Immigration now just one point behind the economy as most important issue facing UK

[-:Undertaker:-]

From The Sun's Political Editor tonight -


Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 3m

YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Immigration now just 1 point behind the economy as the most important issue facing the country - 60% v 61%...


Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 3m

...only a matter of time before immigration comes top as the economy improves. MPs from all parties take note.

Backs up other poll results over the past few months too, the trend is that concern over the economy is decreasing and concern over uncontrolled immigration is increasing. From UKPollingReport (Ipsos MORI) a few weeks ago -


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/images/2013roundup4.gif

The big political problem here of course is how the the main parties, especially the Conservatives, respond? The old retort they used to use over immigration concerns that anybody who said we shouldn't have uncontrolled borders is a waycist doesn't work anymore. And they can't actually cut immigration realistically without first abandoning the EU's principle of free movement - and if they do that then we head for the exit door.

It's all linking perfectly together if you ask me - people are now beginning to realise that both the economy and immigration are linked... now we just need to show how both of those are linked to our EU membership and campaign for an amicable divorce from the EU. Not to mention the fact that immigration is linked very closely with concerns over schools, hospitals, housing, services, unemployment etc...

Interesting development anyway considering how the economy has been the number one concern since 2008 and maybe even before.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

I wonder how many of the Sun readers that polled actually know anything about any of those topics

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wonder how many of the Sun readers that polled actually know anything about any of those topics

I am sure I have told you this before, but here it goes again - when a poll says YouGov/The Sun or Survation/The Guardian it doesn't mean that the poll was exclusively of Sun or Guardian readers. All the Pollster/Newspaper thing means is who carried out the poll and who commissioned the poll. The poll itself is free of newspaper bias and is as scientific as any other poll carried out.

So this isn't a poll of Sun readers just as an Observer/Survation poll isn't a poll of Observer readers.

[FlyingJesus]

Ok then, I wonder how many random people who sit at home all day waiting to do telephone surveys know anything about any of those topics

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ok then, I wonder how many random people who sit at home all day waiting to do telephone surveys know anything about any of those topics

YouGov rarely do telephone polls.

They are online, YouGov have a database (according to Mike Smithson) of around 300,000 - and the polls are weighted to prevent any one party or cause from dominanting the surveys as was the case in the 1992 General Election when pollsters were surprised by the large 'shy Tory vote' which won Major a majority. They're very accurate.

Telephone polls, when they are carried out, are weighted aswell for the reason that if a pollster phones on a weekday between 9 and 5, older people and mothers will be overrepresented - similarly if they polled at 6 in the evening it'd be likely that a father would pick up whereas single, younger couples may have gone out to dinner - something that would distort the results. That's why weighting is used to reflect actual turnout.

I'll give you (sometimes) that polls are biased. For example, if the Daily Mirror commissions a set of polling questions on say.... the NHS and then asked which party people were voting for: that would inflate the Labour vote because Labour is seen as the party of the NHS and the questions would lead people towards Labour. The same can be said for a Daily Mail poll with a set of questions on immigration or the EU prior to asking voting intentions: that historically led to a higher Tory share of the poll but nowadays leads to a higher UKIP share. All of this is rare though and online analysts will point it out.

[Yawn]

how would u rank those issues in importance undertaker

[-:Undertaker:-]

how would u rank those issues in importance undertaker

EU followed by immigration, followed by economy, followed by inflation, followed by crime.... and the rest.

EU is the most important political issue because it's at the heart of everything: who governs Britain?

[Yawn]

EU followed by immigration, followed by economy, followed by inflation, followed by crime.... and the rest.

EU is the most important political issue because it's at the heart of everything: who governs Britain?

wat happens if we r no longer a part of the EU and u fancy going to disneyland paris we can get there so fast

[FlyingJesus]

Polls are always poor representations for the simple fact that people only take part if they want to, and someone who thinks having an Indian family live across the road from them is an invasion of Britain is clearly going to be more likely to complain than someone who's fairly satisfied with how things are. I can't see what type of polling was done here because there's no source link or anything but the last one you posted was a telephone interview that hand-picked their participants

[Inseriousity.]

