EU Referendum Megathread (Brexit)

[xxMATTGxx]

http://mattgarner.net/uploads/2016-02-27_14-10-01.jpg

Want to post anything regarding the EU Referendum? Post them in here.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12156936/Attorney-General-could-vote-to-leave-European-Union.html

Attorney General could vote to leave European Union

Exclusive: Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, is "50/50" on whether Britain should stay in the European Union and has significant concerns about the growing influence of European courts


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03240/Jeremy_Wright_3240387b.jpg
Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, could vote for Britain to leave the European Union


England's most senior legal officer could vote to leave the EU amid fears that that European courts are eroding Britain's sovereignty, The Telegraph has learned. Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, is considering joining the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union over concerns that David Cameron's deal may not go "far enough".

Mr Wright, who sits in the Cabinet, is said to be "50/50" on whether Britain should stay in the European Union. The Attorney General has particular concerns about the increasing influence of European courts and the growing impact of human rights laws, The Telegraph understands.

Mr Wright is one of a series of Cabinet minister known to have concerns about the strength of the deal Mr Cameron has negotiated with EU leaders. His reservations emerged as the Prime Minister travels to a critical summit in Brussels this week to thrash out a final deal on the terms of Britain's EU membership.

Mr Cameron will carry out negotiations with European leaders on Thursday and Friday before returning to Britain to formally announce the start of the referendum campaign. Mr Wright's position is particularly intriguing because, as Attorney General, he must provide legal advice to Mr Cameron over the legal implications of any deal that is struck.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03298/34128259_Priti-Pat_3298723b.jpg
Employment Minister Priti Patel is rumoured to be strongly backing a British exit from the EU


A minister told The Telegraph: "It is perfectly feasible that this is a legally enforceable agreement but doesn't go far enough. If he doesn't think it's a good enough deal he will vote to leave. "At the moment he is undecided, he is conscious that this is not the final deal yet and major changes one way or another could swing his decision. He is 50/ 50. "He also has significant concerns about the influence of the European courts. There is a question of whether Britain needs to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights entirely."

Mr Wright declined to comment.

The Attorney General joins senior Conservatives including Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, and Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, who are yet to declare their intentions. Mr Gove is said to be "definitely wobbling" while Mr Johnson yesterday said he will "come off the fence with deafening éclat" when the Prime Minister has completed his negotiations.

Five Cabinet ministers are said to be preparing to back the out campaign, including Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Chris Grayling, the Leader of the Commons and Priti Patel, the employment minister.

Looks like a lot of them are on the verge of declaring they want us out of the EU. It's known Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn personally also wants out.

How many in the end publically back it we do not know yet, as it is said Cameron and Osborne are blackmailing MPs with threats of no promotions and sackings if they come out and back a British exit from the EU. That should tell you really all you need to know about the strength of their 'argument'.

Given another poll came out today showing a huge decrease for the Remain campaign hopefully it gives the likes of the AG the courage to back Brexit.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

In other news, the UK's most senior legal officer, the Attorney General, is considering backing the UK to stay in the EU. I know you spam this subforum with loads of eurosceptic rubbish but this has to be one of the most ridiculous, non-newsworthy threads you've ever made. Are you so deluded that you consider it a win when the attorney general has yet to decide whether he's for or against the UK leaving the EU?

[-:Undertaker:-]

In other news, the UK's most senior legal officer, the Attorney General, is considering backing the UK to stay in the EU. I know you spam this subforum with loads of eurosceptic rubbish but this has to be one of the most ridiculous, non-newsworthy threads you've ever made. Are you so deluded that you consider it a win when the attorney general has yet to decide whether he's for or against the UK leaving the EU?

Oh you don't like this news do you? Legally it shows the worthless agreement is built on sand.

Let's be honest, he is weighing up his career prospects as are the others. We know Michael Gove backs a British exit from the EU and has done for years, but even he is "currently on the fence" because he feels loyalty to Cameron and Osborne. Theresa May is known to favour exit, but is weighing up her career prospects too. Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand has walked many times through the voting lobby to oppose the EU and has made statements against it as a backbencher, yet he too is being held hostage now by his own party on the issue. Conservative MPs are being threatened with no promotions/sackings if they back an exit hence why Savid Javid (long standing eurosceptic) is yet to come out. Cameron has told MPs to "ignore" the feelings of their local Associations on this - the very people who got those MPs into Parliament and Cameron into Number 10.

We know many want to leave, but whether they'll put their careers first or the country remains to be seen. Hence why I posted it.


England's most senior legal officer could vote to leave the EU amid fears that that European courts are eroding Britain's sovereignty

The renegotiation will do nothing to solve this therefore it is reasonable to expect he'll back an exit. Unless he puts his party/job before country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12160851/EU-deal-leaked-memo-European-leaders-plot-against-David-Cameron-live.html

Leaked memo 'fresh blow' to David Cameron


Earlier we revealed how Francois Hollande, the French president, will tell David Cameron that his deal will not get any better and there can be “no bidding” at the decisive summit on Thursday night.

A leaked text reveals how Belgium, France, Hungary and Spain will plan to trim back Mr Cameron’s deal, and then prevent it being copied to halt a “contagion” of reform across Europe.

Leaders will seek to water-down his welfare reforms, making them limited to only newly-arrived migrants, and weaken a mechanism sought by George Osborne to prevent Eurozone countries from ganging-up against the City of London.

According to the text, the Prime Minister will be fighting on multiple fronts to save his deal. He is understood to be deeply disappointed that leaders have responded to his reform agenda by closing ranks and boxing the UK in, rather than suggesting their own reforms for the bloc.

France has set out red lines including no “veto” over the euro area, and insists that Britain’s mechanism to trigger a full debate on Eurozone issues where it has concerns cannot “affect the operation of the euro area”.

Ever Closer Union, the integrationist clause on what the UK wants an opt-out, should remain “the rule” for EU states. For France, Mr Tusk’s draft deal “makes sense, but it should be a point of arrival – no bidding”, the document says.

The demands made by Cameron were already pathetically weak and now they're being watered down even more.

And this is all before we've even approved/disapproved the deal in a referendum. Even after that, EU courts such as the ECJ as well as the Parliament can overturn parts/all of the deal if they wish because the deal isn't worth anything as it isn't in the treaties. If it isn't in the treaties, the treaties come first.

Ask yourselves this. If they're already ganging up on us and trying to overturn little reforms, as well as making sure the legal clause of "ever closer union" aka more powers keep going to the EU remains in the treaties, how will they behave when you've all been fooled into voting to Remain? Answer: we'll be screwed again like in 1975.

And remember this in the referendum when you hear lies of "the UK should stay in and help reform Europe and not just walk away" well that is exactly what we are doing and we're not getting anywhere. They're not interested in 'reform' and they're certainly not interested in a looser EU.

Why would anybody vote for this?

[FlyingJesus]

In today's huge and totally shocking news: Pro-EU leaders don't want less EU power

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://order-order.com/2016/02/18/corbyn-daves-deal-irrelevant-theatrical-sideshow/

Corbyn: Dave's Deal "Irrelevant, Theatrical Sideshow"


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/7F3B/production/_88117523_88117522.jpg
What Jeremy Corbyn really believes in: an EU exit


Jeremy Corbyn tonight confirms Labour’s schizophrenic position on the referendum: he thinks Cameron’s renegotiation is “irrelevant” and a “theatrical sideshow“, yet will blindly campaign to Remain “regardless of the outcome of the talks“. Eurosceptic Jez speaks the truth:

“The negotiations David Cameron is conducting on Britain’s relationship with the European Union are a theatrical sideshow… David Cameron’s misnamed “emergency brake” on migrants’ in-work benefits is largely irrelevant to the problems it is supposed to address. There is no evidence that it will act as a brake on inward migration.”

Yet ‘Europhile’ Jez spins on behalf of his party:

“The Labour Party will campaign to keep Britain in Europe in the forthcoming referendum, regardless of the outcome of the talks being held in Brussels today. That is because it brings investment, jobs and protection for British workers and consumers.”

We know where Corbyn’s heart really is on the matter. He voted to stay out of the European Community in 1975, he holds the traditional Bennite view that the EU is a bosses’ and banker’s union. John McDonnell is a hard-core Eurosceptic and supporters like Owen Jones are Brexiteers. You can see which Labour MPs have previously been Outers here.

They know Dave’s deal is nonsense but they are selling out to put party, and their own positions, before country…

So they, the Labour leadership, admit the deal is rubbish, and we know they privately want out of the EU but are scared of ripping the party apart.

In other words like so many politicians they're placing party before country. It should tell you all you need to know about the EU debate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3455752/It-s-George-Osborne-signals-start-referendum-campaign-David-Cameron-prepares-Saturday-Cabinet-Falklands.html

We're out! SIX ministers head straight for the Brexit as Cameron announces EU referendum for June 23rd after late-night 'deal' in Brussels

- David Cameron today addressed the nation to say he had 'negotiated a deal to give the UK special status in EU'
- Theresa May, Sajid Javid and Michael Fallon all came out and backed the deal and vowed to join PM's campaign
- But Michael Gove leads a group of six cabinet ministers directly to a Vote Leave rally after historic Cabinet meeting
- And Chris Grayling said the deal failed to win power over borders, trade deals or control of the 'national interest'
- PM's announcement came after the first Saturday Cabinet meeting since Falklands War began at 10am today
- The referendum date was today confirmed and Britain will go to the polls on Thursday, June 23


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/20/12/31640C9600000578-3455752-But_within_minutes_of_Mr_Cameron_s_announcement_si x_of_his_most_-a-5_1455973081690.jpg
Government ministers including Priti Patel, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove are backing Britain leaving the EU



David Cameron today confirmed the EU referendum that will determine the future of Britain and define his career will take place on June 23. Following a landmark Cabinet meeting that lasted more than two hours, the Prime Minister addressed the nation in Downing Street.

But within minutes of the speech, six of Mr Cameron's Cabinet ministers appeared at a Vote Leave rally to sign on to the campaign against the Prime Minister. Commons leader Chris Grayling said Mr Cameron's deal had failed to secure power over Britain's borders or allow the Government to strike trade deals around the world - insisting a 'sovereign country should be able to do that'.

And Justice Secretary Michael Gove said he had wrestled with his conscience but had to back Brexit despite the Prime Minister's view. Mr Cameron told Britain today: 'You will decide and whatever your decision I will do my best to deliver it. 'The choice is in your hands but my recommendation is clear: I believe that Britain will be safer, stronger and better off in a reformed European Union.'

Despite his plea, six of Mr Cameron's top team - Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers, Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Commons Leader Chris Grayling, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Employment Minister Priti Patel - went directly from Cabinet to the Vote Leave campaign headquarters.

The group literally signed on to the Brexit campaign by autographing a huge Vote Leave placard.

Mr Gove released a statement running to more than 1,500 words explaining the reasons behind the 'most difficult decision of my political life'. He said: 'I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change.

'If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time. 'But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives.

'Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out.'

Mr Gove continued: 'Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity.

'Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria.'

And he concluded: 'This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future.'

June the 23rd. Let's make it our independence day.

Well done to the cabinet ministers putting their convictions before their careers. It's likely one of those ministers will become PM after the vote.

No news yet on Boris Johnson but his close friend Michael Gove has backed an exit as has the Deputy Mayor of London.

Thoughts?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Update: another endorsement for the Leave campaign.

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the largest party in Northern Ireland, has just announced it is backing British independence from the EU.

http://www.mydup.com/news/article/foster-we-will-on-balance-recommend-a-vote-to-leave-the-eu#.VsiHfsR_QN8.twitter

[Agnostic Bear]

LOOKING FORWARD TO ALL THIS FREEDOM COMING OUR WAY

[Bionic...]

I agree with leaving the EU it offers nothing constructive for the generations to come.

[wixard]

just registered to vote to protect my own country from the backlash and dire consequences if the UK decides to leave :) #stay

[The Don]

just registered to vote to protect my own country from the backlash and dire consequences if the UK decides to leave :) #stay

same :)

[scottish]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-idUKKCN0VT0F8

lol

[The Don]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-idUKKCN0VT0F8

lol

Hahahaha. Didn't Dan tell us a while back that this wouldn't be the case?

[FlyingJesus]

To be fair why would the SNP ever not say that

But yeah that's still 16 in the cabinet for staying

[abc]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-idUKKCN0VT0F8

lol

SNP want every excuse to be independent.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree with leaving the EU it offers nothing constructive for the generations to come.

What about making our own free trade deals with India, China, Australia, Brazil, Canada?

We are going to leave. It's just a question of do we do it now and grab the opportunities or later on.


just registered to vote to protect my own country from the backlash and dire consequences if the UK decides to leave :) #stay

you're so right. imagine if we ended up like Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Canada or Australia. Absolute hell!

- - - Updated - - -


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-idUKKCN0VT0F8

lol
The Don;

An independent Scotland joining the EU would mean it'd be legally obliged to join the Euro.

Nicola Sturgeon gonna get the Scots to vote for that? Dream on. :P

[Zak]

To be fair Britain has been in decline for years ... it always did fine before it joined the EU. I don't know enough about it if I'm honest. Boris Johnson has also joined the 'Leave the EU' party.

[The Don]

To be fair Britain has been in decline for years ... it always did fine before it joined the EU. I don't know enough about it if I'm honest. Boris Johnson has also joined the 'Leave the EU' party.

Britain has been on the decline since the end of WW2, joining the EU had nothing to do with our decline.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't see us as in decline. Zak; The Don;

We're the world's 5th largest economy, UN SC member, number one financial centre and the only European country expected to remain in the G10 by 2050.

One of the reasons I want to leave the EU is because I want us to be signing trade deals with India, China, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Malaysia.


http://www.ezimba.com/work/160222C/ezimba18219781206500.jpg

[abc]

We are going to leave. It's just a question of do we do it now and grab the opportunities or later on.

"or later on" - sounds like you are slightly worried we may not leave in June hence you will be asking for another referendum like the SNP keep doing about Scottish independence.

I like how you quoted the minority - 6 cabinet ministers campaign to leave. Not the majority of the cabinet who are campaigning to stay.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189);

I've said before that as the Eurozone moves closer together Britain is going to have to leave. They're pushing for an EU army, shared EU financial institutions like a Treasury and Britain clearly isn't going to take part in them. Not to mention the fact it is falling apart anyway just look at the Eurozone + Schengen. It is moving in a direction that is clearly unacceptable & unsuitable for us and as shown in the 'renegotiations' there's no changing it from the inside. It's just not for us.

My logic is that let us leave now rather than in ten years because that way we'll get a head start in signing Free Trade Deals with the likes of the Commonwealth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35626621

Mayor of London Boris Johnson backs Britain to leave the EU

701424833868013568


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbwN7IJW8AAv6oB.jpg


Breaking: Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson is to campaign for Britain to leave the EU.

The MP's decision comes as ministers began campaigning over the UK's EU membership, after PM David Cameron called a referendum for 23 June.

Mr Johnson is expected to confirm his decision in a statement later and set out his reasons in a Telegraph column.

A statement from Mr Johnson, the MP for Uxbridge and Ruislip South, is expected at about 17:00 GMT, following days of speculation about which side he would back.

701375949556817921

701343805816098816

He's making a statement live on television right now.

The Secretary of State for Justice, Dominc Raab MP, has also backed the Leave campaign today.

The Deputy Mayor of London has backed Leave and Zac Goldsmith MP (the candidate to replace Boris as Mayor) has also backed Leave.

Well done Boris.

[Inseriousity.]

Urgh slippery weasel using the EU referendum as platform for leadership campaign rather than his principles.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's his statement from a few moments ago.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRjl4biSmZ4


Urgh slippery weasel using the EU referendum as platform for leadership campaign rather than his principles.

risky though for them backing Leave.

Apparently George Osborne has been threatening MPs (like Savid Javid who wanted out) if they don't back Remain then their careers will be over when he's PM.

Big problem for George now though because looks like Boris could be Prime Minister this summer. :D

[Inseriousity.]

Yes he's a slippery weasel too but at least he's going with what he actually thinks on the issue!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes he's a slippery weasel too but at least he's going with what he actually thinks on the issue!

Boris has hinted towards Leave before though, just usually he said he wanted reforms as many Tories did but obviously now we can all see it can't be reformed.

I wish Corbyn, McDonnell, May, Javid and others would say what they really think though. They're all known to want to Leave in private.

[abc]

@abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189);

I've said before that as the Eurozone moves closer together Britain is going to have to leave. They're pushing for an EU army, shared EU financial institutions like a Treasury and Britain clearly isn't going to take part in them. Not to mention the fact it is falling apart anyway just look at the Eurozone + Schengen. It is moving in a direction that is clearly unacceptable & unsuitable for us and as shown in the 'renegotiations' there's no changing it from the inside. It's just not for us.

My logic is that let us leave now rather than in ten years because that way we'll get a head start in signing Free Trade Deals with the likes of the Commonwealth.

IF (and when) we get to that stage then we can look at our membership again then. But right now there is no point in assuming things. We should vote now based on the current situation.

You keep mentioning countries such as Switzerland and Norway however your OUT team mention that "none of the country-based models would work for the UK". You fail to point out that "Norway and Switzerland have to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and have to pay to access the single market.".

By being in the EU at least we will have some influence over the EU rules, however the countries you use as examples have zero influence. Is this what you want, the UK to lose influence? If we have a clean break from the EU we would then have to renegotiate all trade deals which could take several years with no guarantee that they would be better for us than what we currently have. Even after we finally have renegotiated with the countries, there would be tariffs set on our exports while having to still meet the EU standards, which means our exports would no longer be considered competitive. Anyone will agree that this is NOT good for our economy or jobs.

"The attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and do automotive business is clearly underpinned by the UK's influential membership of the EU," said a KPMG report on the car industry. The financial services sector, which employs about 2.1 million people in the UK, also has concerns about a British exit. "The success of the UK financial services industry is to a large extent built on EU Internal Market legislation. To abandon this for some untried, unknown and unpredictable alternative would carry very significant risks," said global law firm Clifford Chance in a report by think tank TheCityUK.

The fact of the matter is, we do not know if we really will be better off outside the EU. Leaving is based on a lot of IF's. If renegotiation's go badly after an exit or we end up being worse off in the long run, all UKIP and people like Dan will do is blame the government for being poor negotiators and try to free themselves of all blame for supporting the OUT campaign. Staying in we know exactly what we are getting.

The EU vote has very little impact on me. The result will not/should not affect me, however I believe staying in will have a greater benefit for the British people and economy. I will be voting to stay in.

[abc]

Big problem for George now though because looks like Boris could be Prime Minister this summer. :D

I didn't realise Cameron was resigning this summer?

[The Don]

I didn't realise Cameron was resigning this summer?

If Britain leaves the EU after he's publicly backed the remain campaign he'll look incredibly weak.

[abc]

If Britain leaves the EU after he's publicly backed the remain campaign he'll look incredibly weak.

Yes but I do not think it will lead him to resign.

[Bionic...]

We are going to leave. It's just a question of do we do it now and grab the opportunities or later on.

"Britain has given away control of immigration within the EU to the EU, and retains the power only to control non-EU immigration.This has led to huge disparities where Commonwealth citizens with family in Britain struggle to obtain visas whilst EU citizens with little link with the UK can automatically work here"

This should be the priority if you ask me

[-:Undertaker:-]

IF (and when) we get to that stage then we can look at our membership again then. But right now there is no point in assuming things. We should vote now based on the current situation.

No, you assess it on where it has gone and where we know it is going.

In 1975 we were promised it would only be a trading club and look at the monster it has grown into.


You keep mentioning countries such as Switzerland and Norway however your OUT team mention that "none of the country-based models would work for the UK". You fail to point out that "Norway and Switzerland have to abide by many EU rules without any influence over how they are formed and have to pay to access the single market.".

I haven't actually said we would have to join the EEA or EFTA but those are two choices certainly. I actually favour EFTA/Bilateral FTAs rather than the Norway model but all are preferable to EU membership. The argument you make though in relation to EU law is a false argument anyway as it would be like arguing to become a province of China in order to have a "say" in Chinese market rules. Or a state of America. All countries which trade with one another have to abide by each others rules just as American companies have to abide by British safety standards.

Besides all this Britain would be able to negotiate a much better deal than Norway or Switzerland. They've got good deals and they're happy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Opinion_po lling) with them.


By being in the EU at least we will have some influence over the EU rules, however the countries you use as examples have zero influence. Is this what you want, the UK to lose influence? If we have a clean break from the EU we would then have to renegotiate all trade deals which could take several years with no guarantee that they would be better for us than what we currently have.

I keep hearing this influence argument yet as shown time and time again what has this supposed influence ever got us? Cameron went to the EU with some pretty basic and small reforms and came back with virtually nothing, showing just how much "influence" we have in the EU. Nilch.

As for exports, what rot. Our companies have to meet American, Chinese, Indian standards when they trade too.


Even after we finally have renegotiated with the countries, there would be tariffs set on our exports while having to still meet the EU standards, which means our exports would no longer be considered competitive. Anyone will agree that this is NOT good for our economy or jobs.

False. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) forbids revenge tariffs.

In any case, even small tariffs won't be erected. Do you think German car manufacturers are going to let Angela Merkel potentially put tens of thousands of German workers out of work by making trade with Britain harder to do? 5 million jobs in Europe depend on UK trade, they won't hurt themselves.


"The attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and do automotive business is clearly underpinned by the UK's influential membership of the EU," said a KPMG report on the car industry. The financial services sector, which employs about 2.1 million people in the UK, also has concerns about a British exit. "The success of the UK financial services industry is to a large extent built on EU Internal Market legislation. To abandon this for some untried, unknown and unpredictable alternative would carry very significant risks," said global law firm Clifford Chance in a report by think tank TheCityUK.

I could quote thinktanks and economists saying exactly the opposite.

The EU is actually a danger to the City with excessive regulation. The City is successful because of low taxes and low regulation, not the EU lol.

Is the financial centre of Hong Kong in the European Union? Is Singapore? Is New York? Is Dubai? Is Jeddah?


The fact of the matter is, we do not know if we really will be better off outside the EU. Leaving is based on a lot of IF's. If renegotiation's go badly after an exit or we end up being worse off in the long run, all UKIP and people like Dan will do is blame the government for being poor negotiators and try to free themselves of all blame for supporting the OUT campaign. Staying in we know exactly what we are getting.

The EU vote has very little impact on me. The result will not/should not affect me, however I believe staying in will have a greater benefit for the British people and economy. I will be voting to stay in.

Staying has more ifs and dangers.

If we stay we face being trapped in a club where the Eurozone constantly outvotes us.
If we stay we face losing our UN Security Council seat as we'll be under pressure to merge the UK-FR seats into an EU seat.
If we stay we face the threat of terror attacks due to the EU's inability to control its borders.
If we stay we face being sucked into an EU army which they are intent on building.
If we stay we face tighter regulations on the City of London which would mean business moving to Frankfurt.
If we stay we face more bailouts for the Eurozone countries.
If we stay we face an even bigger bill as countries like Bosnia and Turkey join.
If we stay we face having to overhaul our entire legal system changing from common law to European law.
If we stay we miss out on signing Free Trade Deals with growing economies like China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
If we stay we face being dragged into more conflicts in Eastern Europe as seen with the game of Russian roulette over Ukraine.

Leaving would...

Return sovereignty to parliament so British law is made by our elected Commons.
Allow us to sign FTAs with growing economies like India, China and Australia.
Improve relations between Britain and the EU as we wouldn't be standing in the way of their integration.
Give us back control of our own waters so British fishing fleets aren't competing in our own waters with European fleets.
Have us improve and build on relations with the Commonwealth and use it as a forum for global trade negotiations.
Give us the ability to control our borders and immigration which we currently cannot do.
Save us billions every year in membership fees.
Allow us cheaper goods such as food as we wouldn't then be forced into paying more for say French goods.
Help developing countries in Africa by signing FTAs with them as well as bringing our shopping costs down.
Develop closer relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway meaning other EU countries which also want out have a strong alternative.


"Britain has given away control of immigration within the EU to the EU, and retains the power only to control non-EU immigration.This has led to huge disparities where Commonwealth citizens with family in Britain struggle to obtain visas whilst EU citizens with little link with the UK can automatically work here"

This should be the priority if you ask me

Indeed the entire immigration system is absurd when it comes to the EU.

A criminal from Slovakia has an automatic right to come to Britain yet a Canadian faces red tape. It is upside down.

[The Don]

No, you assess it on where it has gone and where we know it is going.

In 1975 we were promised it would only be a trading club and look at the monster it has grown into.


What a complete lie. The words "ever closer union" have always been an integral part of the EU and its predecessors, even before the UK joined. To claim anything otherwise is a complete lie.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What a complete lie. The words "ever closer union" have always been an integral part of the EU and its predecessors, even before the UK joined. To claim anything otherwise is a complete lie.

I mean we as in the public.

We were told this...


“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973

And meanwhile the Foreign Office wasn't telling us the truth...


“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”. (PRO/FCO 30/789)

And we're still not being told the truth in public now either by those wanting to keep us in as to where this thing is heading.

Britain doesn't want to be in a federal Europe so why not accept this and leave now in favourable conditions rather than leave ten years down the road.

[Bionic...]

Tbh it's all wrong and we need a new system hence the referendum i guess
y'all idiots better not jeopardise the future of this country

[FlyingJesus]

My logic is that let us leave now rather than in ten years because that way we'll get a head start in signing Free Trade Deals with the likes of the Commonwealth.

I have no firm stance one way or the other but if the EU is really trying to become an exclusive socio-corporate bloc would they not try to put up barriers against a lot of trading deals anyway whether we stay or not? And if that's really the case rather than just a scary conspiracy theory would it not then mean that leaving will set us fully against the EU trading group and give us a great many more countries that we can't trade with at all compared to the few further afield that we'd be more open to?

[wixard]

What about making our own free trade deals with India, China, Australia, Brazil, Canada?

We are going to leave. It's just a question of do we do it now and grab the opportunities or later on.



you're so right. imagine if we ended up like Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Canada or Australia. Absolute hell!

- - - Updated - - -


@The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475);

An independent Scotland joining the EU would mean it'd be legally obliged to join the Euro.

Nicola Sturgeon gonna get the Scots to vote for that? Dream on. :P

i'm irish love! republic x

[-:Undertaker:-]

I have no firm stance one way or the other but if the EU is really trying to become an exclusive socio-corporate bloc would they not try to put up barriers against a lot of trading deals anyway whether we stay or not? And if that's really the case rather than just a scary conspiracy theory would it not then mean that leaving will set us fully against the EU trading group and give us a great many more countries that we can't trade with at all compared to the few further afield that we'd be more open to?

I don't get it sorry? I'll try answer what I think you're asking. They're basically building a state of which the Eurozone will be the beginnings of but they won't stop trading with other countries, they can't afford to cut other countries off including Britain. We'd be able to sign a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU itself as a bloc... it currently signs FTAs on our behalf but they're often not very free market (due to French opposition and having to take into account all 28 member states provisions) and they're very slow at completing them. I think the last time I checked tiny Switzerland has signed more FTAs than the EU.

Britain on the other hand is much more pro-free market and along with our legal system and outlook matching that of the Commonwealth we'd be able to sign FTAs with India, Bangladesh, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc quite quickly I would think. When the world's 5th largest economy and largest financial centre in the world is free and able to sign FTAs there will be a queue to sign with us. And our deals will be quite extensive/open across all economic sectors.

Does that answer what you mean? :P

[FlyingJesus]

Don't you live in England now Tara what

And I meant that if there are benefits to being in the EU that we wouldn't get outside of it (as there must be or there'd be no opposition to leaving) and if they want to tighten those to maintain or build as much power as they can, would they not then just stop us from having trade agreements with them out of spite if we left? And if not, surely they're not the great evil that we're being told they are

[wixard]

Don't you live in England now what

yes hence why i'm allowed vote, but i still want to protect myself and people home. as far as i'm aware i wont have any issues being here as ireland and england have their own separate agreements that were put into place well before the EU, however obviously the EU is a massive benefit to my country and has helped it to grow, and we still don't know the repercussions for northern ireland etc

[-:Undertaker:-]

And I meant that if there are benefits to being in the EU that we wouldn't get outside of it (as there must be or there'd be no opposition to leaving) and if they want to tighten those to maintain or build as much power as they can, would they not then just stop us from having trade agreements with them out of spite if we left? And if not, surely they're not the great evil that we're being told they are

I don't see any benefits that you get inside that you can't get from the outside, just look at Norway and Switzerland who are two very wealthy countries who are very happy with their status outside the EU. It's worth remembering though that often this is turned into an economic argument when the reality is that the EU wasn't set up for economic reasons, it is a purely political project and its true supporters support our membership for political and not economic reasons. If you look at the private reasons as to why we were taken into the EEC in the first place, it was because people like Heath supported the political ideal of a federal Europe - the reasons weren't economic for joining.

As I said earlier, Britain is heading for the exit door anyway given we're not going to join the Eurozone so I don't see why we don't just get it over with now.


yes hence why i'm allowed vote, but i still want to protect myself and people home. as far as i'm aware i wont have any issues being here as ireland and england have their own separate agreements that were put into place well before the EU, however obviously the EU is a massive benefit to my country and has helped it to grow, and we still don't know the repercussions for northern ireland etc

Low taxes, education and deregulation helped Ireland grow. Not bureaucrats from the Low Countries.

The Euro was often cited in the Irish example/debate as the EU's biggest achievement. But look what happened.

[Prosiary]

http://i.imgur.com/Z9lztNe.png


Post edited by Cerys (Forum Moderator) Please do not post pointlessly!

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Telegraph have published Boris' piece setting out why he's backing the Leave campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167643/Boris-Johnson-there-is-only-one-way-to-get-the-change-we-want-vote-to-leave-the-EU.html

Here are some of the best pieces of his article.


I am a European. I lived many years in Brussels. I rather love the old place. And so I resent the way we continually confuse Europe – the home of the greatest and richest culture in the world, to which Britain is and will be an eternal contributor – with the political project of the European Union. It is, therefore, vital to stress that there is nothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 23.


There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No. The fundamental problem remains: that they have an ideal that we do not share. They want to create a truly federal union, e pluribus unum, when most British people do not.


It is time to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements. We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option; the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on; and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, I think they are likely to be exaggerated. We have heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case.


