016 by moonraker

[Wes Tender]

I am unable to find a pledge about Turkeys Membership what it does say is "The overall aim of the RE Programme is to support countries in the Western Balkans and Turkey on their path towards EU accession. The programme focuses, in particular, on stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities" note the conditions, even you must be able to admit that Turkey under its current leadership and direction are not going to meet any of these criteria any time soon. Additionally even without the EU angle, I fully support UK Diplomatic objectives that focus, on stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities, seems a very British set of things to aspire to.

 

So Dave ought to have told Turkey that unless those conditions were met, then they had no chance of joining the EU, shouldn't he? Then there wouldn't have been this ammunition to be used against him, that just preceding the announcement of the referendum, he was the leading apologist for Turkey and their membership of the EU. Add that to his statement that if we did not receive the reforms to the EU that we sought, that he would campaign to leave the EU and you have probably the most deceitful PM in recent political history. The electorate are entitled to think that if his credibility over matters like these is so untrustworthy, then why should they accept anything he says about what the implications are of our continued membership of the EU?

[Wes Tender]

How is Ruth going to be PM she not even an MP but I agree she seems pretty good but yes Cameron is usually a lying toad but on the EU he happens to be right.

 

Turkey about to join the EU is a complete lie they may well well do so later but not in our lifetime not only does the UK have the veto but other countries do too Both France and Austria will put the question of Turkish accession to a referendum, so Turkey it would need to get approval from the popular vote in each country. So it is not going to happen

 

In your opinion he happens to be right.

 

As a Conservative, I believe that regardless of the referendum vote, Dave is finished as the leader of the Party, ditto Osborne. A way will be found for Ruth Davidson to be a candidate for PM by the time of the next General Election and she will be a formidable opponent to her rivals.

 

I'm reticent to make forecasts about the time-scale of Turkey's possible acceptance into the EU, especially "in our lifetime" ones. Granted that depends on the age of the person stating that opinion, but the passage of events in other Countries which were thought to be basket cases when it came to democratic issues have proven that it is a mistake to rule out these things as highly unlikely to happen. I have already witnessed several of these events in my lifetime.

 

Regarding the veto issue, I wonder why we didn't use it as a powerful weapon in the case of any of the other recent countries who joined, in order to gain the reforms to the EU that we wanted.

[buctootim]

In your opinion he happens to be right.

 

As a Conservative, I believe that regardless of the referendum vote, Dave is finished as the leader of the Party, ditto Osborne. A way will be found for Ruth Davidson to be a candidate for PM by the time of the next General Election and she will be a formidable opponent to her rivals.

 

I'm reticent to make forecasts about the time-scale of Turkey's possible acceptance into the EU, especially "in our lifetime" ones. Granted that depends on the age of the person stating that opinion, but the passage of events in other Countries which were thought to be basket cases when it came to democratic issues have proven that it is a mistake to rule out these things as highly unlikely to happen. I have already witnessed several of these events in my lifetime.

 

Regarding the veto issue, I wonder why we didn't use it as a powerful weapon in the case of any of the other recent countries who joined, in order to gain the reforms to the EU that we wanted.

 

Cameron and Osborne are lying toads? You voted for these toads a year ago. Another example of your stellar reasoning and judgement.

[moonraker]

So Dave ought to have told Turkey that unless those conditions were met, then they had no chance of joining the EU, shouldn't he? Then there wouldn't have been this ammunition to be used against him, that just preceding the announcement of the referendum, he was the leading apologist for Turkey and their membership of the EU. Add that to his statement that if we did not receive the reforms to the EU that we sought, that he would campaign to leave the EU and you have probably the most deceitful PM in recent political history. The electorate are entitled to think that if his credibility over matters like these is so untrustworthy, then why should they accept anything he says about what the implications are of our continued membership of the EU?