I've took part in a survey for the National Office of Statistics or w/e they're called. In fact, I believe that it was the Happiness Index that David Cameron was mocked about. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068602/David-Camerons-happiness-survey--2m-Britons-fairly-happy.html
As for how much you know about the subject, clearly that's irrelevant as the whole point of polls is to find out public opinion even if that opinion is misguided or statistics do not back it up.

I mean sure we have to be wary of them and aware of their failings. I do not think it's a coincidence that the minute The Sun starts a campaign to make immigration their 'red line' issue, there's a poll that suggests public opinion is the same. I don't think the issues are as close as this poll suggests but I'd say it was in the public's top 5.

[-:Undertaker:-]

wat happens if we r no longer a part of the EU and u fancy going to disneyland paris we can get there so fast

We can. Just as you can get to Switzerland or Turkey very fast.


Polls are always poor representations for the simple fact that people only take part if they want to, and someone who thinks having an Indian family live across the road from them is an invasion of Britain is clearly going to be more likely to complain than someone who's fairly satisfied with how things are. I can't see what type of polling was done here because there's no source link or anything but the last one you posted was a telephone interview that hand-picked their participants

They are not poor representations, this is what people who don't like poll results or who don't understand polling always say. Polls with a sample of 1,000+ have an error margin of something like 3%, they're remarkably accurate hence why so much money is spent on the betting markets with them and hence why political parties, focus groups and newspaper commission polls - they paint a picture of public feeling.

Immigration has steadily been rising as an issue for the public for some time, whether you like it or not.


I've took part in a survey for the National Office of Statistics or w/e they're called. In fact, I believe that it was the Happiness Index that David Cameron was mocked about. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068602/David-Camerons-happiness-survey--2m-Britons-fairly-happy.html
As for how much you know about the subject, clearly that's irrelevant as the whole point of polls is to find out public opinion even if that opinion is misguided or statistics do not back it up.

I mean sure we have to be wary of them and aware of their failings. I do not think it's a coincidence that the minute The Sun starts a campaign to make immigration their 'red line' issue, there's a poll that suggests public opinion is the same. I don't think the issues are as close as this poll suggests but I'd say it was in the public's top 5.

Well that's because The Sun are publicising a part of their poll which is relevant to their campaign. The poll in question known as the YouGov tracker is a poll that is taken throughout the year, it is not a one off dodgy poll that The Sun has commissioned in order to support it's campaign. You'd be right in saying that The Sun is publicising the poll results more - as whenever unfavourable poll results are found you'll often find them in the back pages rather than on the front cover.

Political parties are reacting to this real shift in public opinion. Just look at the news.

[Inseriousity.]

My apologies then, it does say in the first tweet YouGov/Sun poll though

[Chippiewill]

News outlets are portraying immigration as the most serious issue and a survey identifies that people think immigration is the second most serious issue? SHOCK AND AWE.

All this shows is people are sheep and believe everything they read.

[-:Undertaker:-]

News outlets are portraying immigration as the most serious issue and a survey identifies that people think immigration is the second most serious issue? SHOCK AND AWE.

All this shows is people are sheep and believe everything they read.

That's strange because for the past decade people have wanted to talk about immigration having never been consulted on it yet everytime they raised ANY type of concern over uncontrolled borders they were labelled as racist, bigot etc hence why politicians were so afraid to talk about it too. Now the minute the media and political classes start responding to people's concerns, it's all a media inspired scare.

Well now it's payback time and the public are going to demand action on the issue.

[Ardemax]

EU followed by immigration, followed by economy, followed by inflation, followed by crime.... and the rest.

EU is the most important political issue because it's at the heart of everything: who governs Britain?

So EU > Unemployment and lack of jobs?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So EU > Unemployment and lack of jobs?