Above all, we will be told that whatever the democratic deficiencies, we would be better off remaining in because of the “influence” we have. This is less and less persuasive to me. Only 4 per cent of people running the Commission are UK nationals, when the Britain contains 12 per cent of the EU population. It is not clear why the Commission should be best placed to know the needs of UK business and industry, rather than the myriad officials at UK Trade & Investment or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.


If the “Leave” side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future. We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny Civil Service. Are we really unable to do trade deals? We will have at least two years in which the existing treaties will be in force.

Now is the time to spearhead the success of those products and services not just in Europe, but in growth markets beyond. This is a moment to be brave, to reach out – not to hug the skirts of Nurse in Brussels, and refer all decisions to someone else.

Headlines in tomorrow's papers....


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbxkHYAUEAA0k0s.jpg

[Zak]

Britain has been on the decline since the end of WW2

This is true

[-:Undertaker:-]

Government struggling to get FTSE 100 companies to back pro-EU letter

Many of the FTSE 100 companies are refusing to sign a pro-EU letter which the government has asked them to sign


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02748/city-of-london_2748155b.jpg

This is an interesting story I have noticed in exchanges between journalists on Twitter.

Now often when a "letter" is presented in favour of a government policy or message it has been organised by the government although it is usually done in secret and later released as though to indicate the signatories support of government policy. In other words it is classic spin which all sides use on a various number of topics as it is supposed to indicate impartial support for any said policy.

I think it is important to draw attention to this example though as the government is very much hoping to scare people into believing that all business and corporations back Britain remaining in the EU which of course isn't true, but they're very keen to paint this in people's minds for fear reasons.

Look at this series of tweets.

701769848775438337

701792263874150400

701901441292705792

701900857361702913

701904022366773249

701902996377047040

The number of FTSE companies backing the government on this is falling and many are refusing to sign. From an expected 80 down to 36.

You can also read here (http://order-order.com/2016/02/22/downing-street-soliciting-big-business-support-for-remain/) how the government is using Whitehall resources to spin for the Remain campaign which I find disgraceful.


The dirty dirty dogs. Been caught out though before the letter is published. :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

An update on this.

On Sky News it was stated that apparently 25 of the 36 FTSE companies that have signed are either Conservative Party donors, have received EU/Government money and have been given roles in government. Obviously what has happened is the government has leant on them basically telling them to be good and play along or else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3459407/Top-firms-snub-Prime-Minister-s-EU-letter.html


The majority of Britain’s biggest companies have refused to sign a letter backing membership of the European Union.

High street shops including Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Next and banks such as Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland did not put their names to the letter published today.

It had been suggested that bosses of 80 of the FTSE 100 firms would sign the pro-Brussels letter, but in fact only 36 have done so.

Those who signed include multi-national corporations such as HSBC, BAE Systems, BT, Royal Dutch Shell, Rio Tinto and BP, and the chief executives of Heathrow and Gatwick.

Even some of David Cameron’s own business advisers refused to sign the letter to The Times which claims that quitting the Brussels club ‘would put the economy at risk’.

Yesterday Mr Cameron angrily defended Downing Street’s involvement in orchestrating the pro-EU letter after it emerged that it was drafted by a civil servant.

The Prime Minister has been trying to rally support from major businesses to endorse his deal to keep Britain in the EU ahead of the referendum on June 23.

But several of them have backed people power to decide for the nation.

Others that refused to sign the letter include Primark owner Associated British Foods, insurer Legal & General and investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown, whose founder Peter Hargreaves is a loyal Thatcherite.

It's now turned into a PR fail for the government though as the story has gone from companies signing to the majority, including his advisors, refusing to sign.

[Kardan]

-:Undertaker:-; slightly off topic, nothing in regards to the FTSE 100 Companies, but to do with the referendum:

If the country does decide to remain in the EU, will you actually accept the result or will you be like some of the people on the forum after the Scottish referendum that were like "We'll just wait until the next referendum!"

[-:Undertaker:-]

@-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233); slightly off topic, nothing in regards to the FTSE 100 Companies, but to do with the referendum:

If the country does decide to remain in the EU, will you actually accept the result or will you be like some of the people on the forum after the Scottish referendum that were like "We'll just wait until the next referendum!"

I'm relaxed about the referendum so initially yes.

If we don't leave now we'll be leaving within the next decade as the European Union and specifically Eurozone moves closer together and we're de facto forced out as we won't accept any more political or economic integration which they're planning already. It'll just be a shame not to accept and make the best of the opportunity now which is why I have just ordered 4,000 leaflets to start posting through letterboxes as soon as they arrive.

A key difference though for the next few years if a Remain vote happens is this as both examples are not the same. The European institutions such as the ECJ and even the ECHR are constantly with each ruling acquiring powers for the EU/Commission and centralising power away from the nation states to the middle meaning our referendum lock will inevitably be activated again under acquis communautaire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquis_communautaire) as what we've voted on will not be what the EU will be in say 5 or 10 years. The opposite is true for the United Kingdom which is devolving power away from the centre to devolved institutions.

That's a crucial difference between both debates to bear in mind.

[Jpeace312]

I think we should leave the EU for no particular reason, i just like the idea of britain being britain and not europe if ygm. I think the reason to avoid attack is just daft as fuck though.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[abc]

It is clear you have not read what many of the companies who did not sign are saying (again you are trying to portray something in a way it is not). Many of them have said they wish to remain neutral, not take sides and have stated "the choice of whether to stay in the EU was one for the British people".


Tesco said in a statement: “The referendum on EU membership is a decision for the people of Britain. Whatever that decision is, our focus will continue to be on serving customers.”

A spokeswoman for Sainsbury’s said it was an “apolitical organisation” and the vote on Europe was a “matter for the British people”.

They have clearly said that they have refused to sign as they do not want to deter the customers who are voting for the other side.

They refusal to sign on behalf of Pro-EU is not a sign that they are against EU. They are not supporting either side. The companies who have signed are still a third of the largest companies and you wish to ignore them? Wow.

Also...


Barclays, headed by its chairman, John McFarlane, is not signing the letter because such a move would be against company policy, but the bank said in statement that it was in “the best interest of customers” to stay in the EU.

So while many of the FTSE are supporting the EU and wish for us to stay in, they are refusing to sign for other reasons as is clear from the above quotes.

The problem is, if they refuse to sign then people like Dan ignore the reason as to why they sign. They ignore the fact that these companies actually support us staying in but are not signing as they are afraid of losing customers who want to leave the EU. And the companies who do sign, they start trashing them by coming out with statements such as "Conservative Party donors, have received EU/Government money and have been given roles in government" - yeah because these are the only reasons these companies are signing this letter. Pathetic.

Oh and in your other thread you keep going on about how happy Norway is outside the EU, I honestly think you have no clue what you write about. I will post some articles and comments by their former Foreign Minister who thinks it's worse leaving the EU than staying in.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is clear you have not read what many of the companies who did not sign are saying (again you are trying to portray something in a way it is not). Many of them have said they wish to remain neutral, not take sides and have stated "the choice of whether to stay in the EU was one for the British people".

They have clearly said that they have refused to sign as they do not want to deter the customers who are voting for the other side.

I never said they were backing any side, just that many were refusing to back Remain which is what the government tried to portray. And failed.

Well done to the likes of Sainsburys and Tesco for keeping out of it. Tesco had it right when it basically said whatever the result life (and business) will go on.


They refusal to sign on behalf of Pro-EU is not a sign that they are against EU. They are not supporting either side. The companies who have signed are still a third of the largest companies and you wish to ignore them? Wow.

Why would I listen to a number of companies who are signing a letter that the government begged/told them to sign when they are Conservative Party donors, lobbyists to the European Union and have roles in government? They're signing in their own interests and not the interests of the country.

Many corporations love the EU simply because it is easier for them to lobby and do deals with one parliament than it is 28. But is that good for the consumer?


So while many of the FTSE are supporting the EU and wish for us to stay in, they are refusing to sign for other reasons as is clear from the above quotes.

Many companies also support us leaving: http://businessforbritain.org/

Sir James Dyson of the hoover company Dyson has been vocal in wanting to leave the EU as has the management of JCB.


The problem is, if they refuse to sign then people like Dan ignore the reason as to why they sign. They ignore the fact that these companies actually support us staying in but are not signing as they are afraid of losing customers who want to leave the EU. And the companies who do sign, they start trashing them by coming out with statements such as "Conservative Party donors, have received EU/Government money and have been given roles in government" - yeah because these are the only reasons these companies are signing this letter. Pathetic.

I'm not trashing them I am stating the facts. Why shouldn't we be aware these companies have received EU/Government money and/or roles?


Oh and in your other thread you keep going on about how happy Norway is outside the EU, I honestly think you have no clue what you write about. I will post some articles and comments by their former Foreign Minister who thinks it's worse leaving the EU than staying in.

You confuse what the politicians of Norway want with what the people of Norway want.

The politicians of Norway would love to join the EU you are one hundred percent correct in that. Of course they would, just look at all the jobs it provides for the failed ones who get booted out of office or the hangers on. Nick Clegg had a job there when he was climbing the greasy pole, the failed Lord Kinnock and his wife have made hundreds of thousands if not millions from the EU gravy-train, the electoral failure Baroness Ashton got a job there that she was completely out of her depth over, Tony Blair and his failed Presidency bid, Jose Manual Barroso, Peter Mandelson... they all love the EU. To them there is nothing better as gives them unchecked power, a big fat pension and salary and best of all: they don't have to worry about a pesky electorate upsetting the apple cart every few years. On top of all that, many like our own political class are out of touch with public opinion and want a federal Europe which the peoples of Europe do not.

Meanwhile the latest poll taken in Norway had only 17.8% of Norweigans wanting to join the EU and 70.5% not wanting to join.

Life must be terrible outside the EU!

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/12170994/Czechs-will-follow-Britain-out-of-EU.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/646796/Dutch-voters-in-out-EU-referendum-Brexit-contagion-fears-Brussels-Jean-Claude-Juncker

Czech Republic 'will follow Britain out of EU'

- Fears of contagion as Serbia says Brexit fears mean the 'magic' has gone out of joining the European Union
- Czech Republic may follow Britain out of the European Union says Czech Prime Minister
- Hungarian Prime Minister is now talking of a referendum to curtail EU powers over Hungary's national parliament
- Latest polling in the Netherlands now showing a 50/50 split wanting to leave the EU as demands for a vote grow
- Polls for a April referendum in Denmark show the Danish people rejecting the EU agreement with Ukraine


http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20160222&t=2&i=1119360253&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC1L0DC


The Czech Republic may choose to follow Britain out of the European Union, the country’s prime minister said, amid growing fears in Brussels of a “contagion” of members seeking to withdraw from the troubled bloc.

Bohuslav Sobotka said that a “Czexit” may take place. The Czech Republic only joined the EU in 2004 and has been the beneficiary of billions in development funds, but has some of the most hostile public opinion. A Brussels decision to force the country to take in a quota of migrants caused fury.

Three-fifths of Czechs said they were unhappy with EU membership and 62 percent said they would vote against it in a referendum, according to an October 2015 poll by the STEM agency. "If Britain leaves the EU, we can expect debates about leaving the EU in a few years too," said Mr Sobotka, who led eastern European states in opposition to David Cameron’s plans to curb benefits.

In the Dutch poll, more than half (53 per cent) supported an in/out vote with 44 per cent opposed and four per cent unsure. In the survey, conducted by pollster and entrepreneur Maurice de Hond, voters were also asked how they would vote in such an in/out referendum. Only slightly more Dutch voters (44 per cent) wanted to remain in the EU than those who said they would opt to leave the bloc (43 per cent), while 13 per cent said they ‘didn’t know’.

There are fears in Brussels that the multiple crises of Brexit, migration and the euro mean that 2016 will prove to be the high-water mark of the European project, in which it becomes plain that the vision of a fully federalised EU state will never be reached.

And leaders fear that Mr Cameron will trigger a string of copy-cat referendums from ambitious leaders who want to extract special concessions from Brussels, pulling the bloc to pieces. Meanwhile, Aleksander Vucic, the Serbian Prime Minister said that EU membership is no longer the "big dream it was in the past" for Balkan states.. "The EU that all of us are aspiring to, it has lost its magic power," Mr Vucic told a conference at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in London.

"Yes we all want to join, but it is no longer the big dream it was in the past." "When you see that in Britain at least 50 percent of the people say they want to leave that has an effect on the public," he said.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb_cE5GXEAIqcoi.png


I've always said that once Britain leaves others will follow and get out of this House of Cards. Mainly Denmark and the Netherlands.

If Britain leaves and say joins EEA/EFTA with Norway and Switzerland, we'll instantly become the main power in that bloc. As others leave the EU and come across the floor to us, we can shape it how we wish and we can keep the bloc purely as a trading bloc which is all we the public ever wanted.

Interesting times. Let's hope come the referendum we have the positivity and vision to lead the way in creating a new Europe.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12172525/War-hero-felt-pressured-by-No.10-into-signing-pro-Europe-letter.html

War hero felt pressured by No.10 into signing pro Europe letter as Downing Street is forced to apologise

Field Marshal Lord Bramall, one of Britain's most decorated military heros, says Downing Street presented him with pro Europe letter as 'fait accompli'


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03551/Bramall-4_3551396c.jpg


David Cameron is facing a backlash from military leaders over a letter saying Britain must stay in the EU on national security grounds after one of Britain's most distinguished war heroes said he felt pressured into signing it.

Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the army, said he was presented with a "fait accompli" by Downing Street and said it was "not the kind of letter I would have originated myself".

It also emerged that at least two other former Chiefs of Defence Staff, Field Marshal Lord Walker and Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, declined to sign the letter along with General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the Army.

Downing Street had to make a public apology yesterday after it emerged that General Sir Michael Rose, a former director of special forces, for including his name on the letter after an "administrative error". Sir Michael had been sent a draft of the letter but hadn't replied, and was in fact preparing to reply with a "contrary argument".

The Downing Street organised letter, which was published in The Telegraph, said that Britain must stay in the European Union so it can protect itself from "grave security threats" caused by Isil and Russia. It said: "We are proud to have served our country, and to have played our part in keeping Britain safe. In the forthcoming referendum,therefore, we are particularly concerned with one central question: will Britain be safer inside the EU or outside it? When we look at the world today, there seems to us only one answer.”

Lord Bramall, 92, was at D-Day in 1944 and led the army during the Falklands conflict. He is a Knight of the Order of the Garter as well as a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. It is not the kind of letter I would have originated myself, but the Prime Minister's office presented me with a "fait accompli" saying that many other senior officers had agreed to sign it.

"What I find really unfortunate is that a really big decision that will affect the country for generations to come has descended into a messy political squabble." One former senior officer said he resented being told what to say on a highly complex issue like Britain's future membership of the EU a Downing Street special adviser.

"This subject if far too important for us to be dictated to by an over ambitious junior spin doctor," the officer said. Another former senior Army officer said he had declined to sign the letter because he had deep concerns about the potential threat EU policies posed towards British security, particularly following its inept handling of the migration crisis.

The officer said: "I am interested in defence and security, and the letter deals with neither defence nor security so far as I am concerned.
"On the contrary, you only have to look at the EU's handling of the migrant crisis, with an estimated 6,000 jihadis said to have made their way to Europe from Syria disguised as refugees, to see that Brussels has helped to create a direct threat to our well-being."

David Cameron has put national security at the heart of his campaign for Britain to remain in the EU, warning that Britain is safer from terrorists and rogue nuclear states by being a member of the bloc. The signatories to the military letter also include Marshal of the RAF Jock Stirrup, former Chief of Defence Staff and Admiral of the Fleet Lord Michael Boyce, former Chief of Defence Staff. General Sir Mike Jackson, the former Chief of the General Staff, and Lieutenant General Sir Rob Fry, former Deputy Chief of Defence Staff also signed the letter, which was in-part co-ordinated by Downing Street.

Sir John Nott, who served as Defence Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, said that the military leaders who signed the letter have "put themselves on the wrong side of history." He said in a letter to The Telegraph: "The European Union hasconsistently tried to diminish and usurp NATO with its calls for a European army. Our security depends on NATO and not on the European Union.

It came after Downing Street faced controversy earlier this week over a letter signed by more than 200 business leaders calling for Britain to stay in the EU. Only half of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory group signed it, along with fewer FTSE 100 companies than had been expected.

First the business letter and now this.

See the dirty tricks and lies they'll employ? Glad on yet another one they've been publically called out on it.

Thoughts?

[ajs406]

I do think its a shame what has become of the EU, if it had been run and organised better it could of done a lot of good and benefited everyone.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Another update.

Marks and Spencer have issued a statement regarding their inclusion on this letter.

702871264470257666

702871516145434625

Only 35 now lmao....

[-:Undertaker:-]

Related defence matter update regarding EU & security implications.

Former Labour/Liberal Foreign Secretary Lord Owen has now backed an EU exit.

702832357796139008

702639716919857152

Pretty big given one of reasons he founded SDP in 1980s was over the EEC. Now he's wanting out saying it is beyond reform. He's right.

[-:Undertaker:-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlj6a5wwXx8

In less than a minute she put it better than any politician could.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Interesting Q for @Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428); (and would appreciate a response to what I said regarding powers)

Why is it asked that we stop campaigning if we lost the referendum (despite dirty tricks already being deployed such as deny Leave ministers access to their own departments material) yet it was not asked of gay rights campaigners in various countries including America after they lost referendum after referendum?

That's just an interesting point I saw raised. Funny that, isn't it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hungary confirms it is to hold a referendum.

The European Commission is denouncing it in public... what the hell has the decision of Hungary to hold a referendum got to do with them!?


I do think its a shame what has become of the EU, if it had been run and organised better it could of done a lot of good and benefited everyone.

Indeed but those who want to stay in will lie and say it is reformable when it's not. In over 40 years of membership, what has Britain ever achieved by staying in?

Membership of the EEA or EFTA with Switzerland and Norway would suit us perfectly - it's just about trade for them!

[-:Undertaker:-]

A few updates.

703919391600189440

As I have argued before on here, completing Free Trade Deals (FTAs) with the likes of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India is both a certainty and we would be able to complete pretty quickly given our we all share Common English Law contrasted to us and Europe who have different legal systems. Given we're much more pro-free trade and flexible than continental Europe too, these deals would be much better than any hypothetical deals that the EU could attempt in the future. The French for example always block agricultural free trade to please French farmers, which is why we end up paying more for our food.

Another former Australian Prime Minister has come out for us to leave the EU so we can forge closer ties with the Commonwealth...

703964151215837184

Former Conservative leader and Home Secretary Lord Howard has surprisingly come out in favour of British exit from the EU...

703003330755305472

And the Work and Pensions Minister Iain Duncan Smith has attacked the scaremongering of the Remain campaign...

703879408050905088

Finally the G20 issued a statement warning against the 'danger' of British exit from the EU to the global economy. Ignoring the fact most of the G20 nations aren't even in the European Union, it has transpired - unsurprisingly - that the British Government pushed for and wrote the letter and got the others to sign as a favour.

704021081787650048

[abc]

An Article by the former Foreign Minister of Norway. Perfect example of what will happen to us if we exit - keep paying the EU and move to the outer circle with little influence.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model


Those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU and chose the Norwegian way can hence correctly claim that a country can retain access to the single market from outside the EU. What is normally not said, however, is that this also means retaining all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. A Britain choosing this track would, in other words, keep paying, it would be “run by Brussels”, and it would remain committed to the four freedoms, including free movement.

[-:Undertaker:-]

An Article by the former Foreign Minister of Norway. Perfect example of what will happen to us if we exit - keep paying the EU and move to the outer circle with little influence.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

We don't have to take the EEA route though.

And that said, even if Britain joined the EEA or EFTA it would clearly transform those organisations into something else given our size and importance.

[abc]

We don't have to take the EEA route though.

And that said, even if Britain joined the EEA or EFTA it would clearly transform those organisations into something else given our size and importance.

If's, but's etc. Our influence would be much lower once we are alone.

PS - You posted every time the Out camp was doing well in polls but obviously you forgot the latest polls.

EU referendum: latest poll of polls gives In camp ten-point lead

The results show that 45 per cent of voters support Brexit, while 55 per cent would like the UK to remain in the European Union.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If's, but's etc. Our influence would be much lower once we are alone.

What "influence" has Britain had in 42 years of EEC/EU membership given it has gone way beyond a "trading community" which we were promised?

We count for 1 in 28 voices in the Council of Ministers and our vote in the EU Parliament is something like 8% (and decreasing) is it not? Influence where?

[abc]

What "influence" has Britain had in 42 years of EEC/EU membership given it has gone way beyond a "trading community" which we were promised?

We count for 1 in 28 voices in the Council of Ministers and our vote in the EU Parliament is something like 8% (and decreasing) is it not? Influence where?

See below considering you have always boasted about how well Norway do outside of EU.


Norway’s minister for Europe has warned Britain of serious consequences for economic and security policy if it leaves the European Union.

Before a visit to London, during which he will meet Foreign Office ministers and officials, Vidar Helgesen, Norway’s minister for the European Economic Area (EEA) and EU affairs, told the Observer that his country often found it difficult to shape economic rules that affected Norway – often cited by Eurosceptics as a shining example of how a nation can thrive outside the EU – while not being a member.

He also said that at a time of “burning security crisis not seen since the cold war”, most key meetings were now being convened at EU level, rather than within Nato, and it was vital that the UK was there to shape decisions.

Largely as a result of its oil resources, Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, with a higher per-capita income than the vast majority of its member states. British Eurosceptics often say the Norwegian experience is evidence of how a country outside the EU, but enjoying the benefits of the single market through membership of the EEA, can prosper without having to commit itself to full membership. Helgesen said, however, that this arrangement often created frustrations and difficulties, which meant Norwegian ministers and officials spent a lot of time – sometimes without success – trying to find out what was going on in EU meetings that would affect their country directly.

British Influence’s director, Peter Wilding, said: “Eurosceptics who peddle the myth that Norway is the best [model] for a non-EU Britain are deceiving the British public. They say leaving leads to more democracy and security. This is nonsense.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189);

Not one example of our much cited "influence". Look at the 'reforms' Cameron achieved. Meaningless and not even legally binding.



On Norway, the Norwegian public disagree with him of a margin something like 70% to 17%. If it is so bad as the politician portrays.......

In any case, you're giving way too much thought to the Norway-EEA option. I've stated before that EEA membership like Norway would be my least preferred option (other than current EU membership) and that Britain still has the option of EFTA (like Switzerland) or simply an FTA which would mean we'd have a relationship with the EU similar to that which New Zealand, Australia and America have. That seems to me to be perfectly fine and we'd not be included in Freedom of Movement either. Or alternatively us joining the EEA would give it much more clout and we'd be able to negotiate a much better deal both for ourselves and the Nordic countries.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcFGDEsW8AAGrLD.png



I note that the picture you paint is not a positive one for the EU but "it is our only choice" ....is it really? We can do so much better.

[abc]

@abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189);

Not one example of our much cited "influence". Look at the 'reforms' Cameron achieved. Meaningless and not even legally binding.



On Norway, the Norwegian public disagree with him of a margin something like 70% to 17%. If it is so bad as the politician portrays.......

In any case, you're giving way too much thought to the Norway-EEA option. I've stated before that EEA membership like Norway would be my least preferred option (other than current EU membership) and that Britain still has the option of EFTA (like Switzerland) or simply an FTA which would mean we'd have a relationship with the EU similar to that which New Zealand, Australia and America have. That seems to me to be perfectly fine and we'd not be included in Freedom of Movement either. Or alternatively us joining the EEA would give it much more clout and we'd be able to negotiate a much better deal both for ourselves and the Nordic countries.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcFGDEsW8AAGrLD.png



I note that the picture you paint is not a positive one for the EU but "it is our only choice" ....is it really? We can do so much better.

An EU exit = uncertainty. Markets hate uncertainty. We would have to renegotiate like another 50 Trade deals. And due to the market uncertainty, the pound has already begun falling which is making our imports more expensive. I have not seen pound = $1.39 for a long long time and quite frankly it is going to cost me a lot of money as imports is my main business.

[-:Undertaker:-]

An EU exit = uncertainty. Markets hate uncertainty. And due to the market uncertainty, the pound has already begun falling which is making our imports more expensive. I have not seen pound = $1.39 for a long long time and quite frankly it is going to cost me a lot of money as imports is my main business.

And still no reasons for staying in the EU other than threatening the sky will fall in if we leave.

You've really lost the plot when you bring the movement of the GBP into it lmao, currencies move all the time. It's called speculative trading.


We would have to renegotiate like another 50 Trade deals.

Instead of looking at this with no confidence and laziness, why not look at this as a positive opportunity?

It's a great chance to regain our seat on the WTO and carve out very liberal and relaxed trading deals with countries across the world. Have some optimism! :P

704077540659429382

I am actually very glad from a campaigning POV at the absurdity of the scaremongering by the Remain campaign already as it is blowing apart their credibility.

[abc]

You've really lost the plot when you bring the movement of the GBP into it lmao, currencies move all the time. It's called speculative trading.

This shows how little you know. Do you not understand the affects of a weak pound? Clearly you do not or you would not be making such stupid comments.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This shows how little you know. Do you not understand the affects of a weak pound? Clearly you do not or you would not be making such stupid comments.

I am not disputing the effects of a weaker pound, I am saying that a rise or fall in a currency is often due to speculative trading not the actual events taking place. It is very often the case that markets will "fall" (meaning people sell) before a General Election because of 'uncertainty' yet you surely don't call for an end to elections do you?

In any case if you really want to discuss the strength of the GBP, we can: after all the Bank of England has spent since 2008 trying to get the Pound Sterling to fall as it helps boots exports. In relation to our trade with Europe (which again isn't really relevant to this debate as that will continue regardless) the weakness of the GBP actually helps boost our exports to Europe and the world as we're having to import less and producing more here on these islands. That's a good thing.

Now, back to the EU and Britain's potential once we've left and the risks of remaining inside it.

[abc]

I am not disputing the effects of a weaker pound, I am saying that a rise or fall in a currency is often due to speculative trading not the actual events taking place. It is very often the case that markets will "fall" (meaning people sell) before a General Election because of 'uncertainty' yet you surely don't call for an end to elections do you?

In any case if you really want to discuss the strength of the GBP, we can: after all the Bank of England has spent since 2008 trying to get the Pound Sterling to fall as it helps boots exports. In relation to our trade with Europe (which again isn't really relevant to this debate as that will continue regardless) the weakness of the GBP actually helps boost our exports to Europe and the world as we're having to import less and producing more here on these islands. That's a good thing.

Now, back to the EU and Britain's potential once we've left and the risks of remaining inside it.

Yet after an EU exit the market will still be volatile, full of uncertainty and pound will continue to fall. It will hurt our imports and will lead to price increases. You forget these affects of an exit. Well done.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yet after an EU exit the market will still be volatile, full of uncertainty and pound will continue to fall. It will hurt our imports and will lead to price increases. You forget these affects of an exit. Well done.

I'm sorry but you saying that markets will become volatile following an exit simply isn't grounded in any fact. Where is this evidence and by what mechanism? If an EU exit meant Britain being instantly locked out of world trade then you might have a leg to stand on... but it doesn't mean that.

I make claims on what is likely to happen if we remain in the European Union and I can point to cold hard facts such as the Five Presidents Report on the new Treaty, the lack of legality in the treaties of the supposed reform Cameron secured which would be struck down by the ECJ, QMV & the push for an EU army and the Eurozone outvoting us in the future as it integrates closer together (links on request). Those are all facts and real possibilities which I can point to and claim there is a real risk there to British national interest in remaining within the EU - as well as the existing and provable handicaps of EU membership.

You on the other hand are simply casting assertions out there forecasting possible events that aren't even connected to this process.


You forget these affects of an exit.

How can you assert such a thing?

In the event of a Leave vote we won't even be activating any new agreements until two years after the vote has taken place due to the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. In other words, for up to two years following we shall have exactly the same agreements in place as we do now whilst alternative agreements are made both with the European Union and non-EU countries. Yet you forecast disaster the day after we vote to leave? It doesn't add up.

The Euro for example has plunged against the US Dollar since mid-2014... I could make claims about the EU on that. But it isn't related so I do not.

[The Don]

This shows how little you know. Do you not understand the affects of a weak pound? Clearly you do not or you would not be making such stupid comments.

It's funny how Dan writes off every business/political/influential individual/organisation in favour of the UK remaining in the EU by calling them shills/idiots yet everyone that's in favour of leaving is credible and the only voice we should listen to. It really highlights the mental gymnastics Dan's performing (along with the other fanatics on the pro-brexit side, and no, i'm not calling everyone on the pro-brexit side a fanatic). It's shown even clearer when Dan can't even admit to there being a single benefit of being in the EU. Black in white thinking at its finest. Even though i'm pro-eu I can acknowledge the fact that there are solid arguments for leaving and staying in the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475);

What do we get in the EU that we can't get outside of it?

You've both been free to argue for them but so far we've had nothing but threats repeated whereas I am making a positive case for leaving.

The EU I will remind you is a political project, not an economic one. I asked earlier of @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); for example to provide what remaining in the EU and having "influence" (that widely repeated claim) had actually achieved in 42 years yet I was disappointed but not surprised that no answer came because there isn't one. It has gone down a path we the public do not want. In the past people such as yourself have argued for staying in and arguing for 'reform' yet the 'renegotiation' shows this to be impossible. It is clear we are not getting reform and it is heading in a direction unacceptable for us, why would we choose to stay... unless for a federal Europe?

[The Don]

@The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475);

What do we get in the EU that we can't get outside of it?

You've both been free to argue for them but so far we've had nothing but threats repeated whereas I am making a positive case for leaving.

The EU I will remind you is a political project, not an economic one. I asked earlier of @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); for example to provide what remaining in the EU and having "influence" (that widely repeated claim) had actually achieved in 42 years yet I was disappointed but not surprised that no answer came because there isn't one. It has gone down a path we the public do not want. In the past people such as yourself have argued for staying in and arguing for 'reform' yet the 'renegotiation' shows this to be impossible. It is clear we are not getting reform and it is heading in a direction unacceptable for us, why would we choose to stay... unless for a federal Europe?

Here's a copypasta:

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future."

[abc]

@The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475);

What do we get in the EU that we can't get outside of it?

You've both been free to argue for them but so far we've had nothing but threats repeated whereas I am making a positive case for leaving.