 

Some truth in what you say, however what Dave does or does not say is irrelevant to the real issue of Turkeys 'impending' membership of the EU. As you brexiters are so keen to continually point out neither Dave or our Parliament have the final say in EU matters. The fact remains that the Turkey issue is another load of bunkum from remain, where does that leave their credibility? I am still searching for the oft quoted statement, can you help? Finally this is not a referendum on David Cameron or any other slimy politician it is a vote on the future of the UK and the wider Europe and put simply you are happy to take a leap of faith and massive risk I am not. If we stay we can have another referendum if Brexit’s forecast of a USE and EU Army come to pass and I am sure if that were the case we would leave, if we leave now that’s it.

[Wes Tender]

Cameron and Osborne are lying toads? You voted for these toads a year ago. Another example of your stellar reasoning and judgement.

 

On the contrary, your post is a classic example of your stellar reasoning. I didn't vote for them; I voted for the Conservative Party. Do you honestly naively believe that everybody who votes for a particular party wholeheartedly endorses the leader of that party?

[shurlock]

In your opinion he happens to be right.

 

As a Conservative, I believe that regardless of the referendum vote, Dave is finished as the leader of the Party, ditto Osborne. A way will be found for Ruth Davidson to be a candidate for PM by the time of the next General Election and she will be a formidable opponent to her rivals.

 

I'm reticent to make forecasts about the time-scale of Turkey's possible acceptance into the EU, especially "in our lifetime" ones. Granted that depends on the age of the person stating that opinion, but the passage of events in other Countries which were thought to be basket cases when it came to democratic issues have proven that it is a mistake to rule out these things as highly unlikely to happen. I have already witnessed several of these events in my lifetime.

 

Regarding the veto issue, I wonder why we didn't use it as a powerful weapon in the case of any of the other recent countries who joined, in order to gain the reforms to the EU that we wanted.

 

A quick reality check for you pal. It ain't going to happen in your lifetime.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/22/vote-leave-turkey-warning-ignorance-european-realities

[buctootim]

On the contrary, your post is a classic example of your stellar reasoning. I didn't vote for them; I voted for the Conservative Party. Do you honestly naively believe that everybody who votes for a particular party wholeheartedly endorses the leader of that party?

 

You voted for a party despite not wanting either Cameron for PM or Osborne for Chancellor? Wow even more bizarre than I'd given you credit for.

[Johnny Bognor]

Cameron and Osborne are lying toads? You voted for these toads a year ago.

 

That jibe only works if you vote for personalities in an x-factor style election. By your definition, those who voted for Milliband didn't exactly display stellar reasoning and judgement. Whatever did happen to him anyway?

 

Anyway, who are you voting for in the referendum? Cameron or Johnson?

[moonraker]

You voted for a party despite not wanting either Cameron for PM or Osborne for Chancellor? Wow even more bizarre than I'd given you credit for.

 

I get the impression that our fellow message board contributor just does not quite get how these things work. He has shown a tenacious capability to continually lecture on serious matters without actually hinting at any understanding or grasp of facts. This despite apparently being of an age where at least some wisdom might have been accrued. Claiming that voting for a party is disconnected from voting for its leader is a clear indication of one who is somewhat disconnected from reality.

[Wes Tender]

Some truth in what you say, however what Dave does or does not say is irrelevant to the real issue of Turkeys 'impending' membership of the EU. As you brexiters are so keen to continually point out neither Dave or our Parliament have the final say in EU matters. The fact remains that the Turkey issue is another load of bunkum from remain, where does that leave their credibility? I am still searching for the oft quoted statement, can you help? Finally this is not a referendum on David Cameron or any other slimy politician it is a vote on the future of the UK and the wider Europe and put simply you are happy to take a leap of faith and massive risk I am not. If we stay we can have another referendum if Brexit’s forecast of a USE and EU Army come to pass and I am sure if that were the case we would leave, if we leave now that’s it.

 

I'm glad that you insist that what Dave, our Prime Minister says is irrelevant to Turkey's application to join the EU, as by implication he is not to be trusted by the electorate in both this referendum, or indeed in the running of the Country, which as a Conservative voter is deeply disappointing to me. Naturally, the issue of Turkey's future membership would not have arisen had Dave not championed it, so quite why it is the credibility of the Brexit campaign that is in question is beyond me. It is for the electorate to decide, but they might well conclude that Dave has not come out of that particular episode smelling of roses and that might affect their referendum decision.