In terms of regulation, yeah absolutely. But also EU > mass immigration > unemployment.

[Ardemax]

In terms of regulation, yeah absolutely. But also EU > mass immigration > unemployment.

Let me just get this correct: you believe that the EU and 'mass' immigration are bigger issues than the current state of unemployment?

[Adam]

I propose we trade for the useless waste of ******* air that star in Benefits Street.

I'd much rather have 100,000 Bulgarians than 100,000 dole dossing *****.

[FlyingJesus]

Polls with a sample of 1,000+ have an error margin of something like 3%

How on earth can you possibly know that unless you also poll 100% of the people to see what they think? That's just a nonsense figure pulled from nowhere

[Chippiewill]

How on earth can you possibly know that unless you also poll 100% of the people to see what they think? That's just a nonsense figure pulled from nowhere

Agreed. You can only determine that if you have a statistical test to base it against or just check everything.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Let me just get this correct: you believe that the EU and 'mass' immigration are bigger issues than the current state of unemployment?

The question of who governs Britain is above all else, absolutely. Whether or not we are an independent nation whose parliament is sovereign and who's constitution is respected along with the ability of Britons to remove an unpopular government of whom they disapprove is a matter of national pride and it's what millions have died for over the centuries.

Not to mention the fact that it's a knock on effect with so much - the over regulation that comes from Brussels prevents us from gaining economic growth, it prevents us from closing the borders which consquently then knocks on to youth unemployment and so on and so forth.


How on earth can you possibly know that unless you also poll 100% of the people to see what they think? That's just a nonsense figure pulled from nowhere


Agreed. You can only determine that if you have a statistical test to base it against or just check everything.

The weighting is based on past election turnout, that's how the scientific adjustments are made to any polling. But look, you can both dismiss polling all you want simply because you don't like some of the answers it provides us with - but pollsters predict very accurately election results with the exception of 1992.

There are debates sometimes within polling companies over what adjustments are needed, but these are very rare. A recent one that's opened up a divide between the likes of ICM/YouGov/IpsosMORI and Survation & Opinium has been whether to prompt UKIP and whether to weight their vote down based on 2010 results. We won't know ultimately which method is most accurate until Election day 2015 although local and by-election results suggest Survation and Opinium are on the money.

[FlyingJesus]

Oh I forgot that on election days we give detailed reports on what we believe to be the biggest issues in the country

[Ardemax]

The question of who governs Britain is above all else, absolutely. Whether or not we are an independent nation whose parliament is sovereign and who's constitution is respected along with the ability of Britons to remove an unpopular government of whom they disapprove is a matter of national pride and it's what millions have died for over the centuries.

Not to mention the fact that it's a knock on effect with so much - the over regulation that comes from Brussels prevents us from gaining economic growth, it prevents us from closing the borders which consquently then knocks on to youth unemployment and so on and so forth.

Ah yes... the EU is the cause of our high youth unemployment rates. The same EU which Germany is apart of (which experiences a 7.5% youth unemployment rate compared with the UK's 20.5%).

Do you believe we are incapable of cutting youth unemployment without leaving the EU? What 'magic' will leaving the EU do in creating jobs for young people?

[The Don]

Ah yes... the EU is the cause of our high youth unemployment rates. The same EU which Germany is apart of (which experiences a 7.5% youth unemployment rate compared with the UK's 20.5%).

Do you believe we are incapable of cutting youth unemployment without leaving the EU? What 'magic' will leaving the EU do in creating jobs for young people?

If anything it will be worse since we won't have guaranteed free trade within the huge eu market which will make business owners think twice about investing here and could force others to relocate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ah yes... the EU is the cause of our high youth unemployment rates. The same EU which Germany is apart of (which experiences a 7.5% youth unemployment rate compared with the UK's 20.5%).

You are trying to get me to say that the EU is the cause of ALL our problems and that by leaving it we'll turn into a utopia over night. I have never claimed this. What I have said is that it's important that we control our own destiny and that leaving the EU is only the start of solving many of our problems.