The EU I will remind you is a political project, not an economic one. I asked earlier of @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); for example to provide what remaining in the EU and having "influence" (that widely repeated claim) had actually achieved in 42 years yet I was disappointed but not surprised that no answer came because there isn't one. It has gone down a path we the public do not want. In the past people such as yourself have argued for staying in and arguing for 'reform' yet the 'renegotiation' shows this to be impossible. It is clear we are not getting reform and it is heading in a direction unacceptable for us, why would we choose to stay... unless for a federal Europe?

Further to what Akeam just said above, staying in the EU will strengthen the Pound. Leaving will lead to a decade of uncertainty and therefore a weaker pound and quite frankly that will be damaging to many businesses. Before you say I am speculating - well everything the Brexit team says is speculation so shove it.

[dbgtz]

I'm pretty sure the strength of the pound is pretty much irrelevant to the goings on in the EU. The weakening the pound has seen recently is unrelated as far as I'm aware and I don't see how being in or out of the EU changes this. Please do correct me if I'm wrong though.


Here's a copypasta:

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future."

Some are benefits, some could be done/were done without the EU and some people would be against.

[abc]

I'm pretty sure the strength of the pound is pretty much irrelevant to the goings on in the EU. The weakening the pound has seen recently is unrelated as far as I'm aware and I don't see how being in or out of the EU changes this. Please do correct me if I'm wrong though.



Some are benefits, some could be done/were done without the EU and some people would be against.

Pound began falling quite significantly from the day the referendum was announced. The referendum creates uncertainty and that weakens the currency. So yes, the EU and the referendum is directly related to the current strength of the pound.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's a copypasta:

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;

Incorrect figure and falling, the EU as a % of global trade and UK trade is to continue falling to 2050.


structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;

Like my city of Liverpool? Yes we've received a lot of 'European Union funding'.

Except you left out where EU money comes from. Oh that's right, from Britain as a net contributor. :rolleyes:


clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;

All of this sort of legislation would have been introduced regardless of European legislation as seen in Norway, Switzerland, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand and others. Britain has been drafting legislation like this, and often ahead of Europe, for hundreds of years. In our elected parliament.

If Canadians, Australians and Norwegians had beaches full of oil/rubbish, had no holiday entitlements from work and had poor product safety then you may have had a point. But they don't and infact in many cases they have better living standards than many EU countries do.... but without being in the EU. Funny that.


freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;

It has always been easy to travel, live and work across Europe. The European Union did not invent this concept indeed the Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom have had such bilateral agreements since the 1920s. Thousands of French people have always been able to live and work in London.

Freedom of movement has brought uncontrolled mass immigration which has brought intolerable strains on social services and social cohesion.


EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;

In other words Britain doesn't have a seat on the world's highest trade table despite being the 5th largest economy.


EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;

The EU doesn't have any nuclear weapons and isn't a serious player in any nuclear talks. That's Britain and France.


European arrest warrant;

I fail to understand how the possibility of Britons being locked up abroad for months without trial is a good piece of legislation?


cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;

Nothing to do with the EU. Interpol and Europol are non-EU bodies.


European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;

The EU doesn't have a military (thank god).

Military co-operation & intelligence is done on a bilateral basis (Five Eyes Group) or via NATO.


support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;

Meaningless verbiage.


investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.

You mean to say the EU makes investments like a company does? And where does EU money come from.


All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.

Yeah nothing to do with NATO or thousands of American and British troops in Europe.

It was the EU. which doesn't have any army.


It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.

that's called capitalism mate.

you'll have noticed that Chile, China, India, Singapore and countless others have had amazing development... surprisingly unassisted by the EU!


We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future."

A full part?

So do you @The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); advocate us joining the Eurozone, Schengen and forming a part of an EU army? yes/no


Further to what Akeam just said above, staying in the EU will strengthen the Pound. Leaving will lead to a decade of uncertainty and therefore a weaker pound and quite frankly that will be damaging to many businesses. Before you say I am speculating - well everything the Brexit team says is speculation so shove it.

again just meaningless guesswork.

i'll do it back then. if we leave the EU the pound will strengthen. staying in the EU will lead to a decade or two of uncertainty due to the ongoing crisis in the EU and therefore a weaker pound and quite frankly that'll just damage business in this country. and before you say i am speculating, i am speculating just as you have done.

how easy was that. Not backed up by anything concrete but just assertions in the hope someone will believe the scare stories and be frightened.

[dbgtz]

Pound began falling quite significantly from the day the referendum was announced. The referendum creates uncertainty and that weakens the currency. So yes, the EU and the referendum is directly related to the current strength of the pound.

Pound has been said to be overvalued for a while
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/eur/2646-pound-overvalued-against-the-euro-43243
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec6bef86-1653-11e4-8210-00144feabdc0.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

Some are benefits, some could be done/were done without the EU and some people would be against.

Indeed and you know they both miss the crucial point in this entire debate which is always piled under all the economic arguments. It's about democracy.

If a government is elected in this country to scrap some environmental regulations then the will of the people should prevail. If a government is elected by the people of this country to subsidise a large business that is on the rocks then the will of the people should prevail. Now I may disagree with these, you may agree with these.

Point being, a government should be able to repeal/adopt legislation. If we do not like what the government does then we can vote it out.. EU law we cannot vote out. And that is a fundamental attack on the premise of parliamentary sovereignty and the age-old idea that "no government can bind its predecessor".

[abc]

Pound has been said to be overvalued for a while
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/eur/2646-pound-overvalued-against-the-euro-43243
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec6bef86-1653-11e4-8210-00144feabdc0.html

Have you even read the first link because I am pretty sure you have just read the title and posted the link.

Funny how pound fell significantly right after the announcement on the referendum was made.

And Dan, everything you post is purely speculation on what UK would have done or will do without the EU. Yet if we post any speculation you flame us for it? Okkkayyyy then.

[dbgtz]

Have you even read the first link because I am pretty sure you have just read the title and posted the link.

Funny how pound fell significantly right after the announcement on the referendum was made.

And Dan, everything you post is purely speculation on what UK would have done or will do without the EU. Yet if we post any speculation you flame us for it? Okkkayyyy then.

Skimmed them both, why?
My whole point was that some fall was inevitable regardless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And Dan, everything you post is purely speculation on what UK would have done or will do without the EU. Yet if we post any speculation you flame us for it? Okkkayyyy then.

It is common sense or realpolitik.

If countries less well off can manage, we for sure can. Look at comparable countries and think about it. The fact you are asserting the world's 5th largest economy needs a political union it only joined in 1973 to 'survive' is just dishonest. I told you the EU isn't intended for economics, it's political.

In other news another former British Chancellor of the Exchequer has come out and backed British exit from the EU.

704822051467440128


Lord Lamont, the former Tory chancellor, has backed the campaign to take Britain out of the European Union and says that Downing Street’s warnings about the alternatives to membership are “irrelevant”.

Writing in The Telegraph, the Conservative peer who is also David Cameron’s former boss, says that Britain must “take control” of immigration and that quitting the EU is a “once in a generation opportunity”.

In a blow to the Prime Minister, he uses the article to reject claims being made by Downing Street today that “all alternatives to EU membership will damage Britain”.

Number 10 will today unveil its latest dossier on the risk of a “Brexit”, warning that the arrangements used by non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland would lead to “economic shock”.

However, Lord Lamont of Lerwick says that “talk about Norway is irrelevant” and writes that “Britain would have its own arrangement suited to our circumstances”.

Refuting the argument that Britain will not be able to reach an agreement with the EU after a “Brexit”, Lord Lamont writes: “Supporters of the EU demand to know what sort of agreement Britain would have with the EU in order to continue trading.

“What is forgotten is that the EU needs an agreement just as much as we do. German car manufacturers can’t be left up in the air, not knowing the terms on which they can export to their largest market, the UK. There’s a mutual need.”

On immigration, Lord Lamont writes: “Britain has also lost control of its borders. Of course, we need some immigration, skilled and unskilled, but we do not need immigration in the hundreds of thousands. There is no economic case for it.”

When the likes of Lords Lamont, Howard and Owen are calling for an EU exit you know they've realised the entire thing is unreformable to our needs.

[FlyingJesus]

Black in white

I think I've seen that video


This whole thread is a mess it's ALL speculation because no-one knows what's going to happen. I could claim that if we leave America will buy us as a new state and Trump will become our supreme overlord and I could also claim that if we stay we'll be subsumed by France and have to wear garlic around our necks all the time, but the reality is we just can't know. More reasonably, it may be that we leave and get perfect trading agreements with everyone in the universe and each of us eats off a golden plate and it may be that we leave and everyone takes advantage of our position as a singular nation to rip us off in the knowledge that we require trade. At this point it's just like any election, petty squabbling and everyone denying each other's numbers

Whatever the truth is, this is pretty funny and well made
https://giant.gfycat.com/SilkyBoringHorsechestnutleafminer.gif

[-:Undertaker:-]

A few more slithers of news.

The Swiss Government has officially withdrawn it's decades-old application to join the EU. Must be awful outside the EU! Those poor starving Swiss.

The last referendum the Swiss had on the issue was in 2001 when over 75% of Swiss voters rejected joining the EU - so today's news is a formality.

705001502310535169

The head of the Remain campaign Lord Rose has today been accused of “intellectual dishonesty” by the Treasury Select Committee.

http://order-order.com/2016/03/02/select-committee-accuses-stuart-rose-of-intellectual-dishonesty/

He's also admitted on camera that wages for low skilled wages would increase on Britain leaving the EU.

705074311657291776


More reasonably, it may be that we leave and get perfect trading agreements with everyone in the universe and each of us eats off a golden plate and it may be that we leave and everyone takes advantage of our position as a singular nation to rip us off in the knowledge that we require trade. At this point it's just like any election, petty squabbling and everyone denying each other's numbers

I make no claims of a perfect Britain following an exit because my point rather is the day after Brexit we'll wake up as we are now: the sky won't have fallen in as the Remain campaign seem to claim day in and day out. But rather the benefits would start to be seen over the next decade after an exit as our FTAs with developing nations take on more and more importance as world growth and economic power shifts east towards Asia and away from Europe.

My point throughout all of this is we're clearly heading for the exit as the EU integrates. Let's leave and grab those opportunities now rather than later.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/10/queen-voiced-eurosceptic-eu-views-more-than-once-sun-editor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/12189648/The-Sun-stands-by-Queen-Backs-Brexit-story-as-newspaper-claims-they-knew-more-than-they-published-live.html?sf22289206=1

Queen voiced Eurosceptic views more than once, says Sun editor

Tony Gallagher stands by paper’s ‘Queen backs Brexit’ story after palace complains to press regulator

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/E032/production/_88649375_the-sun-front-page-09.03.16.jpg


The Sun has stepped up its battle with Buckingham Palace over the Queen’s alleged Euroscepticism by claiming it knows more than it has published about the monarch’s anti-EU views.

The paper’s editor, Tony Gallagher, robustly stood by the story that the Queen had vented her anger concerning the European Union to then-Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg during a lunch at Windsor Castle in 2011, and suggested she had voiced similar views on at least one other occasion.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Gallagher said: “We knew much more than we published, and that remains the case. There is not just one occasion when these views were aired. There was a second occasion when she expressed similarly scathing views about the EU at Buckingham Palace.”

After the initial story appeared on Wednesday under the headline “Queen backs Brexit”, the palace took the unusual step of complaining to the press regulator. The palace said the complaint related to clause one of the editor’s code, which covers inaccurate headlines not supported by the text of the article.

Asked whether the Sun was guilty of overwriting the headline to the story, Gallagher said: “Absolutely not.”

He said: “Two sources came to us with information about the Queen and her views on the EU and we would have been derelict in our duty if we didn’t put them in the paper.

“The fact that the story is inconvenient for a good number of people is not my fault. We serve our readers, not the elite who might be upset at what we’ve written. We are completely confident that the Queen’s views were expressed exactly as we’ve outlined in both the headline and the story.”

There has been widespread speculation that the justice minister, Michael Gove, who is campaigning for a vote to leave the EU, was one of the sources for the story, as he was at the Windsor Castle lunch. A spokesman for Gove said he did not comment on private conversations.

The newspaper are certainly sticking to the story despite it being referred to the IPCC so looks like there is merit in it. In addition, Nick Clegg initially rubbished this story but issued a statement that is known as a non-denial denial. In short, maybe disputing certain parts but not the entire story.

Not surprising she backs an exit (if true) though given how strongly she is known to feel about the Commonwealth. I'm sure she would much rather we be signing trade deals with our real friends like Canada, Australia, Singapore, India and Malaysia than arguing all the time with Germany & France. Added onto this, I would be appalled if any monarch of this country did not support it's continued national independence and existence as a sovereign state.

The story is unfolding though so we'll see what happens. The Justice Secretary Michael Gove MP is being dragged into the row now.

Thread merged by Empired (Forum Moderator) into the EU Referendum Megathread

[FlyingJesus]

Oh I saw this yesterday but assumed it was a link to The Onion or something haha, prob because the headline was claiming she'd had a shouting match with Clegg about it which is a totally hilarious image. Wouldn't be surprised if she did make some anti-EU comments at some point but then again The Sun also recently published a story saying that Maddie McCann was confirmed alive in Paraguay so who knows

[The Don]

False and Buckingham Palace have made an official complaint over it.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-queen-idUKKCN0WB0WC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12188398/pmqs-sunday-trading-snp-eu-referendum-live.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35762443

edit: and isn't there a megathread for this?? xxMATTGxx;

[The Don]

Stephen Hawking among 150 signatories of letter arguing that ability to attract top European researchers assures future of British science


Stephen Hawking has backed the campaign for Britain to stay in the EU, saying Brexit would be a “disaster for UK science”.

A letter to the Times signed by more than 150 fellows of the Royal Society, including Hawking, says leaving the EU would hamper research in the UK, because many young scientists are recruited from Europe.

The scientists write: “We now recruit many of our best researchers from continental Europe, including younger ones who have obtained EU grants and have chosen to move with them here.

“Being able to attract and fund the most talented Europeans assures the future of British science and also encourages the best scientists elsewhere to come here.”

They also say increased funding from the EU has benefited the UK and science as a whole. They note the example of Switzerland, which despite paying in to the EU has limited access to funds and struggles to attract young talent because of freedom of movement restrictions.

“If the UK leaves the EU and there is a loss of freedom of movement of scientists between the UK and Europe, it will be a disaster for UK science and universities,” the letter says.

“Investment in science is as important for the long-term prosperity and security of the UK as investment in infrastructure projects, farming or manufacturing; and the free movement of scientists is as important for science as free trade is for market economics.”

The letter was organised by Sir Alan Fersht, a University of Cambridge professor who specialises in protein science.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/10/brexit-disaster-for-uk-science-say-scientists-stephen-hawking

More leading figures that suggest leaving the EU wouldn't be in our best interest. But i'm sure Dan's about to come and explain how Stephen Hawking is actually an idiot who is wrong/a shill for the EU :rolleyes:

Thread merged by Empired (Forum Moderator) into the EU Referendum Megathread

[-:Undertaker:-]

@The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); Buckingham Palace may have referred the issue but The Sun isn't backing down on this which makes me think it isn't a typical Sun invention. More to the point, Chris Grayling refuses to say whether the suspected minister who has leaked the Queen's views on the EU should face any action by the cabinet office. From what I have read, the story appears to have something in it: just look at Clegg's non-denial.

Now as for Stephen Hawking, he's very good at what he does but that doesn't make him a genius on matters EU related. Indeed as somebody pointed out, the letter from those academics doesn't really add up that the UK would somehow lose out when you see this.....

707863936855621632

In other news, the Icelandic Prime Minister has come out and basically backed Britain leaving.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/09/uk-wields-no-influence-in-german-dominated-eu-warns-iceland/

The scare stories like the one you've posted above are so ridiculous when you look at Norway, Switzerland and Iceland all doing better outside the EU than many countries inside are doing despite being tiny countries compared with Britain. It's so silly and telling that all you have is fear as an argument.


Britain has little or no say over decisions made in a European Union increasingly dominated by German interests, Iceland’s prime minister has said. A leader of non-EU member state, Iceland’s Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson warned larger member states like the UK wield “diminishing power” in institutions still under the sway of the Franco-German alliance.

Iceland, which has been held up as one of the models for the UK in a potential post-Brexit world, has access to the EU's single market and is free to conduct bilateral trade deals around the world.

The lie of 'reform' that supporters of the EU such as Akeam have pushed for years has collapsed infront of their eyes too.

707954994683748352

And the until-recently former head of the British Chambers of Commerce is joining the Vote Leave campaign.

http://news.sky.com/story/1657453/ex-bcc-chief-longworth-to-join-vote-leave

[FlyingJesus]

Hawking might not be an expert on the EU (who knows) but he is an expert in his field, which is what he was commenting on. If the only refutation to his comments is "but right now we're fine!" then I think there needs to be a new angle of attack, because that's actually looking in favour of staying lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hawking might not be an expert on the EU (who knows) but he is an expert in his field, which is what he was commenting on. If the only refutation to his comments is "but right now we're fine!" then I think there needs to be a new angle of attack, because that's actually looking in favour of staying lol

All of these organisations are in payment of EU funds so obviously are attempting to protect their nest eggs, despite the fact Britain pays more in than it gets out. In addition, don't be fooled into thinking that academics don't have alternative motives for signing such letters: they're political animals with ideology/opinions like the rest of us. But common sense aside, here's a detailed and interesting piece basically taking apart the fear letter what Hawking and others have signed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12182018/Dont-listen-to-the-EUs-panicking-pet-academics.html

CERN after all was built in non-EU Switzerland.


In the last year or so, the letters pages of Britain’s quality newspapers have been full of pleas from distinguished vice-chancellors and professors, all mobilised in serried ranks, to plead the case for Britain remaining in the European Union (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11692879/Leaving-the-EU-would-damage-UK-universities.html). Their ostensible excuse is the need to preserve research funding from the EU for British universities. Apparently, should Britain leave the EU, she will immediately enter a dark age, deprived of the beacons of scientific and academic research.Their real motive, of course, is simply political bias. If true academic concern were the basis of this organised campaign, the leaders of our academic community would be writing letters reminding politicians of both camps that in their battles over Brexit the concerns of universities should not be overlooked and that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, the funding of vital research should be protected. This would have been, indeed, should have been the natural, politically neutral stand of the nation’s academy.

As Sked also points out, the EU's own legislation states that non-EU states must be treated the same as EU states when it comes to European scientific research.


Indeed, a few minutes' research on the internet could have revealed to these academic heavyweights that on 2 December 2013 the European Council adopted Council Regulation EU No. 1261/2013 (amending Regulation EC723-2009) regarding the European Research Infrastructure Consortium, whereby the participation of countries outside the EU would henceforth be treated on the same basis as EU member states themselves. Indeed, ‘"their contributions to ERICs will be fully reflected in terms of membership and voting rights." This regulation came into force on 26 December 2013. Thus EU and non-EU states participating in European research consortia have exactly the same rights.

These scare mongering arguments are just so easy to debunk.

[FlyingJesus]

Can't be blocked from doing research, can be blocked from recruiting the best minds to perform it just like Switzerland has been

[-:Undertaker:-]

Can't be blocked from doing research, can be blocked from recruiting the best minds to perform it just like Switzerland has been

Evidence for this is....?

[abc]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/things-eu-done-for-manchester-11020085#ICID=ios_MENNewsApp_AppShare_Click_FB

[FlyingJesus]

Evidence for this is....?

Switzerland

[-:Undertaker:-]

Norway has said it would invest possibly even more in Britain if we left the EU.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3486917/We-ll-invest-UK-quit-EU-says-super-rich-Norway.html


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Buck_palace_%2B_change_guards_028.jpg/300px-Buck_palace_%2B_change_guards_028.jpg


The boss of the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund yesterday declared that it would invest more in the UK if we vote to leave the EU. Yngve Slyngstad, chief executive of Norway’s £590billion state-owned investment fund, dismissed claims by Number Ten and the In campaign that quitting the Brussels club would pose a significant risk to investment.

‘We will continue to be a significant investor in the UK at about the same level as we are today and probably even increasing our investments there no matter what happens,’ he said. ‘All changes entail some risk but we would not categorize it as a significant risk.’


That's strange. From reading posts in this thread from some you'd be led to believe anyone outside the EU was poor. :P


Switzerland

Right.

And how exactly has non-EU Switzerland blocked from "recruiting the best minds to perform" science & research?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's more from The Sun this morning on the Queen and the EU.

708194548208390144

Tony Benn (d. 2014) was the former - Labour - Secretary of State for Industry and of Energy.

[scottish]

Norway has said it would invest possibly even more in Britain if we left the EU.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3486917/We-ll-invest-UK-quit-EU-says-super-rich-Norway.html


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Buck_palace_%2B_change_guards_028.jpg/300px-Buck_palace_%2B_change_guards_028.jpg



That's strange. From reading posts in this thread from some you'd be led to believe anyone outside the EU was poor. :P



Right.

And how exactly has non-EU Switzerland blocked from "recruiting the best minds to perform" science & research?

That's not what it says


‘We will continue to be a significant investor in the UK at about the same level as we are today and probably even increasing our investments there no matter what happens,’ he said.

Does not equal


Norway has said it would invest possibly even more in Britain if we left the EU.

or, in that case... Norway has said it would invest possibly even more in Britain if we stay in the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@scottish (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53890); we can read what it says hence why i put the word possibly into the sentence. :|


"Norway has said it would invest possibly even more in Britain if we left the EU."

they're the ones making claims about what will happen so i am pointing out how the Norwegian SWF has said investment could possibly increase despite all their doom and gloom predictions. i've never personally said investment will increase in the event of an exit but rather i am simply dispelling the scare stories of the other side. investment, as the Norwegian guy says, will stay same or even increase. it all depends on favourable market conditions, not a political union which is my entire point.

if it wasn't for others in the thread using that fear argument, i wouldn't feel the need to even combat it [investment] as it isn't really related to the EU.

[FlyingJesus]

And how exactly has non-EU Switzerland blocked from "recruiting the best minds to perform" science & research?

In exactly the way Hawking warned we would be, by not having our students and institutions considered part of the ERASMUS programme. All your gish galloping doesn't change the original point

[-:Undertaker:-]

In exactly the way Hawking warned we would be, by not having our students and institutions considered part of the ERASMUS programme. All your gish galloping doesn't change the original point

I ask or "gish gallop" because a quick check would show you that the following non-EU countries take part in Erasmus (http://www.erasmusprogramme.com/country.php?country=Finland).....

Turkey, Iceland, Macedonia, Liechtenstein and Norway are all part of the Erasmus scheme yet are not in the European Union.

Switzerland also took part in the programme until a few years ago but I still see no evidence this has hurt Switzerland in any form.


So your 'original point' is a misguided one because EU membership is not a requirement to take part in this particular student exchange scheme. Sorry.

[FlyingJesus]

They were kicked out of it for not following the EU line on immigration, and a gish gallop isn't about asking questions it's about how you constantly bring up points no-one's disputing or cares about to drown out whatever the discussion started as. The only way to retain the benefits of the EU (and whether or not they outweigh the negatives isn't the point here) is to remain within it, or at least to do as they say from the outside which is obviously no different. That aside, this particular branch of discussion budded from the very weird suggestion that we couldn't possibly be left out of Erasmus because currently we benefit from it

I'll grant that there's probably not been a lot of difference seen in Switzerland yet considering it's been one academic term since the change, you can take that as a victory if you're desperate I guess

[-:Undertaker:-]

They were kicked out of it for not following the EU line on immigration, and a gish gallop isn't about asking questions it's about how you constantly bring up points no-one's disputing or cares about to drown out whatever the discussion started as. The only way to retain the benefits of the EU (and whether or not they outweigh the negatives isn't the point here) is to remain within it, or at least to do as they say from the outside which is obviously no different. That aside, this particular branch of discussion budded from the very weird suggestion that we couldn't possibly be left out of Erasmus because currently we benefit from it

That is just incorrect.

As I point out, there are other member states taking part in Erasmus which are not only not in the EU but also not in the EEA or even EFTA (Turkey).

But even if it were true, let us just say it suddenly became EU-exclusive, there's nothing to stop us and others setting up bi-lateral exchange schemes.


I'll grant that there's probably not been a lot of difference seen in Switzerland yet considering it's been one academic term since the change, you can take that as a victory if you're desperate I guess

Thank you.

I would hope after we've left we continue to take part in Erasmus (and think we will) but if not then it isn't the end of the world. There are other options.

[FlyingJesus]

Why does it always come down to speculation and hope? That's not an argument it's rhetoric, and it's worrying how invested in a cause (one way or the other) some people will get without any sort of proof of the outcome. Dangerous, reactionary thinking which encourages change for the sake of change

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why does it always come down to speculation and hope? That's not an argument it's rhetoric, and it's worrying how invested in a cause (one way or the other) some people will get without any sort of proof of the outcome. Dangerous, reactionary thinking which encourages change for the sake of change

It's hope and logic based on reason given there are five other non-EU countries in the scheme.

Even if Erasmus was EU-only countries I don't believe Erasmus is worth the price of national independence and democracy, but you wanted to debate it.

[FlyingJesus]

No I wanted to question the idea that us doing well right now means we wouldn't be kicked out of Erasmus

[-:Undertaker:-]

More on the Queen's views on the matter as The Sun says it is prepared to publish more evidence of her views on the matter.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6989349/The-Sun-sticks-to-Queen-Brexit-story.html


http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/image/view/-/643194/highRes/96000/-/maxw/600/-/rwv5wkz/-/Commonwealth-queen.jpg
Queen inspects a troop in Commonwealth country Uganda. She is believed to favour the Commonwealth over the EU.


THE Queen has been worried about Britain being sucked into a European superstate for decades – according to the Government’s official website.

In a major blow to David Cameron’s claims our revelation about her anti-EU views are not true, Her Majesty’s deep misgivings are clearly laid bare in an article by Oxford historian DR Thorpe.

The post on the GOV.UK site written in 2012 which sets out The Queen’s relationships with 12 different Prime Ministers said: “The relationship with Edward Heath was not always easy, as his world-view differed sharply from that of the Queen. European integration was Heath’s vision.

The Queen, however, saw her role as Head of the Commonwealth to be of supreme importance.”

The article is further proof of the Queen’s long-running Euroscepticism which was exposed by The Sun this week - leading to claims she wants Britain to leave in June’s In-Out referendum.

And The Sun has established it is backed up by several Royal biographies.

In Counting One’s Blessings, the selected letters of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, William Shawcross described how The Queen was quietly happy when the UK was turned down for membership of the Brussels club 53 years ago.

Mr Shawcross wrote: “When in January 1963 de Gaulle magisterially said ‘Non!’ to Britain’s application to join the European Economic Community (as it then was), Queen Elizabeth was not outraged. Her sympathies were with the Commonwealth and with individual European countries, not with a bureaucratic institution.”

Ben Pimlott, in his major biography The Queen, also described Her Majesty’s worries about the impact of hitching Britain to Europe.He wrote: “The debate over the Common Market, and Britain’s relations with it, became a matter of intimate concern to the Crown after the political decision was made in July 1961 to seek entry. Although the Government denied it, few doubted that a successful bit to join the European Six would be a turning point for the Commonwealth, not only ending preferential trading arrangements, but destroying the idea of a Brito-centric, mutually supportive, world-wide bloc.

”The Queen was bombarded with anger from Commonwealth leaders in 1962 despite then PM’s claims membership of the two associations would be “complementary”. Mr Pimlott writes: “Most were sceptical. So, perhaps, was the association’s Head. Before the Conference the Queen expressed herself ‘worried about Commonwealth feeling’ to Macmillian in his weekly audience.”

And when the UK eventually did join in 1973, The Queen publicly said “we are trying to create a wider family of nations”.

But, Mr Pimlott writes, “In retrospect, it can be seen as a cri de coeur. For if entry into Europe was a turning point for Britain and the Commonwealth, it was a moment of crisis for the Monarchy. The idea of the joining of families, even of the impregnation of one by the other, was political and economic nonsense, a desperate bid to evade the reality.”

Sarah Bradford, in her biography Queen Elizabeth II Her Life In Our Times, adds: “The Queen, according to some pro-European politicians, was not anti-Europe, but there is little doubt that she did not share Heath’s passion for the alliance to the detriment of two other important relationships which she cherished – with the Commonwealth and with the United States.”

Confirmation of The Queen’s long track record of Euroscepticism came after The Sun revealed earlier this week how she was said to have told former Deputy PM Nick Clegg at a Windsor Castle lunch that she believed the EU was heading in the wrong direction. We also revealed that at a Buckingham Palace function she was said to have snapped: “I don’t understand Europe.”

The story created a major furore as Buckingham Palace lodged a formal complaint to Press watchdog IPSO – but The Sun is standing by the story.

Today Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood refused demands for an inquiry into the source of the story as the Establishment closed ranks.

He told Labour MP Wes Streeting that because Buckingham Palace and Mr Clegg had denied the story, “I do not believe that there is anything I can usefully investigate here.”

[Thordenhime]

People who rely on the sun as an accurate source of information probally think horoscopes are accurate too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

People who rely on the sun as an accurate source of information probally think horoscopes are accurate too.

that's why whenever any newspaper or news source comes out with a story you research yourself and look at other sources, as has been done with this story.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Great short speech/talk by Boris today at a Vote Leave business rally which I have posted below the article snippet.

Basically putting forward the question of if we weren't already in the EU, would we vote to join it today given the complete mess it is in?


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/11/13/3218477B00000578-0-image-a-18_1457703258233.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/11/13/321836AA00000578-0-image-a-7_1457702909592.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3487643/David-Cameron-doesn-t-guts-Brexit-claims-Boris-Johnson-tells-voters-ignore-merchants-gloom-EU-referendum-campaign-intensifies.html


Boris Johnson has accused David Cameron of not having the 'guts to get out' of the EU as he claimed the In campaign was 'hopelessly underestimating' what Britain could achieve if it quit the Brussels club. The Mayor of London appealed to voters to ignore the 'merchants of gloom' warning of the risks of Brexit as he attempted to set out a positive vision of life outside the EU.

He claimed Britain would never back joining the 'woefully unreformed' EU if it was already outside - a direct rebuke to Mr Cameron after he said following his EU deal last month that he would 'certainly' sign up to the EU on the terms of his renegotiation. Mr Johnson - who arrived late for his speech in Dartford, Kent and joked that the Government needed to 'take back control of South East trains' - insisted Britain could 'prosper and thrive as never before' if voters opted to leave the EU in June's referendum. And he added that the growing German dominance of the EU project was dangerous.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32gO2yVsVJk

[abc]

UK voting to leave the EU is listed as a GLOBAL RISK by the Economist Intelligence Unit.