 

Which oft quoted statement are you referring to?

 

Yes, I remain optimistic that our departure from the EU will be beneficial to us in the medium to longer term and happy to take that chance based on all of the factors, not just the economic arguments. Those are mitigated by the reasoning that we will continue to trade with the EU like most other countries do, without having to accept the free movement of peoples and that it is mutually advantageous not to have a tariff war. I am confident that this course of action will be the one most beneficial for our children and grandchildren.

 

I admire your optimism that we could call another referendum if the onward march of the EU is further towards a USE and an EU Army, but for some reason the counter position of reapplying if we left is not an option. It has taken us decades to get a referendum on our continued membership, despite several treaty changes to our original deal, so how long would it take to call another one? In any event, didn't Dave gain an agreement that we would not be a part of any further EU integration? No, I don't trust that claim either.

[buctootim]

That jibe only works if you vote for personalities in an x-factor style election. By your definition, those who voted for Milliband didn't exactly display stellar reasoning and judgement. Whatever did happen to him anyway?

 

Anyway, who are you voting for in the referendum? Cameron or Johnson?

 

No it works if the leaders of the winning party will end up as ministers. And guess what? They do!

 

The fact that you are jibing at Miliband as the failed leader who couldnt get Labour elected contradicts your earlier point that people vote for the party not the leader. Which is it Johnny? you seem a little vague.

[Johnny Bognor]

No it works if the leaders of the winning party will end up as ministers. And guess what? They do!

 

There's me thinking that people vote for policy or vote along tribal lines. But maybe there is something in it, as plenty of lefties will struggle to vote for Jeremy.

 

Anyway, stop avoiding the question. Are you voting for Cameron or Johnson tomorrow???

 

 

The fact that you are jibing at Miliband as the failed leader who couldnt get Labour elected contradicts your earlier point that people vote for the party not the leader. Which is it Johnny? you seem a little vague.

 

It seems academic achievement doesn't correlate to having a sense or humour or understanding sarcasm ;-)

Edited 22 June, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[John B]

In your opinion he happens to be right.

 

As a Conservative, I believe that regardless of the referendum vote, Dave is finished as the leader of the Party, ditto Osborne. A way will be found for Ruth Davidson to be a candidate for PM by the time of the next General Election and she will be a formidable opponent to her rivals.

 

I'm reticent to make forecasts about the time-scale of Turkey's possible acceptance into the EU, especially "in our lifetime" ones. Granted that depends on the age of the person stating that opinion, but the passage of events in other Countries which were thought to be basket cases when it came to democratic issues have proven that it is a mistake to rule out these things as highly unlikely to happen. I have already witnessed several of these events in my lifetime.

 

Regarding the veto issue, I wonder why we didn't use it as a powerful weapon in the case of any of the other recent countries who joined, in order to gain the reforms to the EU that we wanted.

 

It is also the opinion of many

 

This from my favorite Economist

 

The waves of economists, businessmen, scientists, university leaders, doctors, historians and more shouting loud that Brexit would be harmful has been incredibly impressive. It reflects the fact that this is not a debate with decent arguments on both sides, but a pretty open and shut case. But I think it reflects as well the nature of the pro-Brexit campaign.

 

Not just that Leave have lied openly and repeatedly. Not just that they have used lies to provoke fear (Turkey). It is that they are trying to deflect the blame for failing to adequately fund public services on to migrants who are just looking for a better life. And it is working. More people feel they have personally benefited from migration than otherwise, but most people also ‘know’ that migration has been bad for the NHS. Such incorrect beliefs appear immune to expert opinion because large parts of the media shut that opinion out, and ideologues deride experts.

 

Of course these lies play on basic fears about unfamiliar people. But the way our society used to respond to this in the past was by uniting behind truth and humanity, and through patient explanation. If some politicians tried to fan fears of migration by, for example, talking about rivers of blood they were quickly slammed down by the majority, and it has to be said also by the media. And our society was better for it.