In terms of youth unemployment, see my answer below for example.


Do you believe we are incapable of cutting youth unemployment without leaving the EU? What 'magic' will leaving the EU do in creating jobs for young people?

Yes I do believe it's possible to lower youth unemployment without leaving the EU which is why i've argued for the abolition of the minimum wage on these boards before. There are many things that the government could do to solve these problems such as tax-free trade zones in areas with chronic unemployment yet they lack the guts to do anything radical like Thatcher did.


If anything it will be worse since we won't have guaranteed free trade within the huge eu market which will make business owners think twice about investing here and could force others to relocate.

Oh yes those same companies making threats that made exactly the same threats about relocating as they did when we came very close to joining the Euro. :rolleyes: They and the politicians take you for a fool.

As for free trade, erm yes we would. Are you even aware of what the EU withdrawal process would look like?

[The Don]

As for free trade, erm yes we would.

Could you please cite that? As i can't find anything which says the uk would be guaranteed free trade with the EU other than speculation and conjecture. This Article from the bbc seems to suggest otherwise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21615868

[-:Undertaker:-]

Could you please cite that? As i can't find anything which says the uk would be guaranteed free trade with the EU other than speculation and conjecture. This Article from the bbc seems to suggest otherwise.

Because the United Kingdom is one of the biggest trading partners with the EU along with being the world's sixth or seventh biggest economy. We're also home to the world's number one financial centre. If the EU will sign FTA's with Mexico, Chile and Alabania then it'll sign one with us. Indeed we are in a very strong position and our position is only going to grow stronger (http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-sells-more-outside-eu-inside-first-time-1970s) - a FTA with the EU will be largely favourable to our terms.

In terms of how this would come about prior to an exit, the mechanism of article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty allows for a period of two years negotiation over deals/diplomacy in which all issues would be sorted.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21615868

OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH the BBC interviewing the EU Trade Commissioner, such a balanced source of news. Well it must be true if the Beeb and EU Commission says so. Or have you quoted the wrong link?

Edit - they seem to be just discussing treaty change which (correct me if i'm wrong) you appear to have confused with treaties being made after Britain has left the EU. They're two entirely different scenarios/issues.

[The Don]

Because the United Kingdom is one of the biggest trading partners with the EU along with being the world's sixth or seventh biggest economy. We're also home to the world's number one financial centre. If the EU will sign FTA's with Mexico, Chile and Alabania then it'll sign one with us. Indeed we are in a very strong position and our position is only going to grow stronger (http://www.cityam.com/article/uk-sells-more-outside-eu-inside-first-time-1970s) - a FTA with the EU will be largely favourable to our terms.

In terms of how this would come about prior to an exit, the mechanism of article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty allows for a period of two years negotiation over deals/diplomacy in which all issues would be sorted.



OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH the BBC interviewing the EU Trade Commissioner, such a balanced source of news. Well it must be true if the Beeb and EU Commission says so.

Bit rich since the only source for yours in pure conjecture based on false comparisons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Bit rich since the only source for yours in pure conjecture based on false comparisons.

Debunk what I have said then.

Are you seriously saying the EU would turn down a FTA with the UK and erect tariff barriers?

[The Don]

Debunk what I have said then.

Are you seriously saying the EU would turn down a FTA with the UK and erect tariff barriers?

I'm saying that's a possibility, yes. Saying something with conviction doesn't make it true and I find it laughable that you think the EU would let the UK leave and keep all the benefits of being in it which would open the floodgates with other countries following after. I also don't need to debunk an argument which is nothing more than an opinion based on pure speculation although I am more inclined to listen to the EU trade commissioner rather than you.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm saying that's a possibility, yes.

Then you understand nothing of world diplomacy or world trade. But let's say your paranoid little fantasy is real and happens - that the EU says no to a FTA with the UK and erects tariff barriers. What could the UK do in return? Well, as a result of leaving the EU we would have our seat on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) back and we could either force the EU to lower it's tariff barriers or make it harder for EU goods to trade freely - especially in the services sector which the UK dominates above all other countries.