Basically putting forward the question of if we weren't already in the EU, would we vote to join it today given the complete mess it is in?

It is not a question which holds much substance, we do not know the real scenario of how UK would be without the EU. UK could have been in complete turmoil without the EU - you just do not know, or it could have been thriving. No one knows. So these kind of bullshit questions are only effective on those who are incapable of using their own thoughts and thus rely on other peoples ideas and opinions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12197894/Brexit-to-trigger-revolution-in-better-laws-officials-expect.html

Brexit to trigger revolution in better laws, officials expect

An exit from the European Union would be seized on by ministers as a golden opportunity to govern an "unshackled" Britain better, some senior officials believe


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02154/whitehall_2154519b.jpg

Ministers will use Brexit to tear up acres of existing law as 80,000 pages of EU regulation are examined, say officials



A British exit from the European Union could be seized upon by ministers as a liberating moment which would trigger a revolutionary shake-up of public policy, senior officials believe.

Mandarins are preparing for every corner of Whitehall to be uprooted in what is likely to be one of the most radical revisions of the British state since the Second World War. Decades of legislation on health, justice and agricultural policy will be called into question by ministers as the UK is released from the “shackles” of the European “corpse”, during a vast “de-accession” process in which the UK is unstitched from 80,000 pages of European law, it is suggested.

The ensuing flood of new legislation will dominate every Queen’s Speech for a decade, one British official said.

The Government’s official position is that a Brexit would trigger years of needless and economically damaging uncertainty.

But in an altogether sunnier analysis, some senior officials privately believe the process would be seized on by ministers in a new, Eurosceptic-dominated government as an unprecedented opportunity to regulate from scratch, rather than simply replicating the existing EU law.

One idea in contention is the creation of a new Ministry for Trade, staffed with hundreds of new negotiators, in order to conduct simultaneous deals with Japan, the United States and China. At present, Britain cannot conduct trade deals outside of the single market.

According to one analysis, developing a Britain-specific deal is likely to take five years, running way beyond the two-year period between a country triggering the Article 50 exit clause and it being released from the European treaties. As such, it is likely the UK would adopt a model similar to Norway’s as holding position, before gravitating to a more bespoke arrangement, according to one scenario under discussion.

The process would involve British and EU teams vastly larger than that used to conduct the renegotiation process. It would amount to a haggle between Britain’s desire to regulate differently, and demands from the EU to retain current standards if it wants access to the single market.

A Ministry of Trade to negotiate free trade deals with the world... sounds good to me.


UK voting to leave the EU is listed as a GLOBAL RISK by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

It is not a question which holds much substance, we do not know the real scenario of how UK would be without the EU. UK could have been in complete turmoil without the EU - you just do not know, or it could have been thriving. No one knows. So these kind of bullshit questions are only effective on those who are incapable of using their own thoughts and thus rely on other peoples ideas and opinions.

oh that's just so silly "complete turmoil" lmao yeah turmoil just like canada, australia, norway, switzerland

this is the REALITY and turmoil of the EU.

dangerous war games, border collapse, mass unemployment, terror attacks, nazi rallies and fostering hatred between european peoples

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/Migrants-347777.jpg

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/10/10/1226492/451070-greece-financial-crisis-merkel.jpg

http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-316097-galleryV9-uxzo-316097.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03501/PARIS-BATACLAN-INS_3501250b.jpg

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/pww2.jpg

http://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Munich-dont-touch-girls.jpg

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/leaflet.jpg

Post edited by Empired (Forum Moderator): please remember to add BADSPOILER tags to images that may be upsetting to users

[-:Undertaker:-]

Seems apt and rather obvious given what has happened in Brussels yesterday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506451/Ex-Mi6-chief-insists-Brexit-NOT-damage-national-security-Britain-s-best-intelligence-isn-t-shared-leaky-EU-institutions-anyway.html

Former MI6 chief says British exit would not damage national security because Britain's best intelligence isn't shared with 'leaky' EU institutions anyway

- Former top spook said most EU measures related to crime not security
- Richard Dearlove's claims appear to contrast with those of Theresa May
- Home Secretary backed the In campaign to protect Britain's security


http://www.thejc.com/files/imagecache/body_landscape/ZF+dinner.JPG


Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove today backed Brexit as he insisted it would not damage the nation's security.

Sir Richard was Britain's top spook until 2004 and said getting out of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU's free movement could boost security. Home Secretary Theresa May surprised some in Westminster when she backed David Cameron's EU In campaign on the grounds of security.

But Sir Richard insisted the only benefits related to crime - adding on the European Arrest Warrant that 'few would notice its passing'. In an article for Prospect Magazine, Sir Richard said national security was served by international cooperation but only with trusted allies and not the entire EU as this leaked information like a 'colander'.

He said: 'Though the UK participates in various European and Brussels-based security bodies, they are of little consequence. 'The Club de Berne, made up of European Security Services; the Club de Madrid, made up of European Intelligence Services; Europol; and the Situation Centre in the European Commission are generally speaking little more than forums for the exchange of analysis and views. 'With the exception of Europol, these bodies have no operational capacity and with 28 members of vastly varying levels of professionalism in intelligence and security, the convoy must accommodate the slowest and leakiest of the ships of state.'

Sir Richard warned: 'The larger powers cannot put their best intelligence material into such colanders.'

Sir Richard said counter terrorism work was usually conducted bilaterally or occasionally trilaterally. He said: 'Brussels has little or nothing to do with them, in large part due to what is known as the ''Third Party Rule,'' a notion that is little understood outside the intelligence fraternity but which is essential to intelligence liaison worldwide. 'This rule states that the recipient of intelligence from one nation cannot pass it on to a third without the originator's agreement.'

Sir Richard insisted this meant security cooperation with the United States would not be damaged by a Brexit.

[A]

http://habbox.com/assets/images//2015/04/10/9f5de46959282f9a505d606998101a73.png

More than 250 business leaders have officially announced that they support the exit of Britain to leave the European Union and the list keeps growing? However, leaders have now started a battle and have been signing paperwork that says we should stick in the EU. This list however only consists of 36 leaders. What does this mean? Will Britain finally end up leaving the EU and are we strong enough to do so? Find out more by reading below!

Click here to read more of the article over at Habbox.COM! (http://habbox.com/all-articles/real-life/current-affairs/britain-leaving-eu-leaders-back-choice)

[abc]

The business leaders who are supporting it are doing so in personal capacity and many of them are former leaders but current CEO's etc.

I think given the situation the country currently is in, we will end up leaving the EU. There has been a significant increase in the last three months in application for British Citienship by those from the EU who have been living here for longer than five years. Secondly people will not like the restrictions UK is facing in helping it's own industry. These matters coming up just a few months before the referendum will make people think twice which way to vote.

In other news, New Zealand has said if it was in Europe and had the option to join EU then it would.

I am not significantly bothered whether or not our country stays or leaves but I wouldn't be surprised if we leave.

There are many benefits to staying in the EU, considering more than 50 per cent of our exports go to EU countries, allows us to have a say over how trading rules are drawn up. The say might be small but it is better than no voice if we leave the EU.

According tot he BBC, the EU is currently negotiating with the US to create the world's biggest free trade area, something that will be highly beneficial to British business.

It is difficult to predict how leaving the EU will affect foreign investment. UK's status as one of the world's biggest financial centres will be diminished if it is no longer seen as a gateway to the EU for the likes of US banks however if done correctly, UK could become like Singapore but many laws would have to be changed to attract the financial sector.

I hope both sides inform the public honestly of the facts rather than trying to scare the public with claims they cannot backup. I hate to say it but a large portion of the British public know very little about EU or it's impact on our country. If their current position is poor (in terms of job or finance etc) then they need someone to blame and EU becomes a easy target - so someone who is unemployed would find it very easy to blame Europeans for "stealing their job" and would thus be more likely to vote to leave.

The outlook of UK's manufacturing industry looks poor, and the steel industry is just an example of how it will get worse as cheap imports from the East continues to kill off our manufacturing. Therefore if EU accounts for 50% of our exports, leaving could significantly damage our manufacturing industry and therefore lead to more job losses.

The way the world is moving, the manufacturing in western countries as a whole will reduce and EU really needs to change it's laws. China has extremely high tariffs on it's steel imports hence it is cheaper for Chinese companies to buy Steel locally. Further Chinese steel is so cheap than importing it is cheaper for us than buying it locally. Hence EU needs to look at these regulations and consider putting in high tariffs on Chinese imports to help the local industries. However this would negatively impact the companies here who would then be paying more for local steel and therefore this would lead to price increases which would therefore disadvantage the local public.

There is a lot to think about and this EU in or out question is not easy. No one knows how staying in or leaving will turn out. Anything anyone says is purely prediction and nothing is set in stone. If we stay, the EU could collapse tomorrow or alternatively it could flourish and help us a lot. In the same way, leaving could be a disaster and it may damage our economy quite significantly, or alternatively it could benefit us and save our economy. No one knows.

We will hear more on both sides as we nearer the referendum so it will be interesting to see what both sides come out with. I am not sure if debates are planned but it would be good if they organised debates in the same way they did for the General Election.

[kinaper]

#VoteStay

[-:Undertaker:-]

I won't pick up on it all but a quick comment about the trade deals side of it.


There are many benefits to staying in the EU, considering more than 50 per cent of our exports go to EU countries, allows us to have a say over how trading rules are drawn up. The say might be small but it is better than no voice if we leave the EU.

A few points on this.

- Exports to the EU are now under 50% (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3439693/Britain-s-trade-EU-slumps-Major-boost-Leave-campaign-exports-outside-Europe-continue-soar.html) with over 50% going to outside of the EU.
- Exports to the EU are in reality even lower than the official figure of 47% in 2014 due to the 'Rotterdam Effect' (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100171677/no-prime-minister-the-eu-is-becoming-less-economically-important-by-the-hour/).
- The percentage of our exports that go to the EU will severely decline over the coming decades as India, China & the Commonwealth grow (below).


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03336/Capture_3336133b.jpg

- Many international trade agreements are now decided at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) of which we do not have a seat due to EU membership.
- Our 'influence' in the EU is virtually non-existent (https://fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/). In the % of the Council/Commission/Parliament we have only a small allocation of votes (http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/issues_politicians).


According tot he BBC, the EU is currently negotiating with the US to create the world's biggest free trade area, something that will be highly beneficial to British business.

The US-EU trade deal is now in seventh rounds of talks and looks to be going nowhere anytime soon.

What is interesting to note however is that tiny non-EU Switzerland (but a member of the non-political and purely economic EFTA) has had an FTA with America since the 1970s and signed an FTA with the People's Republic of China in 2013: something the EU has also failed to do despite being much larger than Switzerland. If my memory serves me correctly too, the Swiss have a similar number of FTAs in operation currently to the entire EU which again goes to show what "influence" it has when it comes to global trade. It isn't exactly your size which matters, but what you have to offer or are willing to offer.


#VoteStay

I'm curious so two quick questions really. What do you think the EU offers us that we cannot have or attain by being outside of the bloc?

And what is it that the EU offers which to your mind is worth the price of £10bn+ a year along with our national democracy and independence?

[-:Undertaker:-]

^ Correction above regarding Swiss-American FTA as my editing time had ran out. :P

No such fully pledged FTA yet exists between the two countries as I had misread. Other smaller agreements do exist between the two though.

[abc]

Just a quick update: Vote to remain in EU now leads the polls over Exit.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just a quick update: Vote to remain in EU now leads the polls over Exit.

It has been leading for a while now, except the gap (especially on phone polls) has narrowed sharply in the past two weeks.

I think Professor John Curtice's Poll of Polls now has Remain down to +1 ahead.

[Lucy]

Just a quick update: Vote to remain in EU now leads the polls over Exit.
I am hesitant to believe the polls after what happened with the National Election.

[abc]

I am hesitant to believe the polls after what happened with the National Election.

Same, but I thought i'd post given Dan posted every week how the Brexit was in the lead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Same, but I thought i'd post given Dan posted every week how the Brexit was in the lead.

Have I really? it's certainly news to me. Where I have posted that and on what dates?

[abc]

Have I really? it's certainly news to me. Where I have posted that and on what dates?

01/01/16
07/01/16
13/01/16
19/01/16
25/01/16
31/01/16
06/02/16
12/02/16
18/02/16
24/02/16
01/03/16
07/03/16
13/03/16
19/03/16
25/03/16
31/03/16
06/04/16
12/04/16
18/04/16
24/04/16
30/04/16


Having gone through your posts, I found the above dates.

[The Don]

IMF: EU exit could cause severe damage



The UK's exit from the European Union could cause "severe regional and global damage", the International Monetary Fund has warned in its latest outlook.

A so-called "Brexit" would disrupt established trading relationships and cause "major challenges" for both the UK and the rest of Europe, it said.

The IMF said the referendum had already created uncertainty for investors and a vote to exit would only heighten this.

The IMF, one of the main pillars of the global economic order with a mandate to oversee the international monetary and financial system, also cut its UK growth forecast.

It now expects 1.9% growth in the UK this year, compared with its January estimate of 2.2%. For next year, it expects 2.2% growth, unchanged from its earlier forecast.

If the 23 June referendum in the UK were to produce a vote in favour of leaving the EU, the IMF would expect negotiations on post-exit arrangements to be protracted, which it warned "could weigh heavily on confidence and investment, all the while increasing financial market volatility".

It also believes a UK exit from the EU would "disrupt and reduce mutual trade and financial flows" and restrict benefits from economic co-operation and integration, such as those resulting from economies of scale.

However, the Fund said that domestic demand, boosted by lower energy prices and a buoyant property market, would help to offset the impact on UK growth ahead of the EU referendum.

Chancellor George Osborne said the IMF's comments reinforced the case for staying. "The IMF has given us the clearest independent warning of the taste of bad things to come if we leave the EU," he said.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted: "The IMF is right - leaving the EU would pose major risks for the UK economy. We are stronger, safer and better off in the European Union."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36024492

Another warning from another important body, although i'm sure they're completely wrong and Dan will come in and explain how this is all rubbish :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

01/01/16
07/01/16
13/01/16
19/01/16
25/01/16
31/01/16
06/02/16
12/02/16
18/02/16
24/02/16
01/03/16
07/03/16
13/03/16
19/03/16
25/03/16
31/03/16
06/04/16
12/04/16
18/04/16
24/04/16
30/04/16


Having gone through your posts, I found the above dates.

I'm talking about this thread.


IMF: EU exit could cause severe damage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36024492

Another warning from another important body, although i'm sure they're completely wrong and Dan will come in and explain how this is all rubbish :rolleyes:

Important organisations, companies, corporations and people all once told us to join the Eurozone too.

Had we took their warnings of doom if we did not join seriously, then we'd have lost many jobs with the Euro crisis.


Vote Leave, the group campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union, criticised the IMF's findings saying it had "been consistently wrong in past forecasts about the UK and other countries".

"The IMF has talked down the British economy in the past and now it is doing it again at the request of our own Chancellor. It was wrong then and it is wrong now," said Vote Leave chief executive Matthew Elliott.

"The biggest risk to the UK's economy and security is remaining in an unreformed EU which is institutionally incapable of dealing with the challenges it faces, such as the euro and migration crises."

Former chancellor Lord Lamont also dismissed the IMF's concerns as "assertions… for which there is no real evidence".

He said the IMF was "very closely connected to the European Union" and was therefore "bound to reflect their views".

"The idea that we wouldn't continue trading on a perfectly normal basis is just fantasy," he added.

Credit ratings agency Moody's recently said the the impact of the UK leaving the EU would be "small" and was unlikely to lead to big job losses.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/imf_talking_britain_down_again_and_getting_it_wron g_again




The IMF has talked down the UK’s economy before – but has been consistently wrong in past forecasts about the UK and other countries.
There is no substantive evidence that the referendum has created uncertainty.
The IMF’s forecasts released today show UK growth to be robust, better than the Eurozone this year, and better than advanced economies next year.
The real risk to the UK economy is staying attached to the failing Eurozone, which the IMF acknowledges is ‘weak’ and a ‘concern’.
Many of the other IMF claims about the effect of a leave vote on sterling and trade are mistaken.
The EU institutions want to take the UK’s seat on the IMF. The European Parliament is calling for this today and the Commission has set out detailed plans to make this change. The safer choice is to Vote Leave.



Q. Do @The_Don; and @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); support the EU taking the British seat on the IMF away as it intends to do?

As it has done on the World Trade Organisation and as it wishes to do with our UN Security Council Seat.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why do the Remain side also disagree with the claims made by the IMF?

It seems it is only Akeam and @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); who believe a word of it.


The IMF claims leaving the EU would ‘damag[e] a wide range of trade and investment relationships.’

The Prime Minister has said this is false. He has admitted: ‘If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would... Of course the trading would go on. Sometimes … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on’ (BBC, Andrew Marr Show, 6 January 2013, link).

The UK’s former Ambassador to the EU has contradicted this claim. The UK's former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of BSE (Britain Stronger in Europe), Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has admitted: ‘there is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue’ (Lords Hansard, 2 November 2015, col. 1492, link).

The CBI disagrees with it. The pro-EU CBI has said: ‘the UK is highly likely to secure a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, and such an agreement would be likely to be negotiated at an extremely high level of ambition relative to other FTAs’ (Our Global Future, 4 November 2013, p. 152, link).

The Head of the IN campaign says other trade deals could continue. Trade with third countries will not be disrupted. Even the Executive Director of the BSE campaign, Will Straw, has accepted that free trade agreements with third countries could continue, stating: ‘either eventuality could come to pass’ (House of Commons, March 2016, link).

The UK would gain new trading and investment opportunities if we Vote Leave. Outside the EU’s common commercial policy, the UK could strike free trade agreements with emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China which the EU has consistently failed to negotiate. This will be good for jobs, growth and living standards

Wouldn't it be nice if the Remain side, for once, stopped posting scare stories from predictable pro-EU politicians + organisations with a track record of being 100% wrong & actually debated the pros and cons of our membership? I'd much rather debate you both than have to dismiss each and every daily scare story.

The truth is that EU membership has nothing to do with economics or trade. It's about building a federal Europe and it is about time the Remain side came out and argued for what they really want rather than hiding behind the balony about jobs and trade. It's dishonesty both to themselves and the rest of us.

[abc]

EU exit 'will leave households £4,300 a year worse off'
A major report by the Treasury will claim that Britain's national income could be 6% smaller by 2030 if the UK leaves the European Union.
Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36068892

"Three WHITE men who worked at a takeaway have been jailed for up to 10 years sexually exploiting teenage girls."
Also Dan, you know how all these refugees are rapists and pedos? Well, I do not see you posting stories like this.
Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-36049427

[-:Undertaker:-]

another day, another scare story by @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189);

why hasn't he answered or addressed anything i've asked him or said, such as the real and not imagined (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eurozone-imf-idUKKCN0SF1DL20151021) threat the EU poses to our influence at the top table?

i'm willing to debate you but only if you engage rather than keep posting numerous horseshit stories predicting impending doom if we dare to leave. it was only last week that the EU itself told us there would be a "continental crisis" (ooOoOOOhhhHh!!!! scaryyyyyy) if the Dutch voted No... a week later and nothing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i'll reply to the treasury scare story though because like all the others threats and blackmail it's so easy to debunk.

721827441984081922

721823655630618624

now here's a good question about all this scare stuff. if leaving the EU was as dangerous, risky, going to make us poorer and the sky fall in - if it was really going to do all that - then why would the government have agreed to and be holding a referendum on the issue? and why would they have said they were prepared to consider leaving had the renegotiations not gone their way as the Prime Minister himself said only a few months back? surely if it's as dangerous as they all say then why even hold a referendum on the topic.

i suspect i'm wondering aloud because nobody here can or will answer that or any of the other logical points i put forward. the next post will be obama's scare speech. :rolleyes:

[abc]

another day, another scare story by @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189);

All I did was quote the BBC lol... it is you who keeps plastering scare stories around the forum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

if you post a story in agreement then you must believe the claims made in it. yet another response from @abc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); with no engagement to anything i've said. as i said, it's a certainty he'll post this weekend whatever tripe Obama comes out with when he visits and when i respond pointing out how America would never ever even consider subjecting it's supreme court and legal system to Mexico, Canada and Cuba he'll totally ignore it and post the next scare story. and so on.


anyway in other news today i sent back the propaganda leaflet that the government sent to every household with outright lies inside. i wrote LIES in red ink across the top and posted it via freepost to the Conservative Party so they'll pick up the bill. loads of other people i've read are doing the same... (see below)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cf8g_XoUYAAz9uq.jpg

the government spent something like £9m of TAXPAYERS money on this booklet of bs

was just talking to the manager in work too who i thought would be a remainian or on the fence and she said she's appalled by the government only giving one side and with the outright scare stories they're putting out. i said so i take it you're for leave? and she was like absolutely.

everyday that passes the scare tales grow more wild and absurd, yesterday Osborne was predicting we'd all be £4,000 poorer by 2030 if we left. in that case [a] why is his government holding a referendum on it if it's so risky & [b] how can he claim to know what will happen in fourteen years when he can't even predict his own budget spending yearly as his forecasts have turned out wrong over and over again?

[Lucy]

I know the government is taking a line with this kind of thing, but surely there should be a thorough Pro and Cons document instead of just a one sided document.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I know the government is taking a line with this kind of thing, but surely there should be a thorough Pro and Cons document instead of just a one sided document.

not to mention they flouted their own rules by publishing and posting the leaflet to everyone just before the official campaign period began so they could get around the campaign spending limit.

[-:Undertaker:-]

President Obama arrives in Britain today to tell us all to vote to stay in the EU.

Can anyone here imagine America ever accepting Mexican and Canadian judges overruling the US Supreme Court? Not a chance in hell.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgptLw6UcAIrM72.jpg


Most people don't think what Obama has to say is important to the debate anyway...

723492169135304704

http://www.cityam.com/239439/business-vote-to-leave-the-eu-stronger-than-thought-yougov-poll-finds

Business vote is more divided than thought over EU referendum


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03016/Union_Flag_in_City_3016668b.jpg


The business vote for the UK to remain in the European Union is far more divided that many had previously thought, according to research from pollsters YouGov.

It showed that 40 per cent of executives surveyed think the UK would be better off out of the trading bloc, with 49 per cent in favour of staying in and 11 per cent undecided.

[abc]

it's a certainty he'll post this weekend whatever tripe Obama comes out with

I really do not care what he thinks. If he agreed with you you would be singing and dancing. I stopped engaging with most of your posts as you repeat the same speculation constantly, yet when others post speculation you laugh. Its hypocritical.

[The Don]

"
It showed that 40 per cent of executives surveyed think the UK would be better off out of the trading bloc, with 49 per cent in favour of staying in and 11 per cent undecided."

You know they're struggling when Dan considers a 10% loss as something worth celebrating lmao... Paraphrasing a brilliant comment I read "Whose opinion do we think is more relevant, an ex-spice girls, nigel farrage's, the insidious buffoon mayor of london, or the leader of the worlds strongest power and potentially our most important ally?"

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ZFWjKEpo4

[Agnostic Bear]

"
It showed that 40 per cent of executives surveyed think the UK would be better off out of the trading bloc, with 49 per cent in favour of staying in and 11 per cent undecided."

You know they're struggling when Dan considers a 10% loss as something worth celebrating lmao... Paraphrasing a brilliant comment I read "Whose opinion do we think is more relevant, an ex-spice girls, nigel farrage's, the insidious buffoon mayor of london, or the leader of the worlds strongest power and potentially our most important ally?"

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ZFWjKEpo4


Just like the general election polls, it'll be decided on the day, I wouldn't believe the polls even if they said it was a tight 50/50 split... I'll wait until the results are in!

And as for the comments about Obama... he is completely irrelevant, absolutely a 0 worth opinion. When he leaves he will *immediately* fade into the background noise of politics as he has been a lame duck for quite a while now.

[The Don]

Just like the general election polls, it'll be decided on the day, I wouldn't believe the polls even if they said it was a tight 50/50 split... I'll wait until the results are in!

And as for the comments about Obama... he is completely irrelevant, absolutely a 0 worth opinion. When he leaves he will *immediately* fade into the background noise of politics as he has been a lame duck for quite a while now.

We weren't talking about polls speculating the results, re-read what I quoted. Whilst he's not been able to do much in his second term it's still disingenuous to call his opinion worthless.

[dbgtz]

I've always been curious, but I'm curious what pro-EU people will say to this.

A common argument made for staying in is that the EU can hold more weight in trade agreements, which I won't disagree with. I will, however, question how this really benefits the UK. If there's something that wouldn't be in the UK's best interest, surely it's easier to negotiate with one country than a whole bloc of countries?
I'm not sure if that was worded well but hopefully my point gets across.

[The Don]

I've always been curious, but I'm curious what pro-EU people will say to this.

A common argument made for staying in is that the EU can hold more weight in trade agreements, which I won't disagree with. I will, however, question how this really benefits the UK. If there's something that wouldn't be in the UK's best interest, surely it's easier to negotiate with one country than a whole bloc of countries?
I'm not sure if that was worded well but hopefully my point gets across.

We import double what we export to China, we rely on them more so than them on us (http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7379). Their economy is much larger than ours, in any negotiations they have the economic upper hand. As part of the EU we are part of the worlds largest economy and as we're grouped with other countries our overall exports constitute a larger percentage of China's overall net imports. Whilst the EU still relies more on China for imports than vice versa, together we make up a bigger percentage of their trade and it therefore gives us a stronger negotiating position than if we were to do it individually.

Edit: Sorry, I feel like I didn't fully address the question. As we make up a bigger percentage of their trade when grouped with the other 27 member states of the EU we have more leverage to push for a better deal. Individually we wouldn't be able to push as much weight around as they realise proportionate to the rest of their trade ours is negligible. It benefits the UK because all the member states have to ratify the trade agreements meaning countries can refuse to if the deal isn't favourable to them which then results in further discussion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And as for the comments about Obama... he is completely irrelevant, absolutely a 0 worth opinion. When he leaves he will *immediately* fade into the background noise of politics as he has been a lame duck for quite a while now.

Exactly and it is all just words. The Obama administration is saying what it can to help the Cameron Ministry out of the hole it is in.

In any case, imagine if what Obama even said was true. Let's say Britain would be at the back of a queue despite the economic facts being the total opposite (see below with US trade deals). My reply would be this, next time there's a war Mr Obama - phone up the French, Germans and EU leaders to send their boys to fight your wars.


You know they're struggling when Dan considers a 10% loss as something worth celebrating lmao... Paraphrasing a brilliant comment I read "Whose opinion do we think is more relevant, an ex-spice girls, nigel farrage's, the insidious buffoon mayor of london, or the leader of the worlds strongest power and potentially our most important ally?"

Character attacks?

Oh dear so let us see... you've got the trustworthy Tony Blair, the clean as a whistle Peter Mandelson, whiter than white Nick Clegg, Neil Kinnock who is on the EU gravy train, the IMF's Christine Largarge who is under investigation for fraud I believe and Eddie Izzard the man who dresses in his mother's clothes.

Back to the actual debate itself and The Don; assumes that economics is a zero sum game and there has to be a winner and a loser to every trade deal made. That's an economic fallacy. Whilst the economy of China may be bigger than ours in terms of GDP, we have a much more specialised economy in sectors such as technology and especially finance. Britain is the world's number one financial power when it comes to markets and the Chinese dare not risk losing access to that. In addition, we're the world's 5th largest economy anyway so we have huge weight.


We import double what we export to China

Umm mate, that's a strength not a weakness. The buyer has the upper hand in negotiations, not the seller.

Hence the weakness of cheap labour economies in the East compared with the West.


A common argument made for staying in is that the EU can hold more weight in trade agreements, which I won't disagree with. I will, however, question how this really benefits the UK. If there's something that wouldn't be in the UK's best interest, surely it's easier to negotiate with one country than a whole bloc of countries?

What they won't tell you is that it is because we're in the EU that we currently have no FTA with the United States of America. Because we're locked into a 1950s outdated trading bloc with protectionist countries like France, we're forbidden from signing an FTA with the world's largest economy. And despite years of talk from people like Akeam about a US-EU trade deal, we're still as far away from it as ever if you follow the progress on it. Many have gone as far to declare it dead in the media.

Imagine on the other hand if Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India and America sat down together to discuss a multi-lateral and extensive FTA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_trade_agreements


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/US_FTA_Negotiations_as_of_May_2008.png/1280px-US_FTA_Negotiations_as_of_May_2008.png


Key

The United States
Current FTA's
Proposed/Suspended FTA's

Question to the Remain side The Don; and abc;

Are you making the claim that the United Kingdom as the world's 5th largest economy, key US military partner and number one financial markets power would be unable on her own to complete an FTA with the United States when countries like Jordan, Australia, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Panama and Columbia have already done so?

People here are missing the point. It is because of our EU membership we have not yet signed an FTA with America.

[The Don]

Back to the actual debate itself and The Don; assumes that economics is a zero sum game and there has to be a winner and a loser to every trade deal made. That's an economic fallacy.

Dan putting words into peoples mouths again. Where did I say there's a definitive loser/winner? The country with more leverage is able to get better terms in an agreement, surely your 3 year politics degree taught you that much (besides it being common sense).


Whilst the economy of China may be bigger than ours in terms of GDP, we have a much more specialised economy in sectors such as technology and especially finance. Britain is the world's number one financial power when it comes to markets and the Chinese dare not risk losing access to that. In addition, we're the world's 5th largest economy anyway so we have huge weight.

China is a mere example of why it's beneficial for us to be in a larger trading group. Our 'specialised' economy would be taken into account whilst we're in the EU trading block, as well as all of the extras the 27 other member states have to offer. Clearly Britain AND the other 27 EU states is a more appealing deal than just Britain alone.


What they won't tell you is that it is because we're in the EU that we currently have no FTA with the United States of America. Because we're locked into a 1950s outdated trading bloc with protectionist countries like France, we're forbidden from signing an FTA with the world's largest economy. And despite years of talk from people like Akeam about a US-EU trade deal, we're still as far away from it as ever if you follow the progress on it. Many have gone as far to declare it dead in the media.

There's literally one in the works.


Imagine on the other hand if Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India and America sat down together to discuss a multi-lateral and extensive FTA.