 

Today those politicians talking about a breaking point in front of pictures of refugees are given large amounts of air time by the broadcast media. Those pretending we are about to be swamped by Turkish migrants are cheered on by nearly all of the tabloid press. Populist politicians are about to lead once proud centre right parties on both sides of the Atlantic. And one brave Yorkshire politician that argued against all this was shot dead in the street.

 

We cannot continue to let this pass. It will not stop with Brexit. When Brexit fails to improve our public services or our economy there will be other scapegoats. Maybe migrants already here, or nasty foreigners who failed to give the beneficial trade deals the Leave campaign pretend we will get.

[buctootim]

There's me thinking that people vote for policy or vote along tribal lines. So are you voting for Cameron or Johnson tomorrow???

 

 

 

It seems academic achievement doesn't correlate to having a sense or humour or understanding sarcasm ;-)

 

Joshing aside there is a correlation between the referendum result and who will be PM. If Remain loses Cameron will have to resign and Boris's chances of getting the job will skyrocket - but Boris as leader will cost them the next election imo - hes peed off too many voters in this divisive campaign. If Remain win Boris is in deep do doo career wise imo.

[buctootim]

...

Edited 22 June, 2016 by buctootim
duplicate

[moonraker]

I'm glad that you insist that what Dave, our Prime Minister says is irrelevant to Turkey's application to join the EU, as by implication he is not to be trusted by the electorate in both this referendum, or indeed in the running of the Country, which as a Conservative voter is deeply disappointing to me. Naturally, the issue of Turkey's future membership would not have arisen had Dave not championed it, so quite why it is the credibility of the Brexit campaign that is in question is beyond me. It is for the electorate to decide, but they might well conclude that Dave has not come out of that particular episode smelling of roses and that might affect their referendum decision.

 

Which oft quoted statement are you referring to?

 

Yes, I remain optimistic that our departure from the EU will be beneficial to us in the medium to longer term and happy to take that chance based on all of the factors, not just the economic arguments. Those are mitigated by the reasoning that we will continue to trade with the EU like most other countries do, without having to accept the free movement of peoples and that it is mutually advantageous not to have a tariff war. I am confident that this course of action will be the one most beneficial for our children and grandchildren.

 

I admire your optimism that we could call another referendum if the onward march of the EU is further towards a USE and an EU Army, but for some reason the counter position of reapplying if we left is not an option. It has taken us decades to get a referendum on our continued membership, despite several treaty changes to our original deal, so how long would it take to call another one? In any event, didn't Dave gain an agreement that we would not be a part of any further EU integration? No, I don't trust that claim either.

I am not sure why I continue to engage with your good self; however I do enjoy a debate especially when it is so easy to counter the opposite view.

No politician is to be trusted; this principle was established by the Greeks at the birth of democracy. The issue of Turkeys membership has been a long standing part of the leave camps strategy. To claim it is only relevant because DC has championed it to the same level as leave has challenged it is disingenuous.

The statement I am referring to is the claim by Brexit that the UK Turkish Embassy Website carries a pledge to work towards EU membership, I have been unable to find such a pledge, and I assumed as you have claimed it exists, you would know where to find it.

I like optimism however in this case optimism will not help, you casually dismiss every warning form every quarter that leaving will have a detrimental impact on the UK as scaremongering and idle threats, yet lap up the lies and deceit of leave claims. Did you read the Guardian article linked above, it states the facts about trading with the EU if you are not in the EU, and it is not as straightforward as your optimism imagines.

My ‘optimism’ on a future referendum is actually more than that, if this referendum has taught us anything it is that the majority of UK citizens want a reformed EU as a minimum. The easily dismissed outcome of DC’s renegotiations are another area where leavers are not being honest, your are right he did not get everything he wanted, that never happens in international negotiations, but to say he got nothing is fatuous. One final question do you actually research and personally develop any of the claims and arguments you make or are they just parroted repetitions of the swaggering right wing press and he swivel eyed loons who inhabit the world of leave.