Then there's this - let's assume again that this fantasy turns out to be real. Have you no self-respect or no national pride? If the EU responds to the will of the British people to govern themselves by erecting tariff barriers then so what? How can you be so spineless and how can it come to such a low point where you have such little backbone that you want to be held to ransom and blackmailed by a group of non-entities in the EU Commission? IF such a situation arose (which the economics say wouldn't) then screw em.

I wouldn't have China armtwisting the UK into making certain laws by trade threats and nor would I accept it from the EU.


Saying something with conviction doesn't make it true and I find it laughable that you think the EU would let the UK leave and keep all the benefits of being in it which would open the floodgates with other countries following after.

You mean like non-EU Switzerland, Norway, Chile, Mexico and other countries which aren't in the EU but which enjoy free trade (along with many other benefits of co-operation) with the EU?

I find you laughable that you seem to think that there's no life outside of the EU. Bunker mentality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/EU_free_trade_agreements.PNG/800px-EU_free_trade_agreements.PNG


I also don't need to debunk an argument which is nothing more than an opinion based on pure speculation although I am more inclined to listen to the EU trade commissioner rather than you.

Uhhhhhh do you even know how diplomacy works?

[The Don]

Then you understand nothing of world diplomacy or world trade. But let's say your paranoid little fantasy is real and happens

Hahahahahahahahahaha, somebodies jimmies have been rustled. Bit ironic since you're the guy that thinks all scientists are all colluding together as part of some grand scheme to swindle the taxpayer out of extra money under the guise of global warming.



Then there's this - let's assume again that this fantasy turns out to be real. Have you no self-respect or no national pride? If the EU responds to the will of the British people to govern themselves by erecting tariff barriers then so what? How can you be so spineless and how can it come to such a low point where you have such little backbone that you want to be held to ransom and blackmailed by a group of non-entities in the EU Commission? IF such a situation arose (which the economics say wouldn't) then screw em.

If it is the will of the british people they will all vote ukip and this debate will be redundant, but for some reason I don't see that happening which implies that it is not the will of the public. And what is your massive rant even about? It's no secret that I would rather remain in the EU...



You mean like non-EU Switzerland, Norway, Chile, Mexico and other countries which aren't in the EU but which enjoy free trade (along with many other benefits of co-operation) with the EU? False comparisons, none of them were members of the EU whereby leaving would open the floodgates for other countries to follow.



I find you laughable that you seem to think that there's no life outside of the EU. Bunker mentality.


Again, what are you even on about? I'm pointing out how leaving would also have negative effects which you seem to lie about in your posts, insinuating we 100% would remain free trade with the EU when that's based not on fact but simply guessing.


Uhhhhhh do you even know how diplomacy works?
Er what?

[Ardemax]

You are trying to get me to say that the EU is the cause of ALL our problems and that by leaving it we'll turn into a utopia over night. I have never claimed this. What I have said is that it's important that we control our own destiny and that leaving the EU is only the start of solving many of our problems.

In terms of youth unemployment, see my answer below for example.



Yes I do believe it's possible to lower youth unemployment without leaving the EU which is why i've argued for the abolition of the minimum wage on these boards before. There are many things that the government could do to solve these problems such as tax-free trade zones in areas with chronic unemployment yet they lack the guts to do anything radical like Thatcher did.

You have made it quite clear that seemingly all of the problems facing Britain somehow stem from being involved with the EU. You therefore rate the EU as the biggest problem to out sustainability (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just can't understand why).

In order to combat unemployment you would reduce the minimum wage (or abolish, whichever floats your boat). So instead of people living off unemployment benefits whilst looking for work you'd encourage them to perhaps take a lower income and work longer hours just so it reflects well on the unemployment statistics. I'm not really following this logic either, perhaps you could it explain it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hahahahahahahahahaha, somebodies jimmies have been rustled. Bit ironic since you're the guy that thinks all scientists are all colluding together as part of some grand scheme to swindle the taxpayer out of extra money under the guise of global warming.

