Brexit 23rd June..?

[Sargara]

https://en.wikipedia...i/New_Statesman

...it was sold to Geoffrey Robinson, the Labour MP and businessman....

...its first guest editor, Alastair Campbell...

...guest-edited by Labour politician Ken Livingstone...

...guest-edited by Russell Brand....

 

Its an outlet for Labour from the looks of it.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Sargara

[Toon Chris]

I have to say i got to completely agree with this, just because we are in the EU doesnt mean we wouldnt have made such regs by ourselves, its almost like people feel Britain on its on is completely retarded and incapable of anything positive.

 

It doesn't mean we wouldn't have, but it does mean we don't have the same pressure to do so.

Back in Thatchers day the EU forced Britain to clean up the coastal waters, including by most tourist beaches, which were so full of effluent they were dangerous to human health as well as the effect on sea life. That costs a lot of money and no government wants to saddle themselves or industry with that cost at a difficult time, so we didn't do it. The sea stayed full of sh*t and if you swam in it God help you. It was EU regulation that finally forced Britain to clean up our act.

EU regulation forced many Animal welfare changes on Britain too.

Oh, and the limit on HGV drivers hours to stop them being exploited and killing themselves (and the rest of us).

It's a tiny amount of what the EU has pushed on to us and a lot of people don't like the 'it's for our own good' argument as it is against their idea of national control and democracy, but they are good examples of areas where the government can save money by not implementing regulation, and where they have little incentive to introduce regs of their own.

I'm not suggesting the above will be removed by a Leave vote, I'm simply saying that sometimes we do need to be told what to do for the better good and not sulk because we were told to do something rather than decide to do it ourselves.

[Adrian@TORQEN]

"If we do choose Brexit, it will be in no small part because the leave campaign efficiently aggregated fear of immigration in its various forms and – much more importantly – persuaded a sufficiency of voters that getting out of the EU would fix the problem. Remain’s closing argument is going to be: we should stay because leaving would trigger what David Cameron, on Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show, called “a DIY recessionâ€. Hostility to foreigners versus fear of indigence: scarcely a feast of reason and flow of soul."

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/10-days-from-terrible-mistake-europe-immigration-leave-campaign

[Will370z]

I find most of the arguments for leaving to be very simplistic, which is not hard given the unknown factor if we do leave. But for me one of the key potential indicator is how other countries have done when they took a similar decision years ago, take Norway for example. A recent documentary showed that the apocalypse never occurred for them when they left, in fact they appear to have done rather well. This i thought for the first time could be reason to justify leaving.

 

But then you see the opinion from Norway https://www.washingt...28d2_story.html and you realise that leaving would not give the control back that the leave party states, you still have to abide by the rules that are in place.

 

When you have an opportunity to be involved in the decisions and influence them why would you walk away from the table when you are still bound by those rules in some way, shape or form.

 

For me the risk is too great and the benefits unknown. We have most if not all trade unions, industry leaders, most of the financial sector, virtually all economic studies from academic and expert opinion stating leaving is going to have a negative financial impact. The main response from the leave campaign is to reply with "we get control back" but i don't believe that, we are still constrained by the relationships and interactions we have with other countries. You would go against all those expert opinions to get something that is not tangible....... I'm with the experts, yes they are not always right but it is rare that you ever get all the experts stating the same thing.

 

And to be frank i am getting fed up to the teeth with leave campaigns constant references to immigrants ruining the NHS, housing opportunities and jobs. They are in the state they are in because of economic budget cuts, poor management and a lack of investment.

[JetSet]

"If we do choose Brexit, it will be in no small part because the leave campaign efficiently aggregated fear of immigration in its various forms and – much more importantly – persuaded a sufficiency of voters that getting out of the EU would fix the problem.

 

Sadly, that's very true, fear of immigration seems to be deep rooted in many peoples psyche. Back in the 1950's it was fear of Black immigrants, in the 1970's Asian immigrants and these days Eastern European immigrants. I and my family experienced this myself when I moved to Wales from England back in 1961, I was picked on at school because I was English Not so bad these days as over half of people who live in my neck of the woods were born outside of Wales but there are still pockets of places within Wales (and Scotland too) where The English aren't welcome. That's just how irrational some people are.

 

Pete

[Richf]

Concerns regarding uncontrolled economic migration is not the same as hostility to foreigners and shouldnt be dismissed as such

 

The "leave" campaign doesnt advocate zero immigration simply controlling our own borders something we are currently unable to do. Immigrants benefit our society and we as a country have welcomed immigrants from all nations for centuries, however immigration at the current rate is damaging to our public services, economy and is unsustainable

 

To dismiss those who agree with this as xenophones, racists and little Englanders is unfair and inaccurate

 

Those that think that staying in is voting for more of the same havent considered what will happen when Turkey gain EU membership.

[Jetpilot]

I have to say i got to completely agree with this, just because we are in the EU doesnt mean we wouldnt have made such regs by ourselves, its almost like people feel Britain on its on is completely retarded and incapable of anything positive.

 

It doesn't mean we wouldn't have, but it does mean we don't have the same pressure to do so.