Edited 22 June, 2016 by moonraker

[Wes Tender]

I get the impression that our fellow message board contributor just does not quite get how these things work. He has shown a tenacious capability to continually lecture on serious matters without actually hinting at any understanding or grasp of facts. This despite apparently being of an age where at least some wisdom might have been accrued. Claiming that voting for a party is disconnected from voting for its leader is a clear indication of one who is somewhat disconnected from reality.

 

Ah, here we are, the arrogance surfaces from yet another of the intellectual elite who people the remain camp. I have been a voter since 1 was 18, yet despite having voted in 12 General Elections, I don't seem to have grasped the simple fact that once elected, a Government will comprise the Prime Minister who was the leader of the party before the election and their choice of ministers, often comprising those who were shadow ministers or the party spokesmen on those issues.

 

It is you and Timmy who are disconnected from reality if you seriously believe that most of the electorate will not vote for the traditional parties they have usually supported, just because they don't like the personalities who will take one or more of the leading posts in the Government.

 

Regarding my dislike for Cameron and Osborne, the possibility that I might not have disliked them at the time of the GE seems to have eluded you. It is only during this referendum campaign that this dislike has surfaced, but as I say, the chances of them being candidates for leadership of the party at the next GE are very remote.

[Johnny Bognor]

Joshing aside there is a correlation between the referendum result and who will be PM. If Remain loses Cameron will have to resign and Boris's chances of getting the job will skyrocket - but Boris as leader will cost them the next election imo - hes peed off too many voters in this divisive campaign. If Remain win Boris is in deep do doo career wise imo.

 

i think whatever happens, both Cameron and Osbourne are damaged beyond repair. Boris could do ok out of Brexit but a remain win makes him an ideal replacement for Portillo on the politics show

 

The referendum has been very damaging for the tories, whilst Labour have got through relatively unscathed, despte the fact that the man of principles ditched some principles for the good of the party... quite a shrewd move

Edited 22 June, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

i think whatever happens, both Cameron and Osbourne are damaged beyond repair. Boris could do ok out of Brexit but a remain win makes him an ideal replacement for Portillo on the politics show

 

Agree with that. Cameron has already said he will resign before the next election. If remain win he will get to stay on as PM a bit longer and have a hand in choosing his successor, if they lose he will gone the next day. Corbyn will go too before the next election - and like the Tories with Ruth Davidson, they have some good young MPs who could make the step up.

[moonraker]

Ah, here we are, the arrogance surfaces from yet another of the intellectual elite who people the remain camp. I have been a voter since 1 was 18, yet despite having voted in 12 General Elections, I don't seem to have grasped the simple fact that once elected, a Government will comprise the Prime Minister who was the leader of the party before the election and their choice of ministers, often comprising those who were shadow ministers or the party spokesmen on those issues.

 

It is you and Timmy who are disconnected from reality if you seriously believe that most of the electorate will not vote for the traditional parties they have usually supported, just because they don't like the personalities who will take one or more of the leading posts in the Government.

 

Regarding my dislike for Cameron and Osborne, the possibility that I might not have disliked them at the time of the GE seems to have eluded you. It is only during this referendum campaign that this dislike has surfaced, but as I say, the chances of them being candidates for leadership of the party at the next GE are very remote.

 

No arrrogance merely observations and interpretion based on your posts

[moonraker]

Ah, here we are, the arrogance surfaces from yet another of the intellectual elite who people the remain camp. I have been a voter since 1 was 18, yet despite having voted in 12 General Elections, I don't seem to have grasped the simple fact that once elected, a Government will comprise the Prime Minister who was the leader of the party before the election and their choice of ministers, often comprising those who were shadow ministers or the party spokesmen on those issues.

 

It is you and Timmy who are disconnected from reality if you seriously believe that most of the electorate will not vote for the traditional parties they have usually supported, just because they don't like the personalities who will take one or more of the leading posts in the Government.