No reason that can't be done in the EU, these things take time. Or would you rather we left the trading block of our LARGEST trading partner, a partner who provides nearly half of our trade, so that we can speed up the FTA's we're already working towards with Australia, New Zealand, India etc

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/new-zealand/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/australia/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/india/

Your entire argument seems to be "well we can get that out of the EU" as opposed to why it's beneficial to do so despite the uncertainty an exit from the EU brings.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan putting words into peoples mouths again. Where did I say there's a definitive loser/winner? The country with more leverage is able to get better terms in an agreement, surely your 3 year politics degree taught you that much (besides it being common sense).

It depends what the deal entails. China may be able to have better leverage in terms of manufacturing but not financial.

That's called negotiation in global politics. And that's what every other free country on this planet does with its neighbours and other countries around the world without delegating those powers to unaccountable bureaucrats from the Benelux countries who have to negotiate on behalf of 28 very different countries all with competing and very different interests and governments. What is it in you that gives you so little faith in yourself and this country to have control over its own future and destiny that makes you want to delegate those decisions out to unaccountable and rather useless politicians in Brussels?


China is a mere example of why it's beneficial for us to be in a larger trading group. Our 'specialised' economy would be taken into account whilst we're in the EU trading block, as well as all of the extras the 27 other member states have to offer. Clearly Britain AND the other 27 EU states is a more appealing deal than just Britain alone.

So why has tiny non-EU Switzerland completed an FTA with China whilst the EU is still nowhere near one? (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/05/05/what-the-eu-could-learn-from-switzerlands-free-trade-agreement-with-china/)


There's literally one in the works.

Sigh, this old pie in the sky promise again.


For more than decade, there was accord between China and the EU that free trade talks should be explored, especially given the growing trade volume between the two economies and Beijing’s interest in developing Europe as an alternative economic pole to the United States and East Asia. Yet the process has frequently been hampered by diplomatic and economic tribulations which have prevented it from evolving beyond the very preliminary stages.

Early obstacles included the EU’s refusal since 2004 to grant China market economy status (MES), a prerequisite for the start of any free trade talks as far as Beijing is concerned, as well as widely different levels of enthusiasm among EU member economies for a free trade agreement with China. Since that time, China and the EU have also been embroiled in a series of trade disputes, most notably over accusations that Beijing was condoning the dumping of solar panels onto the international market, adding to the level of mistrust between the two sides.


Yet tiny Switzerland has completed an FTA with China yet according to the pap you're putting out you expect us to believe the UK would be unable to.

It is because of the EU that Britain has still not signed an FTA with China as non-EU Switzerland has.


No reason that can't be done in the EU, these things take time. Or would you rather we left the trading block of our LARGEST trading partner, a partner which which provides nearly half of our imports, so that we can speed up the FTA's we're already working towards with Australia, New Zealand, India etc

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/new-zealand/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/australia/
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/india/

Any FTAs signed with Australia, New Zealand and India with the EU - and again I point out how the EU has still not completed these deals - will be poor. Britain is much more alike in mindset and outlook with New Zealand, India and Australia and has been trading with them for hundreds of years very closely - our relationship with New Zealand was hurt when we went into the EEC because their farming industry suffered enormously when it was subjected to tariffs that our EEC membership required in order to protect the French agricultural market.

Britain's economic relationship with the Commonwealth has been hurt severely by our EU membership hence why we need to leave and mend it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations


Britain has however tied itself somewhat to European trade in recent years, forcing New Zealand and Australia to seek new markets and trade with the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand has a large influence over former British colonies in the Pacific and the British territory of Pitcairn. During the Falklands War New Zealand sided with Britain by cutting off all diplomatic relations with Argentina.

Up to about the 1960s, New Zealand also had extremely close economic relations with the United Kingdom, especially considering the distance at which trade took place. As an example, in 1955, Britain took 65.3 percent of New Zealand's exports, and only during the following decades did this dominant position begin to decline when the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1973, with the share of exports going to Britain having fallen to only 6.2 percent in 2000. Historically, some industries, such as dairying, a major economic factor in the former colony, had even more dominant trade links, with 80–100% of all cheese and butter exports going to Britain from around 1890 to 1940.

Had we not tied ourselves to the EU we'd have signed an FTA with New Zealand decades ago. Guaranteed.


Your entire argument seems to be "well we can get that out of the EU" as opposed to why it's beneficial to do so despite the uncertainty an exit from the EU brings.

Your entire argument has been scare stories about leaving despite nations much smaller than us managing independence quite perfectly alongside very strange claims about the "one day in the future" EU-US FTA and EU-NZ FTA. Yet you seemingly know no history behind the US-EU FTA as well as British-New Zealand trade otherwise you would have been aware just how [a] slow and virtually non-existant progress has been on the EU-US FTA as the LSE points out & [b] just how close British-NZ tarde links were prior to us joining the EEC and later EU.

What'll be most amusing if we do leave will be the following weeks and months when none of the outrageous scenarios you predicted came to pass.

[The Don]

That's called negotiation in global politics. And that's what every other free country on this planet does with its neighbours and other countries around the world without delegating those powers to unaccountable bureaucrats from the Benelux countries who have to negotiate on behalf of 28 very different countries all with competing and very different interests and governments. What is it in you that gives you so little faith in yourself and this country to have control over its own future and destiny that makes you want to delegate those decisions out to unaccountable and rather useless politicians in Brussels?

Oh dear, you’ve missed the point once again. I think everyone knows Britain could make its own trade agreement, that’s not being disputed. Britain is more relevant on a global scale as part of a major trading block, this is a fact. Britain has more weight in obtaining better deals whilst in this trading block, this is a fact. Britain leaving the EU would mean renegotiating deals with not just the EU, but all countries we currently have trade agreements with. These are all facts. As much as you and the rest of the leave campaign like to gloss over these points the reality is that it’s unlikely we’re going to be able to leave the EU whilst maintaining all the perks (such as access to the single market) unless we follow EU legislation, in which case we’re better off in as at least we get to sit around the table and have an input as opposed to being locked out of the negotiations and having to blindly take what we’re given. We rely much more heavily on the EU than the EU does on us in terms of trade.




Yet tiny Switzerland has completed an FTA with China yet according to the pap you're putting out you expect us to believe the UK would be unable to.

It is because of the EU that Britain has still not signed an FTA with China as non-EU Switzerland has.



Oh, looking at Switzerland’s FTA’s it seems like you’ve cherry picked the ONLY decent example. I don’t see them lining up FTA’s with the US, India, New Zealand, Australia etc, surely if it were as easy as you insisted they would have all of these already since they only have to negotiate for one?

https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammena rbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/Freihandelsabkommen/Liste_der_Freihandelsabkommen_der_Schweiz.html


Any FTAs signed with Australia, New Zealand and India with the EU - and again I point out how the EU has still not completed these deals - will be poor. Britain is much more alike in mindset and outlook with New Zealand, India and Australia and has been trading with them for hundreds of years very closely - our relationship with New Zealand was hurt when we went into the EEC because their farming industry suffered enormously when it was subjected to tariffs that our EEC membership required in order to protect the French agricultural market.

Have you read the trade agreements, which haven’t been finalized/released? Or are you making your argument based entirely on conjecture over our shared colonial past? History is nice, but it’s what’s brought to the table that matters now. I’m glad you agree these countries have a close relationship with us, it shouldn’t be a problem finalizing the FTA’s we have with them in the works.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh dear, you’ve missed the point once again. I think everyone knows Britain could make its own trade agreement, that’s not being disputed. Britain is more relevant on a global scale as part of a major trading block, this is a fact. Britain has more weight in obtaining better deals whilst in this trading block, this is a fact.

So I will ask the question once again which you keep dodging, why does tiny non-EU Switzerland have an FTA with China and the EU does not?

It's all very well saying Britain has more weight and influence as part of this bloc but the evidence does not support your argument my friend.


Britain leaving the EU would mean renegotiating deals with not just the EU, but all countries we currently have trade agreements with. These are all facts.

And? You've just admitted above that Britain could make it's own trade agreements so what is the issue?


As much as you and the rest of the leave campaign like to gloss over these points the reality is that it’s unlikely we’re going to be able to leave the EU whilst maintaining all the perks (such as access to the single market) unless we follow EU legislation, in which case we’re better off in as at least we get to sit around the table and have an input as opposed to being locked out of the negotiations and having to blindly take what we’re given.

Oh no not these terrible public relations phrases again from the Nick Clegg speech book. "Around the table" "Playing our part" "Asserting our influence" and yet despite all this talk of sitting around the table we've achieved nothing in the European Union and it has kept on travelling in a direction which we do not want. How many years and lost battles in the EU will it take for you to realise that with under 10% of the vote in the EU we're wasting our time?

Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland are all much wealthier and better off without "sitting around the [EU] table".


We rely much more heavily on the EU than the EU does on us in terms of trade.

As I told you earlier, they sell more to us than we do to them - they rely more on us.


Oh, looking at Switzerland’s FTA’s it seems like you’ve cherry picked the ONLY decent example. I don’t see them lining up FTA’s with the US, India, New Zealand, Australia etc, surely if it were as easy as you insisted they would have all of these already since they only have to negotiate for one?

EFTA-Canada FTA http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/eu-ue/efta-aele.aspx?lang=eng
http://www.efta.int/free-trade/free-trade-agreements/fta_modernisation

You haven't answered my question when I asked why Britain in your view would be unable to sign FTAs when the likes of Panama and Chile can.

A British, American, New Zealand and Australian multilateral FTA would be perfectly possible. For a security example, see the Five Eyes grouping.


Have you read the trade agreements, which haven’t been finalized/released? Or are you making your argument based entirely on conjecture over our shared colonial past? History is nice, but it’s what’s brought to the table that matters now. I’m glad you agree these countries have a close relationship with us, it shouldn’t be a problem finalizing the FTA’s we have with them in the works.

No I am making the argument based on where world trade is going my friend. The EU as a % of wold trade is rapidly declining and world trade is shifting to Asia and the Commonwealth. Although I believe we will leave the EU regardless within the next decade, it is the reason why I want out so badly now because I will be so pissed if people like you keep us in there for another ten years and throw away the opportunities that we have now to sign FTAs with India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and China right now.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03336/Capture_3336133b.jpg


It is absolute madness to trap ourselves in a 1950's style trading bloc when that is the trajectory of global wealth and trade.

[The Don]

So I will ask the question once again which you keep dodging, why does tiny non-EU Switzerland have an FTA with China and the EU does not?

Straight from the horses mouth:


Yet while China has made good progress in implementing its WTO commitments, there are still outstanding problems.
• EU Ambassador Pangratis' statement of 1 July 2014 at China's WTO TPRM peer review
The EU's concerns include:
• lack of transparency
• industrial policies and non-tariff measures in China which may discriminate against foreign companies
• a strong degree of government intervention in the economy, resulting in a dominant position of state-owned enterprises, and unequal access to subsidies and cheap financing
• inadequate protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China




It's all very well saying Britain has more weight and influence as part of this bloc but the evidence does not support your argument my friend.

Are you seriously saying that Britain would be more influential outside the EU? Don’t be ridiculous Dan, literally the biggest load of crock I’ve heard you say.


And? You've just admitted above that Britain could make it's own trade agreements so what is the issue?

It would take years of renegotiating deals that we already have. There’s literally no reason to go through all that uncertainty when we already have it. You have yet to provide a reason to justify this other than whataboutism’s in regards to Switzerland.



Oh no not these terrible public relations phrases again from the Nick Clegg speech book. "Around the table" "Playing our part" "Asserting our influence"

How about arguing the points?


and yet despite all this talk of sitting around the table we've achieved nothing in the European Union and it has kept on travelling in a direction which we do not want. How many years and lost battles in the EU will it take for you to realise that with under 10% of the vote in the EU we're wasting our time?

Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland are all much wealthier and better off without "sitting around the [EU] table".

Their economies are smaller than ours. We are ‘wealthier’ at the table.


As I told you earlier, they sell more to us than we do to them - they rely more on us.

Whilst we may sell more to them than they do to us, we make up a much smaller percentage of their overall economy than they do ours.

We are reliant on them. Don’t try and twist this.


No I am making the argument based on where world trade is going my friend.

No Dan, this argument “Any FTAs signed with Australia, New Zealand and India with the EU - and again I point out how the EU has still not completed these deals - will be poor. “
Is you once again passing off your poorly based opinion as fact.



The EU as a % of wold trade is rapidly declining and world trade is shifting to Asia and the Commonwealth. Although I believe we will leave the EU regardless within the next decade, it is the reason why I want out so badly now because I will be so pissed if people like you keep us in there for another ten years and throw away the opportunities that we have now to sign FTAs with India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and China right now.


World trade is going in the direction of trading unions.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations

We have FTA’s in the works with most of the countries you’ve listed. I will be pissed if we leave because of people like you spreading lies leaving us unable to secure a deal with the single market. Despite what you claim, that is almost HALF of all our trade. The EU’s market share in a decade from now is irrelevant we rely so heavily on them now.



Now Dan, how about you actually answer the point that we wouldn’t be able to get access to the free market unless we follow EU legislation (in which point there’s no reason leaving)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you seriously saying that Britain would be more influential outside the EU? Don’t be ridiculous Dan, literally the biggest load of crock I’ve heard you say.

Absolutely I am saying that.

Not only would be we stronger and more influential such as exercising our power on the World Trade Organisation once again where most trade decisions are actually taken, but we would be able to forge much closer ties and bonds with those nations that have a similar free trade outlook as us as well as sharing the same language, English legal system and global mindset: the Commonwealth. I would be open for example to the idea of a free movement zone between Britain, Australia, New Zealand and America at some point in the future. That's entirely possible and would work quite well.

The Commonwealth is a family of nations which contains over a third of the population of the globe. The potential is huge. Why should Britain lock herself into an outdated and declining bloc? Why should we continue to subsidise the French agricultural industry when we can buy much more cheaply all of our food products from New Zealand and African countries? Not only would that benefit the British consumer, but African farmers and our Commonwealth relationships.

The problem you have is you're stuck in a Little European mindset of the 1970s. Times have moved on and the world is much more global.


It would take years of renegotiating deals that we already have. There’s literally no reason to go through all that uncertainty when we already have it. You have yet to provide a reason to justify this other than whataboutism’s in regards to Switzerland.

And here we go again. Uncertainty. Let's just cancel elections too then because the "uncetainty" of policy changes it just too much to bear.


Their economies are smaller than ours. We are ‘wealthier’ at the table.


http://www.worldeconomics.com/Images/CMS/LoadedContent/Papers/WE/0e53b963-bce5-4ba1-9cab-333cedaab048_201503_C2.jpg

Not for much longer. Many of the Commonwealth countries are moving rapidly up the global GDP rankings (India will be in the top three) and Britain is the only European country that is going to remain in the top ten by 2050 - and we are going to overtake Germany itself (http://www.cityam.com/231501/world-economic-league-table-uk-could-overtake-germany-and-japan-to-become-worlds-fourth-biggest-economy). You're prepared to turn your back on Australia, Canada, America, India, Malaysia, China, South Africa and others to tie us to Greece, Spain, Portugal and Albania? Where is the logic in it.

And what table? We don't even have a seat at the top table of the WTO because of our EU membership.


Whilst we may sell more to them than they do to us, we make up a much smaller percentage of their overall economy than they do ours.

We are reliant on them. Don’t try and twist this.

I'm not twisting anything. Trade with Europe will continue just we'll go along with what is already happening which is an increasing majority of our trade with the global will be not with Europe but with the Commonwealth and others. As I keep saying, it is already happening whether you want it or not.


No Dan, this argument “Any FTAs signed with Australia, New Zealand and India with the EU - and again I point out how the EU has still not completed these deals - will be poor. “

Is you once again passing off your poorly based opinion as fact.

You had no clue as to the progress of the EU-US FTA and historic UK-NZ trade ties prior to the EEC yet you say I have a poorly based opinion. Right.


World trade is going in the direction of trading unions.

Wrong, again showing ignorance of global trade. It is moving to the WTO. Trade blocs like the European Union are a relic of the past in the post-imperial age when protectionist barriers went up across the globe. It is now easier than ever to do business between London and Shanghai.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/Trading_blocs.html


We have FTA’s in the works with most of the countries you’ve listed. I will be pissed if we leave because of people like you spreading lies leaving us unable to secure a deal with the single market. Despite what you claim, that is almost HALF of all our trade.

Here he goes again claiming Britain isn't good enough to secure access to the SM when Norway, Switzerland and even Mexico have.

And he accuses my side of spreading lies.


The EU’s market share in a decade from now is irrelevant we rely so heavily on them now.

You know the writing on on the wall you just can't face it because it'd be too much of a climb down.

Within a decade we're looking at the EU accounting for under 40% of our trade and the rest of the world 60%+. Time is on my side.

THIS is our future for the next century.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d2/Commonwealth_Flag_-_2013.svg/182px-Commonwealth_Flag_-_2013.svg.png
Commonwealth of Nations

http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/all/modules/custom/commonwealth_maps/data/fallback.jpg


Now Dan, how about you actually answer the point that we wouldn’t be able to get access to the free market unless we follow EU legislation (in which point there’s no reason leaving)

I never understand this rather silly access to the Single Market argument.

If a country trades with another, it has to follow the standards and regulations of that country in order to have access to that market. Chinese goods must conform to British standards in order to be accepted. American goods must conform to Australia standards in order to be sold. So I don't understand how this simple economic fact of life which has existed since the beginning of country-country trade itself then leads you to want to join a political union to do so. That'd be like arguing we should become a state of America because we have to abide by their trade standards when exporting to them... yes and your point is what exactly?

[The Don]

The irony that someone whose entire personal argument for leaving the EU is based on the premise of sovereignty for the sake of sovereignty has the cheek to call my reasons outdated. Here you go mate, take a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_mentality.

Hear that everyone? We should leave the EU, our most important trading partner (half of all our trade), to start the same sort of thing with commonwealth countries, Ridiculous. I'm sure the same countries that are having referendums on their flags so they looks less identical than ours, or petitions to remove the queen as their heads of state, will want such an organisation. :rolleyes:

You're living in the past, we're no longer the worlds strongest power, we don't have the empire anymore, whilst it's clear you want to rebuild it through the commonwealth with Britain at the top, this is unrealistic. The only way Britain is remaining relevant on a global scale is through that of the EU. Even you know we need to be part of something bigger hence your commonwealth point.

Unfortunately Dan, from an economic point, we’re much better off in the EU, as part of the worlds strongest economy.


Within a decade we're looking at the EU accounting for under 40% of our trade and the rest of the world 60%+. Time is on my side.

So with this prediction the EU still accounts for almost HALF our trade, and the REST OF THE WORLD constitutes 60%? You’re reinforcing my point more than anything. Clearly the EU will be our largest single partner for many years to come, we’re better off in.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
France, Germany and Italy are all in the worlds top 10 largest economies. The only commonwealth country up there is India lmao

[-:Undertaker:-]

I love how just after arguing we should re-engage with the global Commonwealth (Africa, Asia, Americas) he accuses me of an "Island Mentality". Ironic, really.


The irony that someone whose entire personal argument for leaving the EU is based on the premise of sovereignty for the sake of sovereignty has the cheek to call my reasons outdated. Here you go mate, take a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_mentality.

Democracy and independence aren't outdated ideas.

There are more independent and self-governing nations on the planet right at this moment than there have been in hundreds of years. Why should Britain, an independent nation for nearly a thousand years, end that independence so we can have a useless 8% "say" in the EU. Laughable "influence".

You don't have any faith in this country and you lack backbone or vision. It's quite sad but if we do leave I think you'll realise within two years it was for the best to end a relationship that wasn't working and to seek new opportunities out in the big wide world outside your continental mentality.

Britain ought to be striving for a global mentality which is inherent in our mindsets. Free markets, free trade and free peoples.


Hear that everyone? We should leave the EU, our most important trading partner (half of all our trade)

Let me correct you there.

Less than half our trade. And shrinking. Rapidly.


to start the same sort of thing with commonwealth countries, Ridiculous.

Who said I want to start the same thing with the Commonwealth? I don't want to build a federal political union with our Commonwealth friends, I simply want to trade with them as freely as possible. That's all. The same cannot be said for the EU which is a dangerous (see the Euro) state building project.


I'm sure the same countries that are having referendums on their flags so they looks less identical than ours, or petitions to remove the queen as their heads of state, will want such an organisation. :rolleyes:

And if you notice in each and every referendum our friends in the Commonwealth vote to retain their heritage and shared history with us.

Now if we look at referendums in the EU when it comes to more European Union... oh dear, in nearly every single one it is rejected. Over and over.


You're living in the past, we're no longer the worlds strongest power, we don't have the empire anymore, whilst it's clear you want to rebuild it through the commonwealth with Britain at the top, this is unrealistic. Even you know we need to be part of something bigger hence your commonwealth point.

Britain isn't at the top of the Commonwealth and cannot be which goes to show you don't even have a clue how the Commonwealth works lol.

The Commonwealth is an organisation of equals and it is all intergovernmental which means there's no ganging up/outvoting via QMV like in the EU.


http://www.dailynews.lk/sites/default/files/news/2015/11/29/z_p13-president00.jpg


Our true friends and our future. That is what the next century is going to look like.


The only way Britain is remaining relevant on a global scale is through that of the EU.

lmao. yeah it's nothing to do with us as the world's 5th largest economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom), number one financial centre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index), one of three blue water naval forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy#Examples_of_blue-water_navies), a member of the G10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Ten_(economics)), a potential member of the WTO, a nuclear power, a seat on the UN Security Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Permanent_members) . Nooooo without the EU we'd be nothing he tells us.


Unfortunately Dan, from an economic point, we’re much better off in the EU, as part of the worlds strongest economy.

You can keep repeating that but the graphs I have posted and the direction of travel just say the opposite.

Here's another.


http://www.worldeconomics.com/Images/CMS/LoadedContent/Papers/WE/0e53b963-bce5-4ba1-9cab-333cedaab048_201503_C1.jpg


So with this prediction the EU still accounts for almost HALF our trade, and the REST OF THE WORLD constitutes 60%? You’re reinforcing my point more than anything. Clearly the EU will be our largest single partner for many years to come, we’re better off in.

The EU isn't a single country/economy what on earth are you talking about.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
France, Germany and Italy are all in the worlds top 10 largest economies. The only commonwealth country up there is India lmao

Do you think that is going to remain the case in fifteen and twenty five years from now?

As I said on my other post, you're living in the past. Continental mentality from a Little European clinging to the idea of a 1970s trade bloc when the world is moving on and leaving it behind. Whilst the world booms, the EU falling apart at the seams. It's time for Britain to make for the exit.

[The Don]

I love how just after arguing we should re-engage with the global Commonwealth (Africa, Asia, Americas) he accuses me of an "Island Mentality". Ironic, really.

You clearly didn’t even read the definition:


Island mentality refers to the notion of isolated communities perceiving themselves as superior or exceptional to the rest of the world. This term does not directly refer to a geographically confined society, but to the cultural, moral, or ideological superiority of a community lacking social exposure.

I would say that’s pretty spot on.


Democracy and independence aren't outdated ideas.

Of course not, good job we’re having a democratic vote on whether we should remain within the EU. I’m sure you’ll respect the outcome?


Britain ought to be striving for a global mentality which is inherent in our mindsets. Free markets, free trade and free peoples.

We are, which is exactly what the EU is achieving with the multiple FTA’s it has lined up with the likes of the US, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the many it already has. You still have yet to propose an argument as to why we should leave just to renegotiate what we already have. It’s absurd.


Less than half our trade. And shrinking. Rapidly.

In a decade they will still account for almost a half of our trade? That’s hardly rapid. You know how unreliable predictions such as these are, it could be higher, it could be lower.


I don't want to build a federal political union with our Commonwealth friends, I simply want to trade with them as freely as possible. That's all. The same cannot be said for the EU which is a dangerous (see the Euro) state building project.

Then you should be happy we’re getting trade agreements with our commonwealth ‘friends’.


Britain isn't at the top of the Commonwealth and cannot be which goes to show you don't even have a clue how the Commonwealth works lol.

Your proposed commonwealth trade area, not the commonwealth it’s self. Clearly you don’t have a clue how to read.


The EU isn't a single country/economy what on earth are you talking about.
It's a single market. Our largest trading partner for the foreseeable future.


As I said on my other post, you're living in the past. Continental mentality from a Little European clinging to the idea of a 1970s trade bloc when the world is moving on and leaving it behind. Whilst the world booms, the EU falling apart at the seams. It's time for Britain to make for the exit.
The EU has evolved massively from what it was 46 years ago, if you think it has been stagnant for the past half a century then clearly you haven’t been paying attention. It’s funny, what you propose is actually regressive unlike the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would say that’s pretty spot on.

I do believe common law, trial by jury, the Westminster parliamentary system and English liberty to be superior yes.

But I am sure you disagree and are inches away from throwing the R word at me as it's all you have left. No, you'd much rather subject us to the civil law that they use on the continent and in the EU where you aren't entitled to a jury by your peers and where you can be thrown and left in prison for months on end without a trial or without even being charged (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300723/Innocent-student-extradited-Greek-prison-hell-EU-arrest-warrant.html) with a crime or without the consent of a British judge.


Of course not, good job we’re having a democratic vote on whether we should remain within the EU. I’m sure you’ll respect the outcome?

I'll respect the outcome if we Remain for as long as the EU respects the remainders of our independence and sovereignty.

More power grabs = another referendum. That's why we'll be out within ten years regardless of this referendum, you can bank on it.


We are, which is exactly what the EU is achieving with the multiple FTA’s it has lined up with the likes of the US, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the many it already has. You still have yet to propose an argument as to why we should leave just to renegotiate what we already have. It’s absurd.

He still hasn't even read up on these despite being given the direct links to updates. The US-EU FTA isn't happening.


In a decade they will still account for almost a half of our trade? That’s hardly rapid. You know how unreliable predictions such as these are, it could be higher, it could be lower.

Unrealiable? That's ironic coming from a guy who has been posting through the 13 pages of this thread prediction after prediction of doom & disaster.


Then you should be happy we’re getting trade agreements with our commonwealth ‘friends’.

Not good enough and not fast enough.

The New Zealand figures said it all from something like 60% of trade with the UK down to 6% thanks to the EEC/EU. A disgrace.


Your proposed commonwealth trade area, not the commonwealth it’s self. Clearly you don’t have a clue how to read.

I didn't propose a Commonwealth trade area. I said Commonwealth nations may wish to do some multilateral FTAs (especially the Anglosphere) yet I envisage the Commonwealth working via bilateral FTAs mainly just like the rest of the world does. FTAs are flexible for very different countries.

...whilst looking at the EU and the awful Euro that has brought poverty to millions, you can see the dangers of a one-fits-all size.


It's a single market. Our largest trading partner for the foreseeable future.

The Single Market isn't even complete and isn't going to be completed so wrong again.


The EU has evolved massively from what it was 46 years ago, if you think it has been stagnant for the past half a century then clearly you haven’t been paying attention. It’s funny, what you propose is actually regressive unlike the EU.

Simply bizzare. How can you claim FTAs, which is where the world is moving towards with negotiations taking place at the WTO, are regressive yet you support a trade bloc from the 1950s that was formed to prevent war from Germany and France happening again? The EU is 60 years out of date.

[The Don]

I do believe common law, trial by jury, the Westminster parliamentary system and English liberty to be superior yes.

“perceiving themselves as superior or exceptional to the rest of the world”



But I am sure you disagree and are inches away from throwing the R word at me as it's all you have left. No, you'd much rather subject us to the civil law that they use on the continent and in the EU where you aren't entitled to a jury by your peers and where you can be thrown and left in prison for months on end without a trial or without even being charged (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300723/Innocent-student-extradited-Greek-prison-hell-EU-arrest-warrant.html) with a crime or without the consent of a British judge.

What on earth are you talking about? The R word? You’ve gone mad, mate. You bring up racism more than anybody else here, in fact the last time I ever said that to you must have been years ago. Talk about playing the victim card.


I'll respect the outcome if we Remain for as long as the EU respects the remainders of our independence and sovereignty.

More power grabs = another referendum. That's why we'll be out within ten years regardless of this referendum, you can bank on it.

I’ll hold you to that, although “power grabs” is an incredibly loose term and I suspect you’ll use it at first chance.


He still hasn't even read up on these despite being given the direct links to updates. The US-EU FTA isn't happening.

Citation needed.


Unrealiable? That's ironic coming from a guy who has been posting through the 13 pages of this thread prediction after prediction of doom & disaster.

In a decade they will still account for almost a half of our trade? That’s hardly rapid.

I like how you tried to gloss over this point.


Not good enough and not fast enough.

And it’ll be even longer if we leave the EU and have to restart negotiations.


The Single Market isn't even complete and isn't going to be completed so wrong again.

wot


Simply bizzare. How can you claim FTAs, which is where the world is moving towards with negotiations taking place at the WTO, are regressive yet you support a trade bloc from the 1950s that was formed to prevent war from Germany and France happening again? The EU is 60 years out of date.

It’s not the FTA’s which are regressive, it’s you wanting to cancel all of them and start again. That’s the literal definition of what regression is.

Any arguments yet other than sovereignty?

[FlyingJesus]

Why should Britain lock herself into an outdated and declining bloc?

What like the Commonwealth


I'll respect the outcome if we Remain for as long as the EU respects the remainders of our independence and sovereignty.

More power grabs = another referendum. That's why we'll be out within ten years regardless of this referendum, you can bank on it.

So you're saying you want to keep pushing people until you get the answer that you want. I'm sure there's a political institution who you claim to hate for doing that...

I'm not even pro-EU but this is stupid

[-:Undertaker:-]

I’ll hold you to that, although “power grabs” is an incredibly loose term and I suspect you’ll use it at first chance.

Of course I will use it at first chance. The entire campaign the government is fighting as well as your Remain side is on the basis that we've had a successful renegotiation and that we're protected from anymore EU power grabs. Well i'll hold them and you to that line/promise.

Had your side come out and asked the question whether we wanted a federal Europe and ever more powers going to the EU and the public voted yes to that, then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But as you're arguing dishonestly and trying to pretend that it's just a simple trade agreement and Brussels has been stopped from any more power grabs then you must expect if the public do vote to Remain then they have done so on what you have said and/or promised.


Citation needed.

You've had it. LSE article. Read it.


In a decade they will still account for almost a half of our trade? That’s hardly rapid.

Under 40% isn't "almost half".


And it’ll be even longer if we leave the EU and have to restart negotiations.

Ahh yes but see, that is you assuming we're as inflexible and protectionist as the EU is.

The reality is we're not.


wot

Doesn't even understand the Single Market now either.