Absolutely.

I've never found weathly politicians flying around the world telling me not to fly otherwise the world will end convincing. Well.. I did when I was aged 12 and naive but that was it.


If it is the will of the british people they will all vote ukip and this debate will be redundant, but for some reason I don't see that happening which implies that it is not the will of the public. And what is your massive rant even about? It's no secret that I would rather remain in the EU...

Well no, they actually vote for the three main parties who - at every election - promise to either give us a referendum or to claw back powers from the EU. None of them have ever stood promising to hand over more powers to the European Union. Voting every 5 years doesn't give a mandate for a party to do anything.

All I want is for the three main parties to come forward and say openly for once that they want a federal Europe and they want a thousand years of independence to come to an end - and finally we can then have a nationwide discussion as to whether that's what we want as a country instead of the status quo where the two faced *******s lie out of their teeth to us and refuse to give us a say.


False comparisons, none of them were members of the EU whereby leaving would open the floodgates for other countries to follow.

And so what if they do? Many on the continent would love to leave the EU and return to a Europe of intergovernmentalism whereby sovereign nations trade with one another and co-operate where they see fit.

I want Britain out of the EU first and foremost, and wish the other nations of Europe the best of luck in managing to escape too.


Again, what are you even on about? I'm pointing out how leaving would also have negative effects which you seem to lie about in your posts, insinuating we 100% would remain free trade with the EU when that's based not on fact but simply guessing.

No it's based on engaging your brain, dimwit.

Everything I say you can measure up in terms of world affairs and the use of some thought, yet all you keep coming back with is puerile rubbish about the EU cutting off trade with the UK. Absolute rubbish - and as I said, even if they did then so what? The United Kingdom should not allow itself to be held to ransom by an unelected goon squad in Brussels.

Or do you think we should have ourselves held to ransom by Barroso? Spineless.


Er what?

Well again, engage your brain and you'll realise that diplomacy is all about threats and gaining the upper hand. So for example, seeing as Britain pays a huge proportion of the EU's budget they don't want us to leave. So how can they put us off leaving? Have one of the commissioners issue thinly veiled threats about Britain outside of the EU in the hope that it'll put the gullible part of the electorate (ie you) off.

Of course none of these threats carry any weight because a) they're politically impossible b) economically impossible and c) defy common sense, as I mentioned earlier concerning your concern that the world's sixth largest economy might not be able to secure a FTA with the EU whilst Mexico and Albania can.


You have made it quite clear that seemingly all of the problems facing Britain somehow stem from being involved with the EU. You therefore rate the EU as the biggest problem to out sustainability (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just can't understand why).

No I haven't. Our poor foreign policy has nothing to do with the EU. Nor do our **** comprehensive schools. Nor does our complex tax system. Nor does the mess of devolution. Nor does the moral rot in society. Nor does the breakdown in law and order.

I rate the EU as the biggest concern to this country because it is a direct threat to the continued independence of this country. The ability to control our own destiny or have it made for us within some federalised or United States of Europe. Is that what you want? If not, then it's time to start rattling the cage a bit louder before we walk straight into it.


In order to combat unemployment you would reduce the minimum wage (or abolish, whichever floats your boat). So instead of people living off unemployment benefits whilst looking for work you'd encourage them to perhaps take a lower income and work longer hours just so it reflects well on the unemployment statistics. I'm not really following this logic either, perhaps you could it explain it?

Well i'm not getting into a debate in this thread on the minimum wage but basically the notion is that the minimum wage artificially inflates low-paid jobs which means employers hire less young people which in turn means less skills being taught which in turn leads to a higher backlog on the youth unemployment roll.

[The Don]

HUGE RANT CRYING ABOUT EU SUPERSTATE!!!11!1!

Don't act so high and mighty, no wonder you only get the same few people debating with you because everybody else is absolutely fed up with you rambling on.