Back in Thatchers day the EU forced Britain to clean up the coastal waters, including by most tourist beaches, which were so full of effluent they were dangerous to human health as well as the effect on sea life. That costs a lot of money and no government wants to saddle themselves or industry with that cost at a difficult time, so we didn't do it. The sea stayed full of sh*t and if you swam in it God help you. It was EU regulation that finally forced Britain to clean up our act.

EU regulation forced many Animal welfare changes on Britain too.

Oh, and the limit on HGV drivers hours to stop them being exploited and killing themselves (and the rest of us).

It's a tiny amount of what the EU has pushed on to us and a lot of people don't like the 'it's for our own good' argument as it is against their idea of national control and democracy, but they are good examples of areas where the government can save money by not implementing regulation, and where they have little incentive to introduce regs of their own.

I'm not suggesting the above will be removed by a Leave vote, I'm simply saying that sometimes we do need to be told what to do for the better good and not sulk because we were told to do something rather than decide to do it ourselves.

 

No one is saying there arent positives to the EU, as its obvious there are, but, which leads me nicely onto below...

 

When you have an opportunity to be involved in the decisions and influence them why would you walk away from the table when you are still bound by those rules in some way, shape or form.

 

There seems little point being at the table as even if we disagree, which we have, out of 530 odd regs we objected to 480 still got passed. We have nowhere near enough of a voice, which we should have with our contribution.

[Will370z]

 

When you have an opportunity to be involved in the decisions and influence them why would you walk away from the table when you are still bound by those rules in some way, shape or form.

 

There seems little point being at the table as even if we disagree, which we have, out of 530 odd regs we objected to 480 still got passed. We have nowhere near enough of a voice, which we should have with our contribution.

 

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

[JetSet]

Concerns regarding uncontrolled economic migration is not the same as hostility to foreigners and shouldnt be dismissed as such

 

 

 

We can control immigration from outside the EU though and figures show that 196,000 immigrants came from outside The EU compared with 183,000 from within it (2015 figures)

 

Pete

[Richf]

Concerns regarding uncontrolled economic migration is not the same as hostility to foreigners and shouldnt be dismissed as such

 

 

 

We can control immigration from outside the EU though and figures show that 196,000 immigrants came from outside The EU compared with 183,000 from within it (2015 figures)

 

Pete

 

The figures relased are known not to be accurate

[JetSet]

Concerns regarding uncontrolled economic migration is not the same as hostility to foreigners and shouldnt be dismissed as such

 

 

 

We can control immigration from outside the EU though and figures show that 196,000 immigrants came from outside The EU compared with 183,000 from within it (2015 figures)

 

Pete

 

The figures relased are known not to be accurate

 

Well that's rich coming from the Brexit camp.

 

Pete

[Mondo 300]

That's the same for everything though: It's nigh-on impossible to find anything on any subject written by someone without an agenda.

 

They key is in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

Mrs Mondo and I were discussing this last night as she genuinely doesn't know which way to vote.

 

I'm "out" however, and it's as simple as that.

[JetSet]

 

When you have an opportunity to be involved in the decisions and influence them why would you walk away from the table when you are still bound by those rules in some way, shape or form.

 

There seems little point being at the table as even if we disagree, which we have, out of 530 odd regs we objected to 480 still got passed. We have nowhere near enough of a voice, which we should have with our contribution.

 

 

https://fullfact.org...s-uk-influence/

 

More here.

 

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does-the-uk-win-or-lose-in-the-council-of-ministers/

 

Pete

[Floydbax]

Bl00dy H Pete, that's shocking reading!!!

[coldel]

In what way?

[gsexr]

People coming to the UK is just one issue that seems to make the headlines but as i said before its not the fact they come its just not knowing how many might come.

If you dont know how many will come, how can you plan your resources.

 

Some issue needs to be there to be blamed or used as an excuse for everything we feel we are missing out on and at the moment its people coming into this country.

 

If we control the numbers and the services and infrastructure still cant cope what will we blame then.....oh yeah... the government of the day so it suits them to keep us in the EU.

Convenient distraction i guess.

[Floydbax]

In what way?

 

In that as one of the few major net contributors to the EU, over a few decades we have had and continue to have so little influence in the actual running of this organisation that has no interest in running its economics in a properly balanced way. We are a net contributor because we as a country actually knuckle down and make our economy work, we are punished by the EU for this by the EU increasing our contribution towards the EU to help out those member states that refuse to take economic measures to make their economies work. I don't like having to pay high taxes, have our government HAVE to shrink the public sector, underfund the NHS, or a myriad of other factors to belong to a club that has no respect for the fact that we are successful because we take a hit in many ways and effectively punish us for our austerity.

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Neil Warwick, a leading EU and competition lawyer at Newcastle based Square One Law is encouraging participation in the EU Referendum from an informed position by providing a factual overview of the legal process that will commence in the event of a leave outcome.

 

Neil has produced a simple guide showing the four possible legal outcomes in the event that the vote is to leave the EU. He developed the guide as an at-a-glance reference for business people in response to the lack of objective and factual analysis available to the public.