Didn't you hear what Cameron talked of in his Bloomberg speech? Don't you read what goes on in Brussels?

I repeat. The Single Market is not even completed and is not going to be completed.


It’s not the FTA’s which are regressive, it’s you wanting to cancel all of them and start again. That’s the literal definition of what regression is.

Who said anything about scrapping the existing FTAs? As Britain is a member of the existing FTAs we would likely start with them as a de facto baseline for any trade talks with a lot of potential for widening them once we're free of 28 other highly protectionist countries from any negotiations.


Any arguments yet other than sovereignty?

Sovereignty is the be and and end all of everything.

But I mean I could talk about the collapse of EU borders with jihadists entering Europe, I could talk about 40% youth unemployment in the likes of Greece thanks to the Eurozone, I could talk about the Five Presidents Report which indicates how Britain is going to have even less "influence" by 2025, I could talk about the consequences of completing the Single Market, I could talk about the potential entry of Turkey (a poor country of 80m) into the EU, I could talk about the moves afoot trying to create a federal European army, I could talk about the rise of fascism thanks to the democracy of EU countries being taken away where people are left with no choice as their democratic rights have been transferred to the EU-IMF-WB.

Which one would you like to talk about? I'll let you pick.


What like the Commonwealth

The Commonwealth is declining? whut.


So you're saying you want to keep pushing people until you get the answer that you want. I'm sure there's a political institution who you claim to hate for doing that...

I'm not even pro-EU but this is stupid

We've been promised by the Remain side and the Government that no more powers will be going to Brussels without a referendum.

We'll be out in ten years because this is obviously a lie and because of the implications of the Five Presidents Report in regards to the Eurozone.

[The Don]

Doesn't even understand the Single Market now either.

Didn't you hear what Cameron talked of in his Bloomberg speech? Don't you read what goes on in Brussels?

I repeat. The Single Market is not even completed and is not going to be completed.


"The Single Market refers to the EU as one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services. A functioning Single Market stimulates competition and trade, improves efficiency, raises quality, and helps cut prices. The European Single Market is one of the EU’s greatest achievements. It has fuelled economic growth and made the everyday life of European businesses and consumers easier."

Is what I was referring to, and my comment made perfect sense.


Too busy to reply in full at the moment.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is great.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqdg7pcgIOY


"The Single Market refers to the EU as one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services. A functioning Single Market stimulates competition and trade, improves efficiency, raises quality, and helps cut prices. The European Single Market is one of the EU’s greatest achievements. It has fuelled economic growth and made the everyday life of European businesses and consumers easier."

Too busy to reply in full at the moment.

The Single Market isn't complete though. For a complete Single Market as say the United States is or Australia requires EU law to extend across all industries and sectors so that includes handing over control of the City of London to regulators in Brussels. It includes extending EU control over to the services sector which is Britain's golden egg industry. That would also include joining the Eurozone. That would also include a banking union, a single energy market, permanent (large) fiscal transfers within the union from wealthier countries to the poorer ones within that said currency union, Britain subjecting itself to a Central European Bank that comes with Euro membership, the creation of a single European Treasury and much more.

Now you can see why it won't be completed. And of course the elephant in all of this which is what the Five Presidents Report proposes for the Eurozone is the ultimate creation of a political union for it to all work: in other words the end of sovereign nation states and the being of a federal Europe.

Obviously Britain cannot and will not take part in all of this. The Eurozone on the other hand, if it is to survive and not dissolve, must. Therefore if this does progress it means Britain will be in a permanent voting minority in the European Union (which it already is anyway) as the Eurozone will have to start voting even more as a coherent bloc in order to survive and implement the legislation and treaties required. This is why I keep repeating that we will be out regardless within the next decade as the political facts (on top of the economic facts I have posted) are moving in that direction. It is only a matter of time so why not leave now on our own terms?

So as I always say, the choice is between a uncertain EU which could collapse or begin to federate or retaining our independence.

> I opt for national independence.

[scottish]

so what date do we vote to stay in the EU?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Would appreciate a reply to what I have said regarding the Single Market.

The first (telephone) poll was just published today after President Hypocrite's intervention into the debate, and it shows a narrowing in favour of Leave which is good news as I was expecting a bounce for the Remain side following the threats from Obama. It is only one poll but as I said it is our first indicator following his visit/comments. Important to note the difference between telephone and online, with telephone showing higher for Remain and online higher for Leave.


ORB Phone Poll

Remain 51% (-1)
Leave 46% (+3)
Don't Know 3% (-2)

724867834342457344

724625205327486977

People don't like being told to accept Polish and German courts overruling our own by the US President when he would never accept Mexican & Canadian judges doing the same to the US Supreme Court. Nor would the US government ever in a million years accept open borders with Panama, Cuba, Mexico and Brazil.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Interesting graph here too given what we've been discussing the past few pages. The Remain camp keeps making the claim that it is better to be part of the EU as a bloc to sign trade deals yet all the evidence (see below for a great example regarding Singapore negotiations) shows the EU is pretty bad at FTA negotiations in time + scope. As the LSE pointed out, the EU is still nowhere near a US-EU deal and the non-EU Swiss already have an FTA with China.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgwpEuwW0AEqhy3.jpg

[abc]

The Vote Leave campaign goes on about how we were outvoted in the EU like 76 times? Well they do not mention the 2000+ times we were in majority...

This makes a good reading: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

[AgnesIO]

Interesting graph here too given what we've been discussing the past few pages. The Remain camp keeps making the claim that it is better to be part of the EU as a bloc to sign trade deals yet all the evidence (see below for a great example regarding Singapore negotiations) shows the EU is pretty bad at FTA negotiations in time + scope. As the LSE pointed out, the EU is still nowhere near a US-EU deal and the non-EU Swiss already have an FTA with China.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgwpEuwW0AEqhy3.jpg

Whilst I'm not disputing that it clearly took about twice long, do you have the actual figures on what the timescale was? I mean 5 vs 10 years is huge, but 1 vs 2 months would not be such a big deal.. :P (I suspect it will be in the years, though...)

Also to counter your graph, it took Australia 20 years to scrap 99% of tariffs. Meanwhile, it took the EU just 5 years.

The Vote Leave campaign goes on about how we were outvoted in the EU like 76 times? Well they do not mention the 2000+ times we were in majority...

This makes a good reading: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

You mean to say that the leave camp twists everything just as much as the remain camp?

My advice to people would be to ignore both the campaigns and vote based on what you believe is better for you and you family.

[lemons]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChdbhLFWgAAdUfI.jpg

[scottish]

looks like we're staying.

[-:Undertaker:-]

727748434632003584

Combined polls showing 50/50 split. On a knife-edge with under 50 days to go.

I am cautiously optimistic for a number of factors. Firstly was the experience in Scotland where people reacted in the final weeks against the tide of completely absurd scaremongering if Scotland voted for independence (and I am a strong Unionist) as well the highly negative campaign from the pro-Union side. Secondly as with the General Election, older demographics favour Brexit more heavily and are more likely to vote which is what won the Tories the General Election. Thirdly the motivation factor.

All to play for. I've got 4,000 leaflets on the EU/NHS link ready to blitz around my very strong Labour area in the final weeks of the campaign.

[The Don]

Had a phone call yesterday from someone at Britain Stronger in Europe, will be volunteering handing out leaflets/making phone calls etc soon, just waiting to hear back from them

[scottish]

Had a phone call yesterday from someone at Britain Stronger in Europe, will be volunteering handing out leaflets/making phone calls etc soon, just waiting to hear back from them

Good to see someone on the forum taking initiative.

[abc]

Good to see someone on the forum taking initiative.

Dan is doing this too however using different tactics.. by trying to get people to vote LEAVE with his made up facts and scare stories ;)

[-:Undertaker:-]

What amuses me about the Remain campaign is that even if they do win this referendum, they're completely wasting their time as we're out anyway within the next five to ten years. That's the political reality of it. That's because as the EU moves to political union and in public declares this even more openly than present, Britain will find itself having to leave and thus there will be another referendum/series of referenda on any political union or treaty changes in the future. Of course the Remain side will scream about any more referendums being held claiming they've settled the issue, but they'll only have themselves to blame for not being honest in what the EU intends to become.

Think about it. Remain have spent the entire campaign telling us how no more powers will go to the European Union, how immigration will be controlled whilst inside, how reform will be fought for... so when the EU inevitably attempts to seize more powers with the treaty changes ahead, when Turkey a country of 80 million joins open borders and when Britain is sidelined completely as the Eurozone federates - they can hardly turn around and say we've settled the matter when they've lied all the way through.

If we do vote to Remain this June, I hope the EU moves as quickly as possible towards political union. The sooner they do that the sooner we're forced out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I've changed my mind on the EU now. I'm voting Remain.

If we voted Leave I just thought we'd all lose our jobs and house prices would collapse but not our lives in a mass genocide. I don't wanna die.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3580060/Now-Cameron-warns-Brexit-lead-war-genocide-PM-s-extraordinary-intervention-leads-campaigners-accuse-Downing-Street-desperation.html

Now Cameron warns Brexit would lead to war and genocide: PM's extraordinary intervention leads Out campaigners to accuse Downing Street of desperation

- Europe risks war and genocide if Britain votes to leave EU, PM will warn
- His speech will invoke Winston Churchill and the graves of war heroes
- Remain camp has also claimed house prices could collapse with Brexit
- But Vote Leave campaigners have accused Downing Street of desperation


Europe risks sliding back into conflict and genocide if Britain votes to leave the EU, David Cameron will say today.

In an extraordinary escalation of the referendum battle, he will invoke Winston Churchill, the Second World War and the graves of the fallen. The Remain camp will also wheel out military veterans in an emotive video warning against jeopardising the sacrifices of the dead.

Out campaigners have accused Downing Street, which yesterday claimed house prices would collapse following a vote to leave, of desperation. They say No 10 is panicking with the polls neck and neck despite the intervention of Barack Obama and a series of dire warnings about the risks of Brexit. Historians have dismissed the suggestion that the EU had kept the peace in Europe, citing instead the crucial role of Nato.

But in a speech to mark the start of the final 45 days of the referendum contest the Prime Minister will insist a leave vote would be catastrophic.
'Isolationism has never served this country well,' he will say. 'Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it. We have always had to go back in, and always at much higher cost.'

In other developments in the increasingly bitter referendum fight:

- Downing Street was accused of trying to scupper TV debates;
- The former head of MI5 was dragged into a row over whether British citizens are safer inside the EU;
- Environment Secretary Liz Truss claimed 40,000 jobs in the Scottish whisky industry would be put at risk.

What I don't understand though is this.... if leaving was so awful, why would the PM be offering us a referendum on it?

This latest scare story tops them all so far though. Next week we'll read how a Leave vote will result in plagues of locusts and fire & brimstone. :P

[scottish]

http://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Spend them billions here on hospitals, schools and infrastructure.

For all the years we've been in the EU it has bled us dry: we've constantly been a net contributor. Even worse, that figure is going to rise a lot over the next few years if Turkey, Albania and other poor countries continue to join. Would @scottish (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53890); prefer to pay for Albanian roads or for British hospitals?

I wonder if he'll answer for once when a point is put to him rather than disappear.

http://getbritainout.org/eu-myths-facts/

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/UK%20payments%20to%20EU%20budget%20since%201973.pn g

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/


The claim that the UK’s membership fee is £55 million a day comes from the £20 billion annual UK payment to EU institutions listed in the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Pink Book.

The ONS told us this isn’t the correct figure to use. It has another set of figures which actually represent official government payments, although this isn’t clear from the release.

The £20 billion figure includes payments to EU institutions by UK households, and so doesn’t represent what the government pays as a ‘membership fee’.

The Treasury has more up to date estimates than the ONS, and uses slightly different accounting methods. They show we paid in £13 billion in 2015.

We previously said that “it's reasonable to describe £55 million as our ‘membership fee’, but it ignores the fact that we get money back as well.”

This was based on the understanding that the rebate is paid up front and then sent back, which we now know is wrong.

£5bn, £13bn or £20bn .... and for what exactly?

[AgnesIO]

Spend them billions here on hospitals, schools and infrastructure.

For all the years we've been in the EU it has bled us dry: we've constantly been a net contributor. Even worse, that figure is going to rise a lot over the next few years if Turkey, Albania and other poor countries continue to join. Would @scottish (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53890); prefer to pay for Albanian roads or for British hospitals?

I wonder if he'll answer for once when a point is put to him rather than disappear.

http://getbritainout.org/eu-myths-facts/

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/UK%20payments%20to%20EU%20budget%20since%201973.pn g

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/



£5bn, £13bn or £20bn .... and for what exactly?

So leaving the EU would not result in us making any payments to the EU whatsoever? If you multiply the amount Norway pays towards EEA and EU activities by 12 (to account for the difference in both of our populations), their contribution would be around £8bn. If you think we have any chance of paying the low (but still 900m euros), then you must be on another planet. Of course these payments are not all directly to the EU budget, but ultimately they are paying them to reap the benefits (with no say whatsoever) of the EU.

Also, how on earth can you accuse people of 'disappearing'; the top non-sticky thread in the section of the forum is me proving you wrong, and you just cower away rather than accept you were wrong...

[-:Undertaker:-]

So leaving the EU would not result in us making any payments to the EU whatsoever? If you multiply the amount Norway pays towards EEA and EU activities by 12 (to account for the difference in both of our populations), their contribution would be around £8bn. If you think we have any chance of paying the low (but still 900m euros), then you must be on another planet. Of course these payments are not all directly to the EU budget, but ultimately they are paying them to reap the benefits (with no say whatsoever) of the EU.

Also, how on earth can you accuse people of 'disappearing'; the top non-sticky thread in the section of the forum is me proving you wrong, and you just cower away rather than accept you were wrong...

Who said I would want us to join the EEA?

In any case EEA membership is still preferable and cheaper than EU membership is. I have said before in terms of the best options after we leave, a simple FTA with the EU as an WTO equal along the lines of Canada, Australia is the best followed by EFTA membership (Switzerland) followed by the EEA (Norway) followed by the EU. Access to the EU Single Market does not require billions of pounds in Sterling just as access to the US Single Market does not.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being-a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html


Sheesh, europhiles, how many times? No British Eurosceptic is suggesting that we precisely mimic Norway’s relationship with the EU. Norway’s deal is better than full membership; Switzerland’s is better than Norway’s; but the United Kingdom, being a larger market, as well as an existing member, can expect better terms than either.

The Britain Stronger in Europe (BSE) campaign has latched onto a new tactic: to pretend that the only alternative to EU membership is Norway, and then line up some Norwegian Eurozealots to pooh-pooh that option.

Hence these wearisome interventions by a former Norwegian minister called Espen Barth Eide, who keeps popping up in British media to tell us that we mustn’t copy the world’s second-richest nation. Hence, too, David Cameron’s first major intervention on the BSE side, to warn against a “Norway-style future”.

It’s worth stressing that Norwegian public opinion is solidly against EU membership. And I mean solidly. Here is a summary of the polls going back to 2003. As you can see, the pro-EU side has never once been in front and, over the past five years, opponents of membership have led by three-to-one or more.

In other words, Eide is an untypical Eurofanatic. It would be rather as if a Norwegian newspaper presented Peter Mandelson as representative of Britain.

More to the point, Eide’s claims are demonstrably false. He keeps asserting, for example, that Norway has “no presence when crucial decisions that affect its citizens are made.” In fact, Norway is independently represented in the international forums where the rules are set, such as the WTO, the ILO and UNECE. Britain, by contrast, is represented on these bodies by the European Commission.

Nor is Norway excluded from the EU’s own decision-making process. As Anne Tvinnereim of Norway’s Centre Party – who, unlike Eide, is a current minister – explains: “We are not there when they vote, but we do get to influence the position. Most of the politics is done long before it gets to the voting stage”.

In any case, Norway isn’t obliged to adopt EU laws. Although its Europhile ministers tend eagerly to transcribe anything that comes their way, their treaty provides for a “right of reservation”. When, for example, they didn’t like the EU’s Postal Services Directive, they declined to implement it.

But the really monstrous lie – the lie constantly repeated by BSE – is that Norway must apply “three quarters of EU laws”.

Three quarters? Let’s look at the figures. Using the EFTA Secretariat’s official statistics, a study found that, between 2000 and 2013, Norway applied 4,724 EU legal instruments. Over the same period, the EU itself adopted 52,183 legal instruments. That’s not 75 per cent; it’s nine per cent.

Iceland, like Norway, is a member of the European Economic Area. Last week, in reply to a parliamentary question, it found that, between 1994 and 2014, it had adopted 6,326 of 62,809 EU legal acts – ten per cent.

Incidentally, why does the Prime Minister keep using Norway as his example when he is actually in, you know, Iceland? Presumably because the Icelandic government, unlike the Norwegian, reflects its voters’ opposition to EU membership. Its prime minister, the centrist Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, cheerfully declares that Iceland is doing very well as a result of being outside the EU, owes its extraordinary recovery from the banking crash to that freedom, and has no intention of joining.

Iceland and Norway have ostensibly similar deals, but Norway chooses to opt into many more EU initiatives than Iceland does. Its per capita contributions are therefore higher: not because it is obliged to pay more, but because it wants to participate in, for example, common international aid projects.

Switzerland gets a better deal than either Iceland or Norway, though, and it’s worth taking a moment to explain why. Switzerland, like Iceland and Norway, is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). All three states have full access to the single market, while being outside the EU’s jurisdiction on agriculture, fisheries, foreign affairs, defence, immigration and criminal justice policies. But there is a critical distinction: Norway and Iceland are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) while Switzerland is not.

The EEA was negotiated in 1992, when Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden applied for full membership of the EU. It was only ever envisaged as a transitional arrangement: a way to expedite harmonisation on the way to full accession. No one imagined that Norway would vote No to the EU, but still be in the EEA 23 years later.

Swiss politicians, unlike their Norwegian counterparts, listened to their voters. When Switzerland rejected EEA membership in a referendum in 1992, that was that. Although almost all the political parties had wanted to join both the EEA and the EU, they accepted the people’s verdict. With EU membership off the agenda, they sat down to discuss an alternative. Over the next three years, 120 sectoral treaties were negotiated, covering everything from lorry noise to fish farming.

In consequence, Switzerland has most of the benefits of full membership, but few of the costs. It is wholly covered by the four freedoms of the single market – free movement, that is, of goods, services, people and capital – but it is spared the regulatory burden of Brussels directives. When it harmonises its standards with those of the EU, it does so through bilateral agreement and following a deliberate act of the Federal Assembly in Bern.

Yes, Swiss exporters must meet EU standards when selling to the EU, just as they must meet Japanese standards when selling to Japan. But they are not obliged to apply these standards, except in some very special circumstances, either to their domestic economy, or to their non-EU exports. Being outside the Common External Tariff, they have pursued a much less protectionist policy than the EU and are now, among other things, negotiating a free trade agreement with China – something Britain cannot do while it is in the EU. Oh, and Switzerland makes only a token contribution to the EU budget.

Not that this prejudices its trade with the EU. The EU accounted for 64 per cent of Swiss exports in 2014, as against 44 per cent of British exports. In per capita terms, the discrepancy was far greater: $25,770 to $3,340. In other words, in population terms, the Swiss sell seven times as much to the EU from outside as we do from inside.

Why, then, don’t the Norwegians copy the Swiss? Why, 20 years on, do they keep the lopsided EEA agreement in place? Because their politicians – and here, at least, Mr Eide is typical – still hanker after eventual membership. Replacing the EEA with something more permanent would mean formally accepting that their dream was over.

So, to summarise, Norway has a much better deal than the UK, but Switzerland’s is better yet. There is no reason why, after Brexit, we shouldn’t get an even more attractive arrangement. We are 65 million people to Norway’s five million and Switzerland’s eight million. We run a massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the world). On the day we left, we’d become the EU’s single biggest market, accounting for 21 per cent of its exports – more than its second and third largest markets (the US and Japan) combined.

To be clear, both Norway and Switzerland are inspiring, beautiful, freedom-loving countries. They’re both in my top ten favourite nations. They are the two wealthiest states in Europe and, according to the United Nations (which measures literacy, longevity, infant mortality and the like) the two happiest places on Earth. Their deal with the EU would be a big improvement on where we are now; but we can realistically expect to do far, far better.

[AgnesIO]

Who said I would want us to join the EEA?

In any case EEA membership is still preferable and cheaper than EU membership is. I have said before in terms of the best options after we leave, a simple FTA with the EU as an WTO equal along the lines of Canada, Australia is the best followed by EFTA membership (Switzerland) followed by the EEA (Norway) followed by the EU. Access to the EU Single Market does not require billions of pounds in Sterling just as access to the US Single Market does not.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being-a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html

TLDR

You always refer to the wonders of the European countries not in the EU, so I did too. Cheers for ignoring my points on Norway though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

TLDR

You always refer to the wonders of the European countries not in the EU, so I did too. Cheers for ignoring my points on Norway though.

Do not try and draw me into a false argument about Norway and the EEA when I have not said I want EEA membership. FTA > EFTA > EEA > EU.

In any case I have replied to you via the Daniel Hannan MEP argument which addresses both the EEA and EFTA issues. Read it and tell me what you think.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In addition to moving plans for an EU army ahead of the referendum, they're now doing the same with the budget. I wonder why...

730757535888773120

If we stay boy are they going to take us for the ride of our lives. Goodbye rebate. Goodbye independent Royal Navy/Air Force. Goodbye English Common Law. Goodbye veto on moves to political integration. Goodbye independent Police service.

[abc]

-:Undertaker:-

Hey Dan, would it not be awesome if every UK vote and competition was scrapped and turned into a continent based voting system like the Eurovision ;) Then slowly turn whole of Europe in to one country and we can all be states instead of countries - like America and all her states.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A film has been released for Brexit. Looks well made.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltAtUTlm29w


@-:Undertaker:- (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233)

Hey Dan, would it not be awesome if every UK vote and competition was scrapped and turned into a continent based voting system like the Eurovision ;) Then slowly turn whole of Europe in to one country and we can all be states instead of countries

That's currently what they're doing. QMV was only recently extended by the Treaty of Lisbon and the next treaty is aiming for political union.


- like America and all her states.

Or for a more relevant European example, like Yugoslavia on steroids. Worked out just great forcing different countries/cultures together.

[abc]

A film has been released for Brexit. Looks well made.

I heard it broke the record for the lowest IMDB score... 0.01/10

[-:Undertaker:-]

Superb stuff from Andrew Neil on BBC Daily Politics this week examing the scare stories by the Remain camp.

731122648361648128

Follow the money...

731028331467055104


I heard it broke the record for the lowest IMDB score... 0.01/10

No that would be The Room.

[Inseriousity.]

I was going to vote to remain but now that we were near the bottom of the table in the Eurovision Song Contest, I am going to vote to leave!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Remain's OTT scare stories seem to be doing the opposite to what they want, just as they did in Scotland.

The Poll of Polls by Professor John Curtice (http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/) has an exact 50/50 split.

731565242002636800

731565112264396800

731564867572903936

731564706901692416

731564278239612929

[abc]

Great News - Pound becomes stronger as Remain takes a significant lead in the polls.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Bad News - FTSE 100 and UK 10 Year Gilt Prices fall after good polling for Remain.

[AgnesIO]

Bad News - FTSE 100 and UK 10 Year Gilt Prices fall after good polling for Remain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36330549
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2d86a06-1d0e-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz49B6mjtFz

Alright, then.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36330549
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2d86a06-1d0e-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz49B6mjtFz

Alright, then.

Oh no see I can make up claims too. If a line goes down or up then it MUST be related to whatever argument is being put forward. What's funny about the scary claims over the Pound Sterling anyway is that a weaker pound is actually good for exports. Hence the Bank of England's QE I&II scheme since 2008.

In other business news...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/eu-referendum-more-than-300-business-leaders-back-a-brexit/


More than 300 business leaders are calling on Britain to vote to leave the European Union, saying that the country’s “competitiveness is being undermined by our membership”.

In a letter published in the Telegraph, the business leaders say that Brussels’ “red tape stifles every one of Britain’s 5.4 million businesses” and claim that a Brexit would allow them to “create more jobs”.

Signatories of the letter include Peter Goldstein, a founder of Superdrug, Steve Dowdle, the former vice president Europe of technology firm Sony, David Sismey, a MD of Goldman Sachs and Sir Patrick Sheehy, the former chairman of British American Tobacco.

The letter is also signed by hundreds of people linked to small and medium-sized businesses. In total the backers of the letter are from businesses employing hundreds of thousands of members of staff.

But he says this and she says this and markets say this aside which is an argument that could go on for days. What's really interesting in this debate and why if Remain do win there will be another referendum is that they're arguing not on the real politics of the thing but economic claims which of course the EU is not ultimately about. If Remain win on a ticket of saying no more powers to Brussels and you'll all lose your jobs if you vote to leave, then what happens 5 years down the line when the EU comes up with a new treaty and more power grabs? We'll be perfectly right to call another referendum: this time potentially with a Leaver as Prime Minister. If you're selling us a false prospectus then don't be surprised when calls for another vote start shortly appearing.

733385604797485056

If you Remanians argued for a federal Europe and more powers to go there and won on that basis, then fair enough the debate is over. But now? nah. No way.

[abc]

Oh no see I can make up claims too. If a line goes down or up then it MUST be related to whatever argument is being put forward. What's funny about the scary claims over the Pound Sterling anyway is that a weaker pound is actually good for exports. Hence the Bank of England's QE I&II scheme since 2008.

Except what I said about pound becoming stronger was true and can be backed by facts? GBP to USD has gone from 1.38 to 1.46. A stronger pound means import is cheaper (and we import a lot! from food, to everything!) so that helps to keep prices low for families.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-25/pound-rises-to-one-month-high-as-eu-remain-camp-gains-momentum
http://www.ibtimes.com/pound-surges-new-brexit-poll-showing-strong-majority-britons-wish-stay-eu-2370762

I am not like you Dan, I do not make up facts and stuff. I state the facts just like I did in my previous post. So please do not accuse me of doing what you do non stop which is "making up claims" ... especially when I just proved you wrong so easily again.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@abc (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); And how can you pay for imports if you're not exporting anything? It's well known that Britain's exportation just is not good enough for an economy this size hence a huge trade deficit in that area. HENCE why the Bank of England has done everything it can over the past few years to weaken the Pound Sterling.

A weak currency rate helps a country export its way out of a hole in tough economic times. That's why there's such a problem in Greece, Spain, Portugal and so on as they, being a part of the Euro, are unable to devalue and are stuck in a currency totally unsuited to them. Millions of lives continue to be ruined by the wonderful EU. Youth unemployment at 50%, fascist parties rising up, democratic governments being overruled... and you want to tie us to this burning building.

[abc]

@abc (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); And how can you pay for imports if you're not exporting anything? It's well known that Britain's exportation just is not good enough for an economy this size hence a huge trade deficit in that area. HENCE why the Bank of England has done everything it can over the past few years to weaken the Pound Sterling.

A weak currency rate helps a country export its way out of a hole in tough economic times. That's why there's such a problem in Greece, Spain, Portugal and so on as they, being a part of the Euro, are unable to devalue and are stuck in a currency totally unsuited to them. Millions of lives continue to be ruined by the wonderful EU. Youth unemployment at 50%, fascist parties rising up, democratic governments being overruled... and you want to tie us to this burning building.

The UK damaged its exports when it started raising minimum wage.

Pretty much the whole county relies on cheaper imports hence a stronger pound will help every person in this country. And I have proven over and over again that being in the EU strengthens the pound and the fear of leaving weakens the pounds.

You said a few weeks/months ago that being in or out of the EU will not affect our exports. Why? It is because people buy our exports because our exports are not cheap goods, but more specialised items (and we are favoured by those importing our goods due to our high quality):

Pearls, gems, precious metals and coins (18% of total exports)
Machinery (13% of total exports)
Mineral fuels including oil (11.5% of total exports)
Pharmaceutical products (6% of total exports)
Optical, technical and medical apparatus (3.4%)
Aircraft and spacecraft (3.3%)
Organic chemicals (2.4%)

Hence our exports will not be significantly affected as we are exporting specialised items. What you fail to understand is, if our imports become more expensive (due to a weaker pound which you seem to favour... which is ridiculous) the price for almost everything we buy will increase. This means inflation will be at a higher rate, which means the wages will need to increase which automatically makes our exports more expensive as companies are paying a higher wage.

It is vital for UK that we have a strong currency.

[wixard]

who is abc

Edited by Chris (Forum Moderator): Please do not make off topic posts.

[abc]

who is abc

Saurav
hi tara

Edited by Chris (Forum Moderator): Please do not make off topic posts.

[wixard]

hi hun i thought so

Edited by Chris (Forum Moderator): Please do not make off topic posts.

[lawrawrrr]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13322213_10208311554980044_2362812601304627569_n.j pg?oh=79ef93f20e9d800d128b8a5701acbfe1&oe=57C53754

now if that isn't a reason to stay I don't know what is

[Martin]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13322213_10208311554980044_2362812601304627569_n.j pg?oh=79ef93f20e9d800d128b8a5701acbfe1&oe=57C53754

now if that isn't a reason to stay I don't know what is

Saw this on Facebook earlier and it definitely made my mind up!!! I LOVE MAGIC STARS OMG

[scottish]

remain it is.