 

Regarding my dislike for Cameron and Osborne, the possibility that I might not have disliked them at the time of the GE seems to have eluded you. It is only during this referendum campaign that this dislike has surfaced, but as I say, the chances of them being candidates for leadership of the party at the next GE are very remote.

 

No arrrogance merely observations and interpretion based on your posts

[Lord Duckhunter]

Agree with that. Cameron has already said he will resign before the next election

 

So the guy running round shouting "Brits don't quit" , is quitting ?

[Whitey Grandad]

So the guy running round shouting "Brits don't quit" , is quitting ?

 

I think he said that he would not seek a third term, which is not quite the same as quitting.

[Whitey Grandad]

And you call other people dumb & ignorant ?

 

I was getting bored of generally agreeing with you anyway.

 

Dear god.

 

I can tell by your replies that you might need some more time to consider this unfashionable suggestion I wonder where the country would be now if we had adopted the € at the right time and rate? Everybody is entitled to their whim. Just think of this as my 'Dalek' obsession.

 

Nice to hear from you again CB and just for old times' sake, shouldn't it be a capital G on God?

[buctootim]

So the guy running round shouting "Brits don't quit" , is quitting ?

 

He wont be given the option to change his mind, thats for sure.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Drunken Juncker pops Jezza and others " let's stay and reform from inside" balloon by announcing there is no more reform

 

"British voters have to know there will be no kind of any negotiation. We have concluded a deal with the prime minister. He got the maximum he could receive, and we gave the maximum we could give, so there will be no kind of renegotiation."

 

Dave said yesterday " vote in Thursday and my renegotiation continues Fri" . lol , no it doesn't Dave

 

Great intervention the day before polling , perhaps deep down he wants us to leave .

Edited 22 June, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[buctootim]

Drunken Juncker pops Jezza and others " let's stay and reform from inside" balloon by announcing there is no more reform

 

"British voters have to know there will be no kind of any negotiation. We have concluded a deal with the prime minister. He got the maximum he could receive, and we gave the maximum we could give, so there will be no kind of renegotiation."

 

Dave said yesterday " vote in Thursday and my renegotiation continues Fri" . lol , no it doesn't Dave

 

Great intervention the day before polling , perhaps deep down he wants us to leave .

 

Juncker probably does want us to leave, he sees us an obstcle to federal Europe, but he's out of date. The mood across Europe has changed and it isnt going to happen.

[van Hanegem]

A good point, one which to my knowledge hasn't come up here. I think relatively few people in Britain have ever bought into the post war ideal of a Europe so tightly intertwined that another war was impossible - generally we've always seen it as club with benefits. There are probably many reasons for that - an island mentality and no land borders; stronger ties with ex colonies because of shared language / media / history; being on the geographic periphery of Europe but also a sense of isolationism and pulling up the drawbridge.

 

The main problem though is the EU project has tried to be both wide and deep in too short a period of time. A smaller group of culturally and economically similar countries might have been able to do it - but 28 countries from Finland to Croatia in full union in only 50 years?

 

Thanks for your reply Bucktootim, I guess most British citizens have the same dislike about the rapid growth of the EU as the Dutch, Belgians, Germans, French etc. have. Problem is that these citizens don't have a say in the way the EU is expanding other than to vote in their general elections and we all know this doesn't make any difference as politicians go their own way in this matter so now we're "connected" to parts from eastern Europe the majority of western Europeans can't relate to. Ukraine, the most corrupted country on the continent is next and eventually Turkey will follow when Erdogan or his successor plays it smart. Imo it's not possible to stop this process from within the EU, in order to stop guys like Verhofstad c.s. there must be a breakaway from key members from the EU. The British now have the ultimate opportunity to do so although I've heard some Dutch europhiles say that the Brits can sod off as the EU train can't be stopped... On the other hand it is tempting to bring down the nation states and progress into one European order in which it doesn't make a difference from which country you're from. It will take some sacrifices as the wealth from the west must be shared with the poor countries but eventually the whole of Europe will be a better place though it will take some generations to get there. Are you willing to sacrifice things like NHS, state pensions etc. for Europe to be a better place for each citizen in the future?