 

Neil said:

 

“Which ever way people decide to vote on 23 June, they need to be able to easily understand the implications of their decision. I have been struck by how overly complicated and negative the majority of the press coverage has been about this crucial vote and by creating a straight forward guide I hope that businesses will be able to chart the flow of the legal processes we would have to enter into.

 

“It is important to recognise in three of the four scenarios the UK would still be subject to EU law and free movement of people, but crucially would no longer have any input into the formation of new EU laws.

 

“It is also worth noting that the negotiations to leave the EU would take a minimum of two years from the point the Article 50 notice is served, but any new arrangement could take at least ten years to conclude. If we stay in the EU, there would be no legal changes to the current arrangement.

 

“No matter which outcome people favour, it is important that everyone places their vote on 23 June.â€

 

http://www.squareonelaw.com/announcements/eu-referendum-know-the-facts/

 

[coldel]

But we are on the winning side in 9 out of 10 votes on Euro policy? We are on the winning side almost all of the time (which puts to bed the whole 400 out of 500 lost argument often put around).

 

What makes you believe we pay such high levels of taxes? Spain a max of 50%, France goes up to 45%, Germany goes up to 45% all very much in line with us - then you look at the Scandinavian countries and they go up to a max of circa 60%

 

As mentioned before we pay 6 days of government collected taxation to be in the largest tariff free trading bloc in the world - 6 days.

 

Flip it on its head and look at it from a micro perspective, if you got an extra weeks pay each year, could you go out and buy a Porsche, buy a new house and build up a huge savings account? Because thats what the Leave campaign are claiming i.e. save the NHS with all the money 'saved' and fund x y and z. If we leave, the money saved will not touch the sides.

 

The NHS costs something like £120bn a year to run, yes we save £9bn a year in EU fees, but we then need to pay out to all the industries in the UK that receive EU subsidies which would knock this figure down to something like £5bn. Then you have the military, education, pensions all massive costs on the government, that few £bn back will not suddenly make the UK this big prosperous nation building new hospitals in every city etc.

[MrLee]

Interesting stuff. I bet there's a vast majority of 'out' voters who think leaving will be like a light switch and the next day all the immigrants (EU and otherwise) will all be thrown on a boat at Dover... I just wish the media wasn't so ridiculously corrupt and more people had access to unbiased information so that they could make a proper informed decision instead of jumping on the Farage bus 😞

[Floydbax]

What makes you believe we pay such high levels of taxes? Spain a max of 50%, France goes up to 45%, Germany goes up to 45% all very much in line with us - then you look at the Scandinavian countries and they go up to a max of circa 60%

http://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

 

 

As mentioned before we pay 6 days of government collected taxation to be in the largest tariff free trading bloc in the world - 6 days

It's not the world's largest FREE trading Bloc, there are factors involved in the trade that make some things costlier than if it were a true 'free trade'. The figures for trade between the UK and Europe are shrinking and have been doing so since our joining.

 

My point is that as the 5th largest economy in the world AND one of the few NET contributors in the EU our voice is often under represented, even though our economic records prove we are more capable than most of the others of making the right decisions. I resent having my money paid to our government in taxes being used to support other nations who refuse to comply with our representations, when our standard of living is deteriorating in comparable terms to other nations in similar situations.

[coldel]

We work in a democracy, our voice is very well heard but ultimately you have to vote as per any democratic process. We cannot be bullying the EU into our way of thinking because we contribute more. The idea that we contribute more is that our economy is healthy, benefiting from being in the EU, and helping lesser countries improve and contribute more themselves. To say our economic performance makes us 'more capable than most of making the right decisions' is just speculation with no factual backing.

 

What facts can you point me to that show standard of living in the UK is deteriorating compared to other nations? What do you mean other nations refusing to comply 'with our representation' I am not sure what you mean?

[HaydnH]

Bloody EU immigrants coming over here and eating all our cabbages!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36516619

[HaydnH]

Could someone who's more business/tax/economy savvy help me with something?

 

Currently if a UK business is exporting to the EU they pay VAT to the UK, if they're selling outside the EU they don't pay VAT but do pay tariffs according to the local customs which goes to the foreign country. So from a business point of view, assuming that our VAT and their tariffs are vaguely similar there shouldn't be too much difference on the bottom line. From a UK economy point of view, I can see that if the government aren't receiving the VAT then it could be worse. However, lets assume that any tariffs imposed by the EU on the UK would be reciprocated by us, for simplicity say the EU collects 20% on goods we export and we charge 20% on goods imported, considering in April 2016 we exported £25B and imported £41B from the EU, wouldn't we be better off with that arrangement? i.e: We'd get the tariffs on the £41B rather than the VAT on the £25B?

 

Or am I completely wrong here?

[Jetpilot]

^^ A friend of mine runs a European wide distributorship, turnover 40 million, so pretty big. By his calculations due to increased paperwork, customs declarations etc he will have to print 15000 pieces of extra paper a month and an extra 50 hours man hours a month to process it, net result for him 1.5 million in costs.

 

Its not so much about duties and vat etc

 

The reality is, it will never cost him that, he will just buy a warehouse someone in the Eu and distribute from one location outside the UK.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Jetpilot