[Lewis]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13322213_10208311554980044_2362812601304627569_n.j pg?oh=79ef93f20e9d800d128b8a5701acbfe1&oe=57C53754

now if that isn't a reason to stay I don't know what is

At least people actually have a reason to vote remain now

this spices things up

[abc]

Well that's sorted. Now I just need to remember to post it!

http://i67.tinypic.com/2pteb9i.jpg

[wixard]

my housemates polling card came and mine didn't

mine came for the may election so why not now, shes voting to leave so i think she has sabotaged me by hiding or binning my CARD!!!!!

i will still go on the day with my ID and vote to STAY x

[Stephen]

i wonder how many idiots will vote remain just because of that magic stars picture lol

[alexxxxx]

hello everyone,

i am far too old for this forum now but i thought i might as well put a chip in - looks like dan has done well to recruit so many brexiteers hehe.

anyway - i think it is coming clear that the referendum is slowly turning into a farce... farage must be fuming as all of the part-time eurosceptics in the tories (ie Vote Leave) are now acting like a government in waiting with completely unfunded promises and populist rubbish with little substance. totally crap points from the official campaigns and very little proper debate.

remain (rightly) putting up the questions with regard to pointing out the lack of real alternative trade deals that would suit our current trading relationship with the rest of the bloc but with loads of wishywashy rubbish and fear-mongering. leave with many ridiculous claims that everything will be brilliant with a head-in-the-sand approach to real-life business.

anyone who knows me on here would know that i'll obviously be voting remain.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Everybody knows Jeremy Corbyn when he's alone in that voting booth will be voting Leave but I still admire the guy even if he's reluctantly doing a few things for Remain which I hoped he would not given his principled stance. He's being forced to by the slimy Blairite section of the Labour Party. Still, he's dropping a few sneaky hints as to where he really stands on this issue and good on him for that. :P

738342110701748224

738350491155980289

738317669431152641

737717217316503552

A Brexit will strength Corbyn's leadership against the Blairites within Labour and Cameron and Osborne will be history. We need a realignment in Lab/Con.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/eu-referendum-boris-and-gove-pledge-tough-new-immigration-system/

Australian style points-based immigration system if Britain votes to leave the EU

Boris Johnson and cabinet ministers Michael Gove and Priti Patel pledge an Australian-style immigration system would be possible if Britain leaves the EU


http://4nations.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/aus-immi.jpg
Australian points-based system: only the educated, skilled and needed are allowed to become Australian subjects


Migrants will be barred from entering Britain after a Brexit unless they can speak good English and have the right skills for a job, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have pledged as they set out their vision for the UK outside of the EU.

In a joint declaration, Mr Johnson and Mr Gove announce plans for an Australian-style points based immigration system to come into force in the years after Britain leaves the EU.

Their statement, which is also signed by employment minister Priti Patel, will infuriate Downing Street and represents a major challenge to David Cameron’s authority.

It will be seen as the first policy of a Eurosceptic manifesto that could be enacted after a Brexit and will bolster claims by Mr Cameron's critics that he cannot remain as Prime Minister until 2020 if Britain votes to leave the EU on June 23.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj4PMk1XAAAxBdO.jpg
Cabinet ministers Michael Gove, Priti Patel and former Mayor of London Boris Johnson in Preston campaigning


After a vote to leave the EU the “automatic right of all EU citizens to come to live and work in the UK will end”, Mr Johnson and Mr Gove say.

Under the Australian system, migrants are only granted skilled migration visas if they pass a points test based on what type of job they do, their age, English language skills, previous employment and education.

Their intervention comes just days after figures showed that net migration to the UK has risen to 330,000, the second highest level on record.

They warn that the scale of immigration is putting a "particular strain" on public services and that "class sizes will rise and waiting lists will lengthen" if Britain does not leave.

The pressure will intensify if Britain votes to remain, they warn, as EU migrants come to this country to escape rising unemployment in their home countries caused by the Euro-crisis.

It came as two polls showed that the Leave campaign has taken a lead with less than one month until the referendum.

Telephone and online surveys by pollsters ICM put the Brexit campaign ahead on 52 per cent, with Remain on 48 per cent of the vote.

Who can argue against a sensible immigration system? Only possible by voting to leave the EU though.


https://www.habboxforum.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAYUAAACBCAMAAAA YG1bYAAABOFBMVEUDKnT////MGTDNGTEDKXT8DRsDJ3oDJ3sAI3Hu8fZHXJEAJ3P8AADJABnLD CjJABzsr7bvwcblkpzTOErXUmHLACRVbJ4ACWriiZLd4uzBy9w AHXZRXZVVa6IAInQAI3kAG27Ur70LLn8AFWzDZHv8AA4AAGX99 vfo6/IAFXQAEGkAAG4AFXWjq8RHZZj44OPYX2zS1 P8JS79paj xcf/7/Csts79XmT ysxVYZH8UVeFk7k7Tojuub/KAACXoL39cHNseaLyzdEuQoDTRlX qqz ubsZNXr9gYX9am/8Rkz8O0Lg1N/9lZe3vtJcdaMlQYr9e37fdn6MlrbXWWees83ca3c8T5H8HiXsz NX9l5vLKTw4VI7pkpfsoqjNy9zQnKurxdt7h7LO4 /8MTd3lbrXvcjcz9w7oW8jAAAd2UlEQVR4nO1djUPaVtdPIEIgE HUKFNjwPs1ApDJKp/gBjiLWdK3Ftrh2m7Z7x9M///g/feJOfcm09Q0bbTU0tCPiCcX873uTfSwbYcSsVJopy4BK39oEnz IzWdCr 0S1Mqrc7x2rT8PD9NknJHB vh194elDeSiUTSYXMyAevJpMB9 oYdlCzfo3BFiuvZlaUIHIqTpIWDRTYISQsDxnqb/QkHhLuKgqaEHaaE88N9Tiwe03OrkTicPtxI4r0PKzbfHQTsHXc UBcX07lVwOfQwRIFdmmmKOMRiDIfsUbQ8rG0mEygIlmCAZrIFw sbjbqKgNX28hj29Jgn5AKM7qAhvYxbF9dwUHKg8gFqy1VEC5CO JK3cSBW2YGpDgo8i4boZoq1q7WRDeUkmwaYo8tCflzbVkQlBMj nFACUncQVlQVbVxKndqdOn56RrdREZy3qBLDxJsjykXxZMsjWR BEdcXo 10l9kHcJVABpIJ1Eh3ThYUc29vL12S63Sx51ZL2pBuGqTkUZou PaaYberL8oAues5JtihYr3GKwxR5KBSS3CVCSXDMwx1EYYKf3/SiMMJvnqiec4uwqwQo6HocdJKtl84/RsVxTB7QRQJxgC13DQVqZHtt69Prg4JH7WiFiX35JYl4Tq5IHf uSxgSuaXk1q8e5WrLtdMSvKU42LX JhwqOxb6TKFCOtq0PN/zHGHkLBM3PE63RZLu6HDlZXn6X00EU4o48LEXLw YahG6OXb6znqomWRf5U8V/DLHUVTvo9EaJ7Ro3cAN9t768mnP0EliJaX5rYoNDgO7rvwSFWX 4DokDycnFQkpsN/zHUQxpN6vKe/3s1yvVuU267UKC0/DiXE6wD1UvT5QF0kmMW/i3WWRmQ6QdxFEYjqWGMi/64QBsWJ4WG2e4UvHtoHNHuFWqDOr8k55euH57pekyQhxiVh0g7 PTGpXkpwzzX574jatF47QJP7jnJQUMwB9fkVsncB5yAaanqP0F d6AOzB9IVyalINRno89HvdhN96eLaYE9yl NQ8XzdZSGIE/W9BgWrzfICS9xCPne1jMfxSBxewR7NWFPwwMkGBseM4jV/R2sawjzg8jlF5YN5SHPIaK1HyUJ 8duLp5L8GBaOz1SFTjwrNbJNRP8Bdsk5R6wEmwqFkcm3zfROud fksK8qDldf4GPHbipNyIYke678ABUU6OWr7kqQ CkNBMYttEvJz9uRxCEAMhURibfNhs 5c7eE7XRdxoPF0ZBxX777egBD6m0ZBI4xqp1vZ5dOatR7xYwJR MBWN7MmpPaqevDiamkI6crugeTLaQLY6ccnDatbjLy0efYz0Wz cLa4lvPV5Q0 Nu9/Pnz/99m/1Qostud3wRfkYQCtqg2G4XKT/a7bYrbS1pZodupL G7i8Ng1CAgsHaozKXh7c5t16KZeOR8tC38hrftkZSJ6nWhw8fH sRi53TxqpU6jTghCAWlAQmiYs jetRG37mMjhRo jETkVjbeM/9pceLOkTTcSeOi5SH7trGty0LLCf011LOUgO5rL406pHQQmaYX SBDKyYeDX2cVsgp zGprhHMIbGMufboYR/kYfntYi4Wn10eiuOHmxvfNAqSWuu3Vq2f rjVb0QeHmKd7Vt EmCElQZjbN1blQNKgp9p47DxXvBbdZ1jwGRiit/affhto0Bv5tPWCv2t561TI0IQpDAUFKVNVb8c5CVV8lRGUnI3x EviiVEbjLVHr/vcX1p02WkqD9F5706oK3YF gIoqOnDXE7P6ctB2TmRglFQ03Lf0JqpgLiAdIr5Wq/YrgV/HjayYGvF2sbrPuY13sV01EtW8jtSHur nMnV6QugYPz9LvugRb2k36bcTsGdMKQ7IJJiTCYEdzlLZdgcEq li8lqQu30Gk0BCg9faIzGeRnlw6g/ZcByKDAVFsf sr7FfFGez9Q8TKtYb 79ibVOc3fau20dBM0/0pdKgvRQ/kWbXSNoFhgCmxX6C0YLJv1Rha1oFdqk9l8ea5Bg4bV9MMNY2X4 BB613sVzMVZBbPP8uGAcbBYvNNhB8RdgAbAdsAC8FILMPv30UK oPWH30arf32R2tKLsklC6UeJuxcCxouj9DR8uxqNLnAWChAYxF 0QEIc9xp8XPnwjDlwiANFZHEl0G 1UHBud/u RjaLEuIwXNyiIDKYerx9FGqdVJ6aZcU4rTejzbOAgtqTByT4KN KvB8Zo7KuKrow3NnqBPEDZJrFWSIx5HBfLca3EFovxB355QFmw EQBEJK5pFEErOQeChOAbB4hbR0Ex 7ZKoTqlH9ZI5EJBI4ZR68qlmmEYno9X2aa2PKC7PBgp9KRCT04 VhJN4XjoBTRXgvCYFO23bBzHfSuXhO688OHYBCe9vVFN4pyO7F UAHlBHg9AVQAGuqTDvWRkEb9pv9flFO9fv9ptsxUvN0Dw2C2/S178oqKWaX7qLhHTtg4Hwh7 mCEjLIgh3HlfvQt3H4Vs8JZpq ZuPftfwooBlAq8tvdNzMeY7qySMUs8rC4dxQuAQ5sqD2gDmpgV cW0K5ys Gca2KTTB/2YK8p9r jTFj/XfLwTs85KQ3HPuRWXHYaZQFtAnIbnSP63zQV5LWgvdwGZEYUWi 9ng GGevPMpsNpX77DSFtNMqk 8X6xWrGbZIp7eJLYUQSigCGEraAKSR7HvXXHccw fOTy4NgFxwTYnEV1BD4odUUmRHCLuIQgFJdA4Xnm6RdEQVJqLH WUcuyJG4Yeu/5RUJxWsxyfU26fcWhIUlBM2H1nv1J5EO00r0/HLXk4R70E8QL3heB d8jaVeuUahLs5sZBONo6bCYUWtWFzO7toKAIdzvvhBmmZHqZgw AUyJh q1wMSB0pRpudJDRuAAZJFxCi28TerxXMcZg8xLg82HZBiAgE/wiUP72GurymAUb448BgICwzofAms5DZuRUUtGGP85P3YEzkkTS WRwGdMNRDmgxHQQBR57bYy6dSPEBPCuOkktxVQgFB 7BpdgGH1tt4LiY2uMZytp3mPpKEcbHgDdloqGlZzlfAZZIUzns 0CTNrpN0FStXj20CBjMdc93NZGHWJSvZKPZ9jq16UeoZq9DsIE B5S6TcllQxLPOjg8QJ2eSW4rQYorLxGgcfThyuZjQWBm342nwk SQhQsAgDrS/QQ3ayIA9EvhQgljYO2ZBYafKUHhxCyhQLVIi I53wlw0FFZYQDlBr1TtWWUGkuYgIAxpVk1VJWyf4dYZkxjQjA1 VOByxkFzbfBgsD3FbL334h8sY EeCZbDvc82kvgPVltwigOBwAZo1atvNMFlYyDy7eRTUn/74g5dAuXV20AB kvEp5D6ctiYcvWA0h5L7JH5F0AGPTirmVrEBMpHAhmBXfon1a8 Q5CjRFEVGYrgo45i/yp77GR6rYI2QqMgKVx pqOw/mvVQqH6IiLdfn0U6DVpkjH bmliKJrtd0R0wgQ1S1qgKEEZb4cSoj UEEbq4CtU4pw2 UK5C6GKIA8WDLkfGfyCDgIbLXHl49SjOjWeOlJAJWGwbW0LRWE deP7MFgUqDH/CrtCqrAuF6ISpF4TekFH77F3JZCu9MBQ0VVOH9brkH9ij0E3GR G7WNN/AHpuSlyXLb X5Vl3wlwAFIQrmGIDuL1gY1g3XIZDZENIa4bLQ2nHM8afqApDN/a2dVvApbhQUc3rHESd1UKz/c3JyeH7eOjn5p17Mh6FAETIHNIpmWLlgUEwKJI2Y2/SQXmCC6uEVKLFR7iIOb8/jQPqP1ggXnjKVJFD1AIXlITHaU3k8jeEaHhftI 1kXhxTtv cQRAyr jm4/3My5lkwZgMpjdBciK99lKWZZVzWf3YjpKDUFAHYDPlort/QzGxzUgeBaJQvBq18RvlFqeTBvDTjQVPG0nEyZc3iRC1gU5SRF 0WjsLzTLW6//OrJwucfn/ 8061mvk1DAQRBaVQClPewaSa/cNVVoNfbTVtkxooCwRGUY1MD8iKAQhNvMrKptDLvgq5Mhga4X6 QkDWyhyDJbVNDAXEula4RjVuQcBSYPahmMgsiZTJVRySCSUBBM 9dPLoWCpNS6rcWYft46rdkXG1J3tsfojAt ThOTKeJ6OuR7544CCIHWmwxJBbnvbK0ga/NECBOstQoxJ5RXIBvhKBy6ARCgCI/fBBTI54 HEX13QUS6S78cHWUPTokUgYJErAFrQf3C9pifUEdt7ihwZT qj9KkoYqpCcnowrF967aARB 9j4z0qF4y0UhHoLBeDUGhGmqcbQbYbgApHbHyPngEs1CtdPa21 Xr8uNSIkgVFqsvNjlwMmBiDULM9bouDqG4YBUiVahrVhfVxWoW 2W/arjTYcWzcUjC20SiU9piKbklSeCI9A4UUIDJ/C4waKgkJdFOq/mD d6OdF5nPSN7PhoJmtpfZFuv3xxHF QnrzBvV8g5qAANuvjkbDBum0Q3o7bgIF5342rOF1qdKANAjkho acs2lwqCoF47Rkbe82wEGKlAVqnoNFYSe8idNCYVIv/lMs1pcWs4fUw6CrUb2oLvbKHU2tmB3ZYbBrNhLkuTroEeqB7YH eEsaJDLt0XSMTdGHdVnp EMhiZtv6bAMctM6pYlieKcv2AjEviXpCRM1De zIgFSHEp3NexaMQoRxtjWSkS9 yC6yIXy5XDa31O4RaTbq7LFRsUpt0PSjoA3A aTBmcVgHM1jDvALrBUF84FqPi3CMAfec6pzu8D4qGnAx1R7bDa oz6SW MFtpokaZreNzB6qGHhLkbKwFayRovJJtmEkw9JyzOr7XDw6/M2c1USbQ4eblZ59gwkoKGY7zOaqeSEB6CKl0HENKVmeJ/2PfTLEviw4GAh8KA3MwlBkbLpmDgRUnC5bTC/5UWiB8W09CURhYdd7oBcFSa19bp1RGPS3dfA6ZyHNsyKgUEmHj tEhzVQvpHPXSJXETpjcHCn7o/2dPE9X6YicqPf74tv uCi HVWwFGGd70fh2UuHuyHm YljnLf3/aoJncRG6Z2u67mPv12nm5NXeSq1sdyuVexARySVEBobdWsVv6m uEGNPliuEqHCS2GXk7pQXist8Ne7e7GrZgzySUOy0/KTZKCXoh5B44U3mpcPnp0GGAesM xm/mQYUtN7Jefbt4 xK 3I5vSAUFLPfLjG/olQqddwRiJam26g/WKeLsefkCd1G7z96aimvCSgEs9y7JRgjAUOezQP7rLh0UiR1iR jBYWa71UKGbr9cyPxqw/BnEAqZN9a depB/Y4qab116EKBTA70j 3ig wfP12j4ABdYdjU0va0u0jqHgh633RrJUWCZGh9oIqyEHyzB LAsnb2gXG My6igKUdO0Bw6aRwGhkAAnQB2Cg8z y/ebZl8Z7VdJxM0XEgCrZxZm6sHURv7z57s1/dcaHQGL09/JuY7YOPYRHUJVCQNGNgcbSv vQOsWd Kfpmi8EmmRHv3AjifDwmVJX5fABcb3HOi UFWyPxOoElEKo5k06qW/4RViYUzOYdZqrVTPXJizfHu/tV9EZbgS6SZZytTGv109bx8/0n1Uym6mQ1HBS0Yao MBRN7a63G1dXSbzW1rAY6h9DJTnlrFIQ1jXLhR/wXe7b2YtFAKuDVh0xAlmQuGbx Emh1CVC6kMSojaqhhhXKT8ztkW2Kjrbn4KMM1NDz yjrOPt1ZaIAumWrCCBDQW8ZC4pEAW1J8t/BQ iMvrUQZfrAV4S60Kh/rnQLxwgB0LznRufOP8L3CHYBYVXPQsz6KRSA3SR5EFBfuN1h5j iWd/xbqWM36d669i7HeLplBOqp6HaWzHTIV7kZVCgrJ7U0kFDzdkA9 J7RTQW4sZU860UqpbjBCNBDoH8i7vsAryoOPpIkFJoZqcOpOin VU3mxB1IYDgoBcfIWdZICUKD8Pvzdh5njtIJd4BXHiClnZ0ZBM Tt7RKoMO35E1b2OWVEKg45fJan9CdFUtc/zTTa3weSKBsERBy4BbvPgV2MgC1A0k5z7mpxOQ2FiCEVoqIA6K ASYgOrPx7/7ty4sPDv2gYCdezfTIamYllnWiL CppjWEAh/IMGIsAMMXncV7vp4gJmOg/6Je1nulY6YIwtYZuOl/cYoCgKqjwwnxrCu3tsJ8zLgtvdvCt28fpMoRJHiWQbsQvLz16t twsIEv3lGT1XCcrNdOzCLERhQ/6giNmNIzmcACm/CajqzUBXaJ7/u2c5jeLujyeX qdsyiDZZUFloRQSNJImGlkj90LycxaC SXhJDivPgMLWdVDI/HxDKBBtjiTF3EwFjtrKKO7a4wuivTLEPVW4q1kdszGIlARGxa5 REeqfLusst4K80pkJRjfMFwWjNFeS3AGYnRuKx1FLQaAsCEdcP NglHuip8hyGRtKlcO5zau85gy3QtmM2DzrwrkKW93oDKBRmTo/NRJLIbOEWj9uqxmcz/ELAXSi3LFgvhtqMVEacUh2pgX0aFhCYzbsWCpCFmjMKU8X7Kih EsTncPLsNR5x3SMLdXOle4p5JjbWKaFKc2HkrrMg8Gwyfjre/BRS8fn88LkhA3M1vX2I75nrhmW3LutYuZlJGnErpmopRg4XC rP9zHVAYKmMFz vfxso2HwUAjdX9i5MEAAXx3eKY xs3c/GsDn9673U6RmYh7Jk4dV1HCSbMs /ARS8t7Y3nSo6r3FhXUAMgj4hdq6QwZUMWH1SIYpY/T9euKYsVG1f9atHIe6/7aeIQSxIPaF1Zi1e fb07w6m4qlhN5JBBuPFteKFJ46r tWjMFt6Imi724ijLKjDGUs7wdQZqq544derw5DZh6Lb142Cv4Q QxGQ8yhM2uBOvjixo eK15k5IFU81V1dYSBPYDCA8xXLp142CJwhzYeBmtMshEqeod6N AVbrZ66Xzp5Nxp9Qu1lOpWSChRxXbpc54cppP93pDz/iFqxkHMAnfBAqiDfbxFj2ouHsZw8DOSbyyIyFqs54MRIjRKDSI MkzvDbrjZicEi9SoOR4P8umhRIxCw6CnsQFJ3j7V3ZeXF4fMky 3xe75qFObfjySWeFh/nlqpVAiphZjrOpvHt8IY7x7U4 lH2g4ork0BYd/VGvZ1o/BgnvR/FQnZL0TBjKeVML2kaZg5UnhWVfJ2SK5f0jhknrr7t79uFOb6aX U Y5tNfHjC67BzbIcIK2y85OntCgsopIWSyyRYdIdQgHkwxJvb/ldJh52TJxIv0GEbTFCH5O6TWcWhuuAb1PN151Tn mnCHJJQX3A4TCZh54wNEAJo1nYEyd8hub0zGwyZF6HdwnMi8r j1TnSDY2oggWsK4bYJ1wULXXHUFAbiYYkaIzn9kzGIfM0YGDVf FGo/OcXfY50g6NIoC/MusGJ0ABQNw1BrZYIOkfCcM/AbmFKf1anq6PnQZc2bxSy8TnSjaCgYM2T97bw2794UeHzzdG3J h8HCsVOoU/VS1M91pBJMe4aCtzEcn9VGyLbUz1CjTXvFIMWQu6iBnqqQAHtY B4U9q JwizNYvNGIXVFikJB8rg7IkfraWs2mAqffXFPRRsiKcJqIAozt AL8Hjid4ezPawubnf8mUfj SvT h0CHmVtn9DdtG1HJI8 dtk1yATweEK6NQBZC7QJvi7EaiFkLsbNEGcl4Q4XLoWDOMnH vFFYuzyVN38IKWU68YKriG8b5wmAQCDDQdKOUho3cGwu4BcYtV nEOgEY/6tPXu48ffVs63C/ nJ399mrpzsvrD55tnv/Oiio ZR3QMgtoABz2ArT/4tPAuDbYKak8qP3oQ2PRewFx7jNtgzwXJpBg2eLjLzN5U4NDDk fRMLHL7hpnU1/8Wnn1fHuYQuEw7n1tw93j1/tvFygchFkGGZ Xlt/e0y AArCk2mFWVRx8raEsEwky UwOeAoKMhRm930r2YDd9rgqkqRjD2Lzc60njCGxF139tD28W7L PWRty6uAWofH10FB/etde/roknmjgFPk4ey2fLZnfJ45zKhX3nxfiqgWHNrZPIQA3VTJzqh2 G5gusqgxsKBrKDwPC2cos878fxxsBq6Kgto7jP0xfXjJTWgkQQ qSgu5JiJAwXVT Pqq1ZfnxL3z8gpONgJ7hCrMBkwb2Yzu3vQVDSuNnwXmh1vnGUG A1EUq1/odflro1 024s3QzGkmY7JxPlYebrXcMgyg5eKfrfHShwoNn9lYz6Zn9Au8 FhoRFg00RM1SFUQsYvs2IwjOcM 9aKCjDn9LpnygVj3KP22yNvg2fq2TuKAjaByfxFCYYdpbhfpFF y /YfJK8N09IbkuKPZEty9oJ7qvDcDZTz56KoYKQXJ0RhZ jJr YHQVt2JFbB1vLy0uLsdjS8vLyQUvuSLeGArfISZxLUph43t5SX ovG4LH1bOi4MKLKnVmtDOSmISmoqdCDpbahL08ICAlAEeoj enP aAgaeT05EF2MccmycjlFrMPTviM8LchC6ImSrgkwtm28WiKHFj PhYa6MySDsAmeEul3nJFFuBejZKM/IqiIBGU1oyy8ygQm7y6NApsjvrR1rtttzyu7f8MEJCEo/LI4R5I888s7jqkQMJTL QgM1petZ6SLXWHo7IAVoJRndU2JFxAgVGYvJI/qS8gC3j4Kkmp0rZlKYvq7 mffUxNEUox/Hnw3R5J4YJZIckuAemqKHBw 9s nikBI/M5WIXTAJAU/SlIFyeD155mfvzA3FCSp9ttH6zmeS OQp9sBzbvi6Z5bPuFelsunkXJwxJ65yhuWfCjAuiRUP4U/TDjZCOEpNlazofDGmf1iGs2CgqL dyWmn f0s9KU VZvBAVhcm3hYVXlR5Hxgfs5n4xovMCNK2p/9EEBDDyE3/3AeV6mmxWFp3N8FomaPslazy7MnYTNa3RDKADbk9xK2 qIykFEx /64VFWF8c0sGdxLxUbwEOMhS2eo8kVgwJARUFbrnCTHpbZ9tFOx Ey2Is2CgjH GDv4O90 0D9 jnCQbgAFryJyBGFqnKzrrvEn uLK0rb4FAzOWklCZeR4SWK2VeJ8FwVoZk81aC6kIJrpqXl/PWj1K0Tqtz6MyK3KAibuIHHBXjY2fojqfF9ezcIzuOOOHKwsMV 5gJ4wES7TTGCRAlg9cKVFgsP48u6f6Yn4oaK/l gWT5ka6KJuRKmnuGikhkJOrSEZhsL7s2AM CCjH5IAR1hcE8wyml/ugGFmD0Is48ArRbCi8zOzPC4VKt NMkF0ZjlyP2bwFFHiMZq1vROcqDh6jHNgvetaWA0YlnC9YvNVd eHAjgZDw8gJGzrPLwpPMizmhoEhpfB68akRPGDN/6 wq5ZSTUaNwaIyWc/lFcT13BBikShe3/6zz9Ref5mcXtJB1P92AXUhiJm9aruLxou4aGe2Sgx82C1/gifPb29OfBsPo6 5T5eXMRHltEBWjHawuOvYAfdNVLgfvN8rJ8hdAYVb6ylGAbMVU OchRORDGP vZcy4H35fLzKzfo3A1khznqFweRNmDg5WsK1cRY3IAv2/0/lHZDvTuUbga2RkM6hdFxgdnui5OCBO3YzSbSj9YcpC4R HqxDTSRrQcLB9l3fkilxxcPCqDZblH4aokJctr0b7pqq67hncy 3xTkYETtAc A3B0UFONkaZ4kbUTLwWpW52NAmS7KHh2ATR59z yB8OTbO4MCq7Vl50hSpE1GOXByRrrOMeh8v1EW66LJu6SRbq9z/uBs0RMnZ1cEDAplTAMCDvcozBmF9aUjjJMdXaSvAgapUW jjD0DQon6HoW5orB0hn5R3JerGDFdJLS3Yi/NPQpzRMGK0fiUVXGWszs7gF8zel1YS2JDsauT8h6F aFwcJbTXdOcu XAidFcjZXQ0H2PwnxQcHIV3CRTmyzKgeOb8rZi3sR3j8KcUKC aU7MXcdZTV IDzbWeAMfr0k4T6ZP3mukeaAgyoE9kSSVA8xVdN4/KvO MUEOsFZ3j8L1UVg/OBJydpYc5Lhv2rkor2ElAmwCtrbexwvzQYFiYPtFiIOeXQV7QG M0K2fHBzagb QeZnKPwnVQ2F46EuvJdDuN0ZZBDprvN8rYoCGYBGGEw13Lqd4E CktWzk4wynr2aFnMVaDyga56cVQo10v3KFwZhe2lFZ4vitu5ir NluPbm681ykt/9CW4GknwTwHCnUIjNkaSl1UXdM4Ek6iK52dtcw7AMB4EmIJXKF ZMtGXcJhfjKHOn/ATU0FX4Af2ZsAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDcKD14WgAAY_1m.png

I posted this though because I have read before an idea that seemed pretty good that has been floated in the event of British independence from the EU. The idea is this: a post-Brexit free movement agreement between Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and possibly America.

Unlike freedom of movement with the EU which now includes many poor countries with high crime rates - with more to soon join and have the right to come here with no skills and even a criminal record - a free movement agreement with Canada, Australia and the others would make sense given we're all so similar and have the same levels of quality of life: meaning there would be no flood of people like there has been with EU freedom of movement.

It's something worth considering if we do vote to leave I think. What do you think?

Thread merged by Empired (Forum Super Moderator) with the EU Referendum Megathread as the topics were too similar for there to be separate discussions

[abc]

And where will Britains run to when unemployment increases in UK due to the economic downfall? Oh wait, they will be stuck in the UK because we said no to EU.


will bolster claims by Mr Cameron's critics that he cannot remain as Prime Minister until 2020 if Britain votes to leave the EU on June 23.

Er... he has already publicly said he will stand down well before 2020 so I do not know which idiots are claiming the above but clearly they do not know anything if they do not listen to what the PM said loud and clear before the last general election.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just been out leafleting for the first (and hopefully last) time in my life with a friend. Must've covered over 500 houses in a few hours. Lovely sunshine.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkBtv1SWEAAcqPs.jpg

[Mikey]

I'm still very much undecided but after doing research I'm swaying towards Remain. I have other things that I believe the Leave said are saying that are a bit dramatic but I don't want to get killed by people on here who are Leave supporters.

[Inseriousity.]

The UK already has a points-based system for all non-EU nationals so it makes sense that after Brexit we would have a points-based system for all nationalities (which is good, it seems fair, practical and flexible enough to me). I was reading this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642 On the surface and based on little research except this article (because I really can't be bothered tbh) the only difference is that Australia's system is more rigid (2 categories: workers and humanitarian efforts such as helping refugees) whereas the UK's acknowledges other types of immigration - students, for example - so in a way maybe ours is actually better :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

And where will Britains run to when unemployment increases in UK due to the economic downfall? Oh wait, they will be stuck in the UK because we said no to EU.

Why would unemployment increase? Please, for once, explain by what mechanism this would occur.

And if unemployment did increase Britons surely wouldn't be running off to the bankrupt EU. They'd go to non-EU Switzerland, Norway, Canada & Australia.

[The Don]

Why would unemployment increase? Please, for once, explain by what mechanism this would occur.

And if unemployment did increase Britons surely wouldn't be running off to the bankrupt EU. They'd go to non-EU Switzerland, Norway, Canada & Australia.

"bankrupt EU" looooool, that's what you call the worlds largest economy?

[-:Undertaker:-]

"bankrupt EU" looooool

Oh right so that's why Britain pays billions into it every year then and has to bailout Greece and the others despite not being in the Euro.


https://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/EU%20payments.png

Why exactly are we having to subsidise French farmers, pay for Spanish roads and Greek infrastructure? A 40-year rip off.


that's what you call the worlds largest economy?

The EU isn't an economy. It's 28 different countries added together. That'd be like saying NAFTA is the largest economy.

Have you not seen the youth unemployment figures in Eurozone countries? Millions of lives ruined with no way out on the horizon.