You posted

As for free trade, erm yes we would. Are you even aware of what the EU withdrawal process would look like?

Now that we've established this isn't true, and that your entire argument is based on huge assumptions there isn't anything more for me to debate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Don't act so high and mighty, no wonder you only get the same few people debating with you because everybody else is absolutely fed up with you rambling on.

Do I care? If you don't like it then don't debate me.


Now that we've established this isn't true, and that your entire argument is based on huge assumptions there isn't anything more for me to debate.

No you haven't. Try harder.

You aren't even aware of article 50 and the process yet you're debating me on what a British withdrawal from the European Union would look like. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight son.

[The Don]

Do I care? If you don't like it then don't debate me.

My original post was addressed to Ardemax iirc, you're the one who engaged in debate with me.


You aren't even aware of article 50 and the process yet you're debating me on what a British withdrawal from the European Union would look like. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight son.

I've already asked you once and I'll ask you again, cite where it mentions free trade will be kept for any leaving country. I suspect you're referencing the negotiation period which does not = guaranteed free trade.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I've already asked you once and I'll ask you again, cite where it mentions free trade will be kept for any leaving country. I suspect you're referencing the negotiation period which does not = guaranteed free trade.

WTO members must move towards liberalised trade. If the EU goes back on this against another WTO member then it is in direct violation of the aims of the WTO. Standard international agreement yet you've completely overlooked it.

And again, simple economics and common sense dictate that trade would continue between the EU and UK. Why? Because for trade to cease between the two trade partners would cause economic damage that neither side wants - especially not the Eurozone. A region crying out for investment will not want to upset the home of the world's number one financial centre.

[The Don]

WTO members must move towards liberalised trade. If the EU goes back on this against another WTO member then it is in direct violation of the aims of the WTO. Standard international agreement yet you've completely overlooked it.

The EU wouldn't be going back on anything, it would be the UK choosing to leave.

"The EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EFTA countries that are part of the EEA enjoy free trade with the European Union. As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union"

If the UK left the EU it wouldn't meet this criteria and would have to re-negotiate free trade.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The EU wouldn't be going back on anything, it would be the UK choosing to leave.

"The EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EFTA countries that are part of the EEA enjoy free trade with the European Union. As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union"

If the UK left the EU it wouldn't meet this criteria and would have to re-negotiate free trade.

Facepalm. What on earth are you talking about? Free trade doesn't exist solely within the European Union legal framework you know, hence the WTO framework along with Free Trade Agreements which are diplomatically thrashed out between the EU-Saudi Arabia or the EU-Switzerland. Mexico is not within the EU, EEA or EFTA yet enjoys a negotiated FTA with the EU. The same for countless other countries.

In ANY case you don't have to be in the EU to be in the EEA - Norway and Iceland are the two prime examples of EFTA states that are in the EEA but not in the EU. I personally favour a withdrawal from the single market too - although if the single market means that much to you then there's the Norway option whereby we can remain within the single market but leave the EU.

[The Don]

Facepalm. What on earth are you talking about? Free trade doesn't exist solely within the European Union legal framework you know, hence the WTO framework along with Free Trade Agreements which are diplomatically thrashed out between the EU-Saudi Arabia or the EU-Switzerland. Mexico is not within the EU, EEA or EFTA yet enjoys a negotiated FTA with the EU. The same for countless other countries.

In ANY case you don't have to be in the EU to be in the EEA - Norway and Iceland are the two prime examples of EFTA states that are in the EEA but not in the EU.

The UK would have to negotiate this though which is what we've been arguing. We can't just say "Sorry brussels but we're leaving the EU, but we want all the benefits of remaining, ta."

[-:Undertaker:-]

The UK would have to negotiate this though which is what we've been arguing. We can't just say "Sorry brussels but we're leaving the EU, but we want all the benefits of remaining, ta."

