tzijlstra Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I'll come back to the rest later, but I just had to respond to this. You can't really be saying that the uncertainty in the markets is a reason to kill the referendum. The same uncertainty occurs at general elections. Should we cancel them too? I personally believe that it was a key-reason not to have a referendum, the cat is out the bag now and the consequences are already beginning to shape up, a ratings drop is one, HSBC considering moving its HQ is another. Be ready for more of these moves. Are you saying that outside the EU, we would still be bound by the EU's expensive energy policies. I know China and India aren't. No. We'd only have to produce goods and services to their standards when we were trading with them. Are you referring to the Kyoto treaty, which is UN led, not EU led? Not sure what you are on about without knowing if you are referring to a directive or not? The EU is on the verge of implementing direct tax powers. If we left they couldn't do that. Source? Because this is being shot down time after time in parliament. there are certain countries in favour of this and others are against. No matter what, the UK is using its veto to block this, leaving the EU would negate the problem, but of course, the veto is already doing so. They regulate non-trade domestic activities in the UK. If we left they couldn't do that. A few specific, but telling examples. We could go back to using proper, cheap light bulbs that work and don't poison you when they break. We could start using powerful vacuum cleaners again. We would also get to hang on to our good hair dryers. We could go back to generating our electricity in the cheapest way available and re-vitalise our manufacturing. The list is endless. Ah, you are a true Conservative with a capital C. Proper light bulbs, powerful vacuum cleaners, yes, excellent! And best of all, unlimited coal and oil powerplants to power them all. If you think that is going to win votes on a national level you will be sorely disappointed. The EU is no longer about trade. They increasing regulate every day life that we expect to be the remit of national government. They want to be a super-state. We don't. Okay so their trading standards rules would continue to affect us directly and indirectly. So do those of the US, but we don't mind not having a vote on those. They may still be able to a large extent to influence how we trade, but they would no longer be able to tell us how to live. Again, all you are saying here is that you don't understand the two-tier structure that is being discussed and why Cameron is re-negotiating. But this is indeed the crux: Vote to leave the EU and still be subject to its forces without being able to have influence, or vote to stay in and be able to influence what is going on. Your muddled examples above show that the UK can. ---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 09:00 ---------- No I don't think I did, food would be cheaper if there was fewer people globally, it would also be cheaper if UK had the capability to produce all the food we need, but sadly we don't because our small country is over populated. But there is no reason at all to think that food prices will rise as a consequence of leaving the EU, food prices rise as demand rises or supply falls. ---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 07:59 ---------- You are ignoring the cost to the environment. Ah, the "diverge topic rapidly to avoid having to admit he is right" strategy was not yet exhausted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I personally believe that it was a key-reason not to have a referendum, the cat is out the bag now and the consequences are already beginning to shape up, a ratings drop is one, HSBC considering moving its HQ is another. Be ready for more of these moves. Are you referring to the Kyoto treaty, which is UN led, not EU led? Not sure what you are on about without knowing if you are referring to a directive or not? Source? Because this is being shot down time after time in parliament. there are certain countries in favour of this and others are against. No matter what, the UK is using its veto to block this, leaving the EU would negate the problem, but of course, the veto is already doing so. Ah, you are a true Conservative with a capital C. Proper light bulbs, powerful vacuum cleaners, yes, excellent! And best of all, unlimited coal and oil powerplants to power them all. If you think that is going to win votes on a national level you will be sorely disappointed. Again, all you are saying here is that you don't understand the two-tier structure that is being discussed and why Cameron is re-negotiating. But this is indeed the crux: Vote to leave the EU and still be subject to its forces without being able to have influence, or vote to stay in and be able to influence what is going on. Your muddled examples above show that the UK can. You're missing the point. Directives not related to trade would no longer apply to us. That's a fact. Whether you agree with these directives or not, I won't have any trouble convincing people that these decisions should be left to the UK parliament. The Kyoto treaty, which countries outside the EU are free to ignore, only asks that we reduce CO2 production, it doesn't specify how. The EU directives on these matters (I can look up the names and numbers if I really must) are dictating to us how we go about it. Actually I favour a combination of Methane and Nuclear for electricity production. More importantly, I want the UK parliament to decide. Messing about with light bulbs does nothing for CO2 levels. Nor do wind farms and solar panels. My opinion on climate change theory is irrelevant. If we've agreed to reduce CO2 production, we should do it in a way that actually works. I actually don't want to buy incandescent light bulbs, I own a small vacuum cleaner, a very efficient car and no hair dryer. I just don't like being pointlessly told what to do. Leaving the EU means being subject to only some of its forces rather than all. You keep leaving that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Ah, the "diverge topic rapidly to avoid having to admit he is right" strategy was not yet exhausted. I haven't diverged to topic, just countered your incorrect assertions. But you know that already and only said it to start an argument because you have been demonstrated to be wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Credit rating agency slashes UK outlook to negative because of EU referendum uncertainty http://www.cityam.com/217850/uk-outlook-slashed-negative-standard-poors-over-eu-referndum-risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Credit rating agency slashes UK outlook to negative because of EU referendum uncertainty http://www.cityam.com/217850/uk-outlook-slashed-negative-standard-poors-over-eu-referndum-risk It highlights the need to get on with the referendum, it should be as soon as it can be organised and not when the government feel the time is right to achieve the result they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 You're missing the point. Directives not related to trade would no longer apply to us. That's a fact. Whether you agree with these directives or not, I won't have any trouble convincing people that these decisions should be left to the UK parliament. The Kyoto treaty, which countries outside the EU are free to ignore, only asks that we reduce CO2 production, it doesn't specify how. The EU directives on these matters (I can look up the names and numbers if I really must) are dictating to us how we go about it. Actually I favour a combination of Methane and Nuclear for electricity production. More importantly, I want the UK parliament to decide. Messing about with light bulbs does nothing for CO2 levels. Nor do wind farms and solar panels. My opinion on climate change theory is irrelevant. If we've agreed to reduce CO2 production, we should do it in a way that actually works. I actually don't want to buy incandescent light bulbs, I own a small vacuum cleaner, a very efficient car and no hair dryer. I just don't like being pointlessly told what to do. Leaving the EU means being subject to only some of its forces rather than all. You keep leaving that out. We can keep going back and forth, but the only thing we can agree on is that for you it is worth the damage just to get out of the EU and for me it isn't. Where you are factually wrong I will point it out but other than that I will leave it there. I haven't diverged to topic, just countered your incorrect assertions. But you know that already and only said it to start an argument because you have been demonstrated to be wrong again. Listen love, you start with stating that food can be produced here more cheaply because