[The Don]

Oh right so that's why Britain pays billions into it every year then and has to bailout Greece and the others despite not being in the Euro.


https://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/EU%20payments.png

Why exactly are we having to subsidise French farmers, pay for Spanish roads and Greek infrastructure? A 40-year rip off.



The EU isn't an economy. It's 28 different countries added together. That'd be like saying NAFTA is the largest economy.

Have you not seen the youth unemployment figures in Eurozone countries? Millions of lives ruined with no way out on the horizon.

Greece != EU. Calling the EU bankrupt because of Greece is the logical equivalent of calling NATO a weak military force because Albania is a member. The EU as a collective is obviously not bankrupt. The EU's internal market is considered the worlds highest (or second depending on which source you use) economy. Calling the EU bankrupt is not only incorrect but incredibly stupid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Greece != EU. Calling the EU bankrupt because of Greece is the logical equivalent of calling NATO a weak military force because Albania is a member. The EU as a collective is obviously not bankrupt. The EU's internal market is considered the worlds highest (or second depending on which source you use) economy. Calling the EU bankrupt is not only incorrect but incredibly stupid.

Who said anything about it being just Greece?

Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal and Spain all have serious economic problems with chronic unemployment which is now leading to the rise of fascist parties which is dividing the people's of Europe. Meanwhile, very poor countries countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania are all basket case economies with serious levels of corruption. Hence why we're forced to shovel money to them.

The reason why they're so afraid of us leaving is that the biggest sucker for handing money over won't be there to pay the bills anymore. Over to you Germany/France.

[The Don]

Who said anything about it being just Greece?

Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal and Spain all have serious economic problems with chronic unemployment which is now leading to the rise of fascist parties which is dividing the people's of Europe. Meanwhile, very poor countries countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania are all basket case economies with serious levels of corruption. Hence why we're forced to shovel money to them.

The reason why they're so afraid of us leaving is that the biggest sucker for handing money over won't be there to pay the bills anymore. Over to you Germany/France.

The EU also has 3 of the worlds top 6 largest economies in it. Yes some of the countries have economic problems, that doesn't change the fact that the EU as an entity is quite clearly not bankrupt and what you wrote was factually incorrect. Just admit when you're wrong for god sake

[-:Undertaker:-]

The EU also has 3 of the worlds top 6 largest economies in it. Yes some of the countries have economic problems, that doesn't change the fact that the EU as an entity is quite clearly not bankrupt and what you wrote was factually incorrect. Just admit when you're wrong for god sake

Oh yes they just have some "economic problems" you're laughable. Drop the spin Alistair.

Why should Britain subsidise French farmers (a large economy), pay for Greek infrastructure and Spanish cultural plazas? Tell me why.

[The Don]

Oh yes they just have some "economic problems" you're laughable.

Why should Britain subsidise French farmers (a large economy), pay for Greek infrastructure and Spanish cultural plazas? Tell me why.

Classic Dan tactic trying to change the topic when he's been caught out. You should have just admitted that you were wrong. I'll leave it here since it's obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together that what you wrote was factually incorrect and you're too stubborn to admit it. The EU is not bankrupt in any sense of the word.

[-:Undertaker:-]

738742298670956544

Fantastic.


I'm still very much undecided but after doing research I'm swaying towards Remain. I have other things that I believe the Leave said are saying that are a bit dramatic but I don't want to get killed by people on here who are Leave supporters.

Like what?

[The Don]

Received my card in the post the other day, also registering for some volunteering events next weekend! Can't wait to vote remain.


I'm still very much undecided but after doing research I'm swaying towards Remain. I have other things that I believe the Leave said are saying that are a bit dramatic but I don't want to get killed by people on here who are Leave supporters.

inb4 dan tries to convert you

For a good unbiased breakdown of everything look at:
https://fullfact.org/europe/

[abc]

Look, I understand why some people want to leave. They do not want a lot of people coming in to our country and I understand that. A lot of people have that feeling that "it is MY country", why are we letting foreigners in?

However, people need to realise this is the year 2016. Everyone is moving around the world, and having free unrestricted access to work in the world's largest market is better than being confined to working in the UK. What would happen say tomorrow if we vote to leave and immediately after or sometime in the near future the country suffers another recession? There will be so many job losses and due to our decision to leave, our citizens would be restricted to working free only only in the UK, a country with limited jobs.

We will still supply to the EU but with more trade restrictions or tariffs in place. We would be on the doorstep of the world's largest market yet we would be on the outside while other world leaders would be making decisions which affect us and we will have zero say.

Is the EU perfect? Of course not, just how most other things in life are not perfect. However is remaining much better than leaving? Definitely.

Great Britain has values and a unique identity. Having people come in won't destroy that identity. One of the country's greatest assets has been our acceptance of people, yet here we are saying that is something we do not want?

The Remain campaign are basing their comments based on facts of past track records. The Remain campaign are just basing everything on IFS and BUTS, none of which they can substantiate.

Any country which has free unrestricted access to the world largest economy would be absolutely stupid to even consider leaving, let alone actually doing it.

Traveling the world is becoming easier everyday and with time more and more people will begin moving away from their birth cities and countries. And by leaving, we would be restricting the young generations and future generations as to what they can achieve in life. Instead of broadening our opportunities people are considering restricting it and it just makes zero sense.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you have to wait in a hospital for longer than you should, if you have to wait for school places longer than you should, if you're on minimum wage having to compete with other unskilled workers from Eastern Europe who will sleep 12 to a bedsit and don't have bills to pay, if your local area is being changed beyond what it was in terms of culture, if your struggling to get social housing whilst others walk in from abroad and get it.... then abc; hears you. But it's 2016 folks. That's his argument. That's all he has to say: too bad and tells you what year it is. I say that's just not good enough.

Well let's have a different 2017, one like Norway or Switzerland - or Australia or Canada. Let's allow immigration but so that it is controlled. Let's take control of our borders with Europe so that we can allow French bankers, German engineers and Italian restaurant owners in. But let's do it so that we can choose who we want and the numbers we want. Today in 2016 most developed countries have controlled national borders and operate using this sensible system. Immigration yes, but controlled and more importantly so that we can control it at the ballot box rather than giving up that essential democratic choice to the unelected European Commission.


There will be so many job losses and due to our decision to leave, our citizens would be restricted to working free only only in the UK, a country with limited jobs.

He says the Remain campaign is based on facts but look at this statement. First he thinks he can fool you into thinking it means an end to you being able to work in Europe then he is blissfully is unaware that millions of British people already work abroad just fine. And that's good. The snag is, in non-EU countries.

There's 1,300,000 British nationals in non-EU Australia.

There's 761,000 British nationals in EU Spain.

There's 678,000 British nationals in non-EU America.

There's 603,000 British nationals in non-EU Canada.


Out of the top ten places abroad where British nationals live and work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_diaspora), only 5 of those 10 are EU countries. Don't let him kid you.

[abc]

Well let's have a different 2017, one like Switzerland

Yes like Switzerland where the country's ministers have openly said they wish they were in the EU.


he is blissfully is unaware that millions of British people already work abroad just fine.

The above just shows how ignorant you are and totally did not read my post. I clearly said people want to move abroad (and thank you for proving that for me). And I clearly said by leaving the EU, we are restricting people free access to the world's largest economy.

Dan, please read what I say instead of making up rubbish like the Leave campaign.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes like Switzerland where the country's ministers have openly said they wish they were in the EU.

Exactly and that's the point. The politicians all want to join but the Swiss and Norwegian people are overwhelmingly against it.

http://www.thelocal.no/20141128/norwegian-people-say-no-to-eu

Only 17% of Norwegians want to join the EU with 74% against. It clearly isn't all as bad as you'd like us all to believe outside the EU.


The above just shows how ignorant you are and totally did not read my post. I clearly said people want to move abroad (and thank you for proving that for me). And I clearly said by leaving the EU, we are restricting people free access to the world's largest economy.

Dan, please read what I say instead of making up rubbish like the Leave campaign.

See this is the problem, you don't even understand your own argument.

Non-EU Norway has exactly the same access to the Single Market via the EEA. Will you please stop attempting to paint a scary picture of life outside the European Unoon when we have quite easy access via visas already to America (the world's largest economy) as well as Australia, India, China and countless others. The British passport is one of the most valuable in the world in terms of diplomatic clout it carries. You do not have to be in the EU to trade with it or to travel and work in it.

Britons will be able to travel quite freely to the EU once we've left just as they were able to before and can do so now to non-EU countries.

[The Don]

Exactly and that's the point. The politicians all want to join but the Swiss and Norweigan people are overwhelmingly against it.



See this is the problem, you don't even understand your own argument.

Non-EU Norway has exactly the same access to the Single Market via the EEA. Will you please stop attempting to paint a scary picture of life outside the European Unoon when we have quite easy access via visas already to America (the world's largest economy) as well as Australia, India, China and countless others. The British passport is one of the most valuable in the world in terms of diplomatic clout it carries. You do not have to be in the EU to trade with it or to travel and work in it.

Britons will be able to travel quite freely to the EU once we've left just as they were able to before and can do so now to non-EU countries.

And Norway has to let anyone from the EU in their country rendering your previous post entirely pointless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And Norway has to let anyone from the EU in their country rendering your previous post entirely pointless.

If you want total free movement to continue then you can argue for EEA membership. That'd at least be a rational argument from your side, that we'd keep the status quo now in terms of trade agreement and immigration rules but we'd be free from the unwanted movement towards continued political union.

Then there's EFTA membership or an FTA which I favour. It'd be entirely our choice as a democratic country and not the unelected European Commission.

[abc]

we have quite easy access via visas already to America

Do you not know it isn't easy to get jobs abroad especially in USA etc? Is it possible? Yes but it is difficult. With the EU, when you apply for jobs you are FREE WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS to work in any of the EU countries. Your job opportunities have automatically widened.

Akeam has answered the other point on my behalf.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you not know it isn't easy to get jobs abroad especially in USA etc? Is it possible? Yes but it is difficult. With the EU, when you apply for jobs you are FREE WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS to work in any of the EU countries. Your job opportunities have automatically widened.

Akeam has answered the other point on my behalf.

And he predictably ignores my points on the EEA (without the march to political union aspect) also offering free movement should the public wish to continue it.

[abc]

To further add to the post above, you paint the Swiss model as PERFECT. Just read the below:


Swiss businesses, while having access to Europe's markets, are not on a level playing field with their EU counterparts.

Precision engineering company Rueger sells 50% of its products to the EU.

"Compare just the logistic costs," explains managing director Bernard Rueger. "It's simple in Europe, in terms of administration, in terms of tax, they are working in the same unique market, whereas here in Switzerland we have to export our goods."

"And it's probably 4-6% more costly exporting from Switzerland."

Add to that the overvaluation of the Swiss franc and Switzerland's products start to become very expensive. That is why Rueger now has a plant in the Netherlands, offering jobs that might otherwise have stayed in Switzerland.

And it is why the managing director, from a purely business standpoint, has some blunt advice for his British colleagues. "My first advice is to vote to stay in," he says. "It's a crucial market."

If the vote goes the other way, Mr Rueger believes, many British firms will have "no choice" but to move some production capacity inside the European Union proper.

Swiss universities were blocked from European research projects. Swiss students were denied access to the Erasmus exchange programme.

"Being kicked out of that scheme represents a real handicap," says Andreas Mortensen, Vice-Provost of Switzerland's prestigious Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne.

"As a researcher, you would certainly rather want to remain within the EU. The benefits from being part of the EU research community are the intellectual oomph and the opportunities for collaboration."

Student Zilia Schwartz, who had just been accepted on an Erasmus exchange to the Netherlands, was affected too.

"I was about to go on my exchange and then there was this vote, and it was like: 'Oh maybe you can't go'," she said.

The above is self explanatory. You want to restrict our citizens opportunities? Then you are a fool.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To further add to the post above, you paint the Swiss model as PERFECT. Just read the below

You can post as many pro-remain articles as you like but that still doesn't address my point or the fundamental below which it is time you answered.

The EU is heading towards political union and acquiring more powers, something that is unacceptable to the UK. Now, why can you yourself not accept this - unless you back it which you're thus far not telling us - and instead argue for something like membership of the EEA which gives you more or less the same Single Market access and open borders as we have now but without the power grabs from Brussels which will continue.

If you truly want the status quo with the SM but without any more powers to the Commission & Courts then you would be backing Leave for the EEA. Why not?


The above is self explanatory. You want to restrict our citizens opportunities? Then you are a fool.

You want to restrict oppotunities to this country. You're clinging to this outdated and failing 1950s trade bloc when the world is moving on. Move with it.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03336/Capture_3336133b.jpg

Our trade is moving to India, China, Malaysia and the far-east. Europe is shrinking. Why do you want to chain us to this increasingly small part of the world?

[abc]

The EU is heading towards political union and acquiring more powers, something that is unacceptable to the UK.

Please provide examples.

Are you in favour of or opposed to free movement of people?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please provide examples.

Oh not this again. I have provided countless quotes from Commissioners, treaties and reports from the EU itself saying this. I'll do it one more time.


“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)


“Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”
(Treaty of Rome 1957)


“This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union…”
(Maastricht Treaty 1992)


The supremacy of Community Law when in conflict with national law is the logical consequence of the federal concept of the Community”
(H P Ipsen, 1964 – 9 years before we joined)


"The world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military missions”.
(Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission President September 2012)


“The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights… against which a subsequent act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail”
(ECJ Case 6/64)


“It is an illusion to think that [EU] states can hold on to their autonomy.”
(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank 1991)


“…we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.”
(Romano Prodi, President of EU Commission 1999)


“A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs.”
(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank, 1991)


“The [EU] Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas.”
(Jean-Claude Trichet, current head of the European Central Bank)


“One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago, is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement toward union of the European states”
(Giscard d’Estaing, who drafted the EU Constitution 1997)


“The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU [economic and monetary union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe”
(Wim Duisenberg, first president of the EU Central Bank)

Here's the recent Five Presidents Report (https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/five-presidents-report-completing-europes-economic-and-monetary-union_en) from autumn of 2015 on deepening the powers of the EU and here's a summary (http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_five_presidents_report_and_the_next_eu_treaty) of it.

Now either you want a federal Europe and you stay in but if you do not then you must realise staying in is incompatible thus you pick the EEA, EFTA or other.


Are you in favour of or opposed to free movement of people?

Opposed as are the majority of the public, I believe in a controlled immigration system like Australia.

All major parties promised to control immigration. They can't because of EU law - how can that be in anyway right democratically?

[abc]

Oh not this again. I have provided countless quotes from Commissioners, treaties and reports from the EU itself saying this. I'll do it one more time.

Oh yeah, sorry I forgot you posted that earlier purely because it is crap. What I meant was post something.. you know... from this century? The one quote you have posted from this century, you are twisting the meaning of the President.

You posting all of those quotes is the same as me quoting some former king from 1700's who said slavery and child marriage is perfectly normal and should be allowed, and then using it to argue the pedophiles of today are doing nothing wrong. Delusional.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh yeah, sorry I forgot you posted that earlier purely because it is crap. What I meant was post something.. you know... from this century? The one quote you have posted from this century, you are twisting the meaning of the President.

You posting all of those quotes is the same as me quoting some former king from 1700's who said slavery and child marriage is perfectly normal and should be allowed, and then using it to argue the pedophiles of today are doing nothing wrong. Delusional.

So the treaties, the legal cases, the remarks from the treaty writers, all the Commissioners, the 2015 autumn report calling for it... that's all "crap" then.

Merkel wants a federal Europe. The Italian Prime Minister has called for it. The current Commission President has called for it. All "crap" too I guess.

Intellectual denial so what's the point of debating it with you.

[The Don]

Dan once again spreading misinformation. The five presidents report mentions political union, but only in relation to those countries within the eurozone. Here's a quote directly from the report:


Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards
a genuine Economic Union that ensures each
economy has the structural features to prosper within
the Monetary Union. Second, towards a Financial
Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency
across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing
with the private sector. This means completing the
Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets
Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union 5
Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers
both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation.
And finally, towards a Political Union that provides
the foundation for all of the above through genuine
democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional
strengthening.
All four Unions depend on each other. Therefore, they
must develop in parallel and all euro area Member
States must participate in all Unions.
Pages 4-5 of the report.

Now Dan's going to write an essay on how the reports lying and we will in fact be forced into this despite the fact that the UK is not in the eurozone, and we've got the guarantee of not getting drawn into further political integration:


What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

Does it ever get tiring being wrong all the time Dan?

[-:Undertaker:-]

@The Don (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); well no actually this leads onto my next point which is what I was getting at.

Given we're not in the Eurozone, we'll increasingly be subjected to being outvoted even more so as the Eurozone is forced to vote as a coherant bloc. In short this would then mean being in a permanent voting minority unless we joined the Eurozone (not going to happen I am sure you will agree) and given the EU would ultimately transform itself into a federal political state rather than a customs/political/economic union then why do you advocate staying in when we can simply take the EEA option as Norway has done which would preserve the status quo on the Single Market and Freedom of Movement?

In other words, we're de facto on the way out as it transforms into a sovereign political state (as you admit) so why not leave now on our own terms?

[The Don]

@The Don (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); well no actually this leads onto my next point which is what I was getting at.

Given we're not in the Eurozone, we'll increasingly be subjected to being outvoted even more so as the Eurozone is forced to vote as a coherant bloc. In short this would then mean being in a permanent voting minority unless we joined the Eurozone (not going to happen I am sure you will agree) and given the EU would ultimately transform itself into a federal political state rather than a customs/political/economic union then why do you advocate staying in when we can simply take the EEA option as Norway has done which would preserve the status quo on the Single Market and Freedom of Movement?

In other words, we're de facto on the way out as it transforms into a sovereignty political state (as you admit) so why not leave now on our own terms?

This is all baseless conjecture. Firstly, you're falsely assuming all Eurozone countries automatically have identical and shared interests (outside of those relevant to the eurozone). France isn't going to side with Germany on an issue which is disadvantageous to France just to oppose the UK because “it’s not in the Eurozone!”. The only time you would get all eurozone members voting in a similar manner is when the legislation benefits all Eurozone members. The only time this would happen is when the legislation only affects Eurozone members i.e Euro legislation, which means this hypothetical voting bloc won’t affect the UK anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is all baseless conjecture. Firstly, you're falsely assuming all Eurozone countries automatically have identical and shared interests (outside of those relevant to the eurozone). France isn't going to side with Germany on an issue which is disadvantageous to France just to oppose the UK because “it’s not in the Eurozone!”. The only time you would get all eurozone members voting in a similar manner is when the legislation benefits all Eurozone members. The only time this would happen is when the legislation only affects Eurozone members i.e Euro legislation, which means this hypothetical voting bloc won’t affect the UK anyway.

Then you don't understand it as in the need of the Eurozone to act as one in the future in order to survive, as the report makes clear. In order to create these deeper unions for the Eurozone, they're going to have to vote together or else it won't work and they'll have to leave the Euro. That's the political reality of it. And Eurozone legislation will crossover (as it does now) into EU legislation hence why there isn't a separate European Commission for the Eurozone, or a separate parliament, or a separate Council of Ministers, or a separate Courts: nor are there any plans to do so. In essence, if Britain stays we'll be tying ourselves in closer and closer on a number of fronts with a project which is ultimately going to leave us as it becomes a state. How for example could Britain have Commissioners in the future without being in a federal Europe when the Commission would become the government of that federal state? It's incompatible. How can Britain possibly adhere to an ECJ of another sovereign state with a single legal system? It is impossible.

Given you accept it is moving towards political union and we are not, why not back leaving now on our own terms rather than have to leave in a decade or two?

[abc]

we can simply take the EEA option as Norway has done which would preserve the status quo on the Single Market and Freedom of Movement

Thought one of the things you hated the most about the EU was the freedom of movement / lack of border control? Now you are saying we should have Freedom of Movement?

[The Don]

Then you don't understand it as in the need of the Eurozone to act as one in the future in order to survive, as the report makes clear. In order to create these deeper unions for the Eurozone, they're going to have to vote together or else it won't work and they'll have to leave the Euro. That's the political reality of it. And Eurozone legislation will crossover (as it does now) into EU legislation hence why there isn't a separate European Commission for the Eurozone, or a separate parliament, or a separate Council of Ministers, or a separate Courts: nor are there any plans to do so. In essence, if Britain stays we'll be tying ourselves in closer and closer on a number of fronts with a project which is ultimately going to leave us as it becomes a state. How for example could Britain have Commissioners in the future without being in a federal Europe when the Commission would become the government of that federal state? It's incompatible. How can Britain possibly adhere to an ECJ of another sovereign state with a single legal system? It is impossible.

Given you accept it is moving towards political union and we are not, why not back leaving now on our own terms rather than have to leave in a decade or two?

Clearly you are the one who doesn't understand it if you think every eurozone member is going to have to vote in the same way on every piece of future legislation.

The five presidents report literally repeatedly says this isn't the case and you would know this if you bothered to read the report yourself rather than relying on the clearly sensationalised synopsis of it from voteleavetakecontrol

This does not mean that all Member States that share
the single currency are or should be alike, or that
they should follow the same policies. What ultimately
matters is the outcome: that all euro area Member
States pursue sound policies so that they can rebound
quickly from short-term shocks, are able to exploit their
comparative advantages within the Single Market and
attract investment, thereby sustaining high levels of
growth and employment
page 7

[-:Undertaker:-]

Thought one of the things you hated the most about the EU was the freedom of movement / lack of border control? Now you are saying we should have Freedom of Movement?

No.

I am saying that if you personally back Freedom of Movement but do not support the creation of a federal Europe and joining the Eurozone (as most Remainers will say), then on principle you should be voting Leave and then post-Brexit arguing for the EEA whilst I would argue for say the EFTA or an FTA. Democracy.

As with many aspects of the European Union, you have not go to be in it to still take part in them. Rather than vote Remain to stay in the whole EU project to protect your chosen favourite parts despite the EU inevitably moving to a destination which most of us do not want, it makes sense to vote Leave in this referendum and then advocate joining the EEA afterwards so you could keep say Freedom of Movement if that is what you wanted rather than straitjacket the entire country to the full works for another decade after which we will have to leave anyway (see my discussion with Akeam).

The options of joining the EEA, EFTA, an FTA or even something else would all be something we could decide as a country in the departure negotiations.

- - - Updated - - -


Clearly you are the one who doesn't understand it if you think every eurozone member is going to have to vote in the same way on every piece of future legislation.

The five presidents report literally repeatedly says this isn't the case and you would know this if you bothered to read the report yourself rather than relying on the clearly sensationalised synopsis of it from voteleavetakecontrol

page 7

Oh of course some of them can be renegade vote how they like, but will ultimately have to follow the outcome of the EZ votes thanks to QMV.

It'll start acting more as a bloc (and thus we [the UK] will be in a permanent voting minority) or else it'll disintegrate. My money is on disintegrate if I am honest as I think the chances of more extreme parties on both left and right gaining power is growing which will ultimately mean an unresolvable stand off. It's a powder keg waiting to go off which is all the more reason to leave now and escape the damage when it really does hit the fan. We've already seen how Greece, Spain, Portugal and others have been ruthlessly forced into accepting policies they otherwise would not have done with an elected government.

[The Don]

No.

I am saying that if you personally back Freedom of Movement but do not support the creation of a federal Europe and joining the Eurozone (as most Remainers will say), then on principle you should be voting Leave and then post-Brexit arguing for the EEA whilst I would argue for say the EFTA or an FTA. Democracy.

As with many aspects of the European Union, you have not go to be in it to still take part in them. Rather than vote Remain to stay in the whole EU project to protect your chosen favourite parts despite the EU inevitably moving to a destination which most of us do not want, it makes sense to vote Leave in this referendum and then advocate joining the EEA afterwards so you could keep say Freedom of Movement if that is what you wanted rather than straitjacket the entire country to the full works for another decade after which we will have to leave anyway (see my discussion with Akeam).

The options of joining the EEA, EFTA, an FTA or even something else would all be something we could decide as a country in the departure negotiations.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh of course some of them can be renegade vote how they like, but will ultimately have to follow the outcome of the EZ votes thanks to QMV.

It'll start acting more as a bloc (and thus we [the UK] will be in a permanent voting minority) or else it'll disintegrate. My money is on disintegrate if I am honest as I think the chances of more extreme parties on both left and right gaining power is growing which will ultimately mean an unresolvable stand off. It's a powder keg.

Each country will continue to vote in their own interest. The Eurozone has been around for a while now, countries aren't suddenly going to start automatically siding against the UK simply because it's not in the Eurozone.

[Mikey]

Received my card in the post the other day, also registering for some volunteering events next weekend! Can't wait to vote remain.



inb4 dan tries to convert you

For a good unbiased breakdown of everything look at:
https://fullfact.org/europe/

runs away from him

But thanks I'll have a look at the website you linked! :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Each country will continue to vote in their own interest. The Eurozone has been around for a while now, countries aren't suddenly going to start automatically siding against the UK simply because it's not in the Eurozone.

It doesn't have to mean "siding up against" us it simply means if they have different needs/aims to us - which they do given they're going to be pushing for much closer integration and harmonisation before attempting political union - then it means we'll be constantly outvoted even if it is against our interests/destination. I do not see why we should be dragged in directions unsuited to us when we're going to have to leave in the end anyway.

Why not accept we are on differing paths and make inevitable break now on our terms rather than later on when it might not suit us?

[The Don]

It doesn't have to mean "siding up against" us it simply means if they have different needs/aims to us - which they do given they're going to be pushing for much closer integration and harmonisation before attempting political union - then it means we'll be constantly outvoted even if it is against our interests/destination.

Why not accept we are on differing paths and make inevitable break now on our terms rather than later on when it might not suit us?

Did you not read the quote I just posted straight from the report?

"This does not mean that all Member States that share
the single currency are or should be alike, or that
they should follow the same policies. What ultimately
matters is the outcome: that all euro area Member
States pursue sound policies so that they can rebound
quickly from short-term shocks, are able to exploit their
comparative advantages within the Single Market and
attract investment, thereby sustaining high levels of
growth and employment"

This magical eurozone voting bloc is a myth. Countries aren't required to vote in any particular way, and the five presidents report reaffirms this. The UK can quite clearly stay part of the EU without being subjected to further political integration (as we've been guaranteed), and without becoming some sort of minority due to this fabled eurozone voting bloc. Sorry to put an end to the false narrative you love to give.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Did you not read the quote I just posted straight from the report?

"This does not mean that all Member States that share
the single currency are or should be alike, or that
they should follow the same policies. What ultimately
matters is the outcome: that all euro area Member
States pursue sound policies so that they can rebound
quickly from short-term shocks, are able to exploit their
comparative advantages within the Single Market and
attract investment, thereby sustaining high levels of
growth and employment"

This magical eurozone voting bloc is a myth. Countries aren't required to vote in any particular way, and the five presidents report reaffirms this. The UK can quite clearly stay part of the EU without being subjected to further political integration (as we've been guaranteed), and without becoming some sort of minority due to this fabled eurozone voting bloc. Sorry to put an end to the false narrative you love to give.

The paragraph you've posted is meaningless fluff. Unless there's something put into the treaties aka legal guarantees such as reinstating the British veto across all QMV areas to guarantee otherwise then you're living on a hope and a prayer. The EZ will start voting as a bloc, it has to - and if any countries attempt to play renegade then we've all seen what happened with Greece and others when the EU, ECB and IMF imposed extreme austerity policies on them by threatening no more bailouts. If you could point out a legal guarantee and institutional changes to protect us then sure, but you cannot.

Do you really believe that the German and French political elites and Commission are going to let a populist government in say Greece block banking union when the very survival of the currency union and entire project itself depends on that being pushed through? It will steamroller onwards as always.


‘If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)


“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)


“I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account at all,”
(French Prime Minister Raymond Barre)


“Let’s be clear about this. The rejection of the constitution was a mistake that will have to be corrected.”
(Valéry Giscard d’Estaing)


“The ‘no’ votes were a demand for more Europe, not less.”
(Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission)

In any case it still doesn't answer the ultimate which is that when political union is achieved we'll be out as the EU won't legally exist. So why stay?

[The Don]

The paragraph you've posted is meaningless fluff. Unless there's something put into the treaties aka legal guarantees such as reinstating the British veto across all QMV areas to guarantee otherwise then you're living on a hope and a prayer. The EZ will start voting as a bloc, it has to - and if any countries attempt to play renegade then we've all seen what happened with Greece and others when the EU, ECB and IMF imposed extreme austerity policies on them by threatening no more bailouts. If you could point out a legal guarantee and institutional changes to protect us then sure, but you cannot.

Do you really believe that the German and French political elites and Commission are going to let a populist government in say Greece block banking union?



In any case it still doesn't answer the ultimate which is that when political union is achieved we'll be out as the EU won't legally exist. So why stay?

That paragraph of "meaningless fluff" is directly quoted from the report you keep frequently mentioning and using as evidence. Well done on showing how poorly thought out your arguments are. You've been shown to be wrong on pretty much every argument you've made, this debate is done. Ciao

[-:Undertaker:-]

That paragraph of "meaningless fluff" is directly quoted from the report you keep frequently mentioning and using as evidence. Well done on showing how poorly thought out your arguments are. You've been shown to be wrong on pretty much every argument you've made, this debate is done. Ciao

The report is evidence in that it states where they intend to go - federal Europe - which is what I claimed. It doesn't mean it isn't also full of waffle.

Our government once commissioned a report in 2002 called the September Dossier if you recall, stating how they intended to go to war (which ultimately they did) and how the Iraqi regime was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. That was all waffle but alas the government still took us to war.

Please answer my last point than try and catch me out on language technicalities. It ruins what is an enjoyable discussion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

An interesting comparison table I have come across comparing EU status with EEA (Norway) status. In the event of a Leave vote I would prefer the EFTA or FTA option but if we are to find a middle ground for now I would be happy to settle for EEA with some changes. Rational remainers should be advocating EEA.

My main goal in this referendum is to simply halt & reverse the transfer of powers from Britain to the European Union. EEA status does that forever.


https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-crn7wOSuyWQ/V1WUPgaobbI/AAAAAAAAHNg/QmcsV2BrBTUFQCJ_-zRpaKvLJ9SpmU4mQCLcB/s640/opinion_eu_graph_3.jpg


The above would exempt us from most of the political stuff (which we all mostly do not want on both sides) and guarantee social & economic co-operation.

What's not to like unless you advocate a federal Europe?