Well yes we can, through article 50. Nobody is arguing for a sudden overnight withdrawal without a transitional process - that's what article 50 is for. The British Government would sit down with the EU and negotiate over the areas we still wanted to co-operate in on an intergovernmental basis. Then, following the end of the two-year period when negotiatioins have been completed the United Kingdom would cease to be a member of the EU and those arrangements that will have been thrashed out would come into effect. A smooth process.

If it was as economically risky as you seem to think, then three former Chancellors (http://www.gerardbattenmep.com/norman-lamont-says-we-should-leave-the-eu-third-ex-chancellor-to-say-this/) wouldn't be advocating it.

[The Don]

Well yes we can, through article 50. Nobody is arguing for a sudden overnight withdrawal without a transitional process - that's what article 50 is for. The British Government would sit down with the EU and negotiate over the areas we still wanted to co-operate in on an intergovernmental basis. Then, following the end of the two-year period when negotiatioins have been completed the United Kingdom would cease to be a member of the EU and those arrangements that will have been thrashed out would come into effect. A smooth process.

A smooth process if brussels allowed it which brings us full circle. Pointless debate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A smooth process if brussels allowed it which brings us full circle. Pointless debate.

And Brussels wouldn't make it difficult as it wouldn't be in the interests of Brussels or allowed under WTO rules.

[The Don]

And Brussels wouldn't make it difficult as it wouldn't be in the interests of Brussels or allowed under WTO rules.

~Completely ignores the entire flood gate point~ If the UK left without repercussion, other countries might follow which is definitely not in the interests of Brussels which is why I don't think it would happen as smoothly as you think it would. Anyway, we're arguing over a hypothetical scenario based on assumptions. Silly debate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

~Completely ignores the entire flood gate point~ If the UK left without repercussion, other countries might follow which is definitely not in the interests of Brussels which is why I don't think it would happen as smoothly as you think it would. Anyway, we're arguing over a hypothetical scenario based on assumptions. Silly debate.

The European Union isn't in a position to be issuing threats to the world's sixth largest economy and number one financial centre - if it did then it'd be in trouble at the WTO and would look like a pariah on the international stage. And the fact that you think Brussels could act in such a way is surely all the more argument to leave what has become a centralised and power hungry organisation that has no regard for what the peoples of Europe think about the 'project'. It's time for all of Europe to pull the plug, but my prime concern is this country. My country.

[The Don]

The European Union isn't in a position to be issuing threats to the world's sixth largest economy and number one financial centre

The EU has the worlds largest economy, I fail to see your point? The UK would be harmed more than the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The EU has the worlds largest economy, I fail to see your point? The UK would be harmed more than the EU.

The EU isn't a single economy though. The single market is far from complete so the concept of a single market or the EU as one economic bloc is as ridiculous as classing NAFTA as one economic bloc.

Under trade barriers, both sides always lose. So it is in both parties interest to avoid a trade war and to negotiate an amicable divorce with as much relaxed trade as possible: something the UK has always been very vocal in pushing on the world stage. There really is nothing to worry about and all this talk of a trade war is just that: talk.

[The Don]

The EU isn't a single economy though. The single market is far from complete so the concept of a single market or the EU as one economic bloc is as ridiculous as classing NAFTA as one economic bloc.

Under trade barriers, both sides always lose. So it is in both parties interest to avoid a trade war and to negotiate an amicable divorce with as much relaxed trade as possible: something the UK has always been very vocal in pushing on the world stage. There really is nothing to worry about and all this talk of a trade war is just that: talk.

This is kinda that whole assumption thing again. I withdraw from this thread, can't be bothered going round in circles.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is kinda that whole assumption thing again. I withdraw from this thread, can't be bothered going round in circles.

Well it's also my assumption that if we withdraw from the EU we won't be kicked out of NATO or invaded by the EU. Why? Because I use common sense and tell myself that while that could potentially happen (as anything could) the political and economic factors at play determine that it won't happen or is very unlikely to happen.

I've heard all this before, it's just scaremongering as a last resort in attempt to keep us away from the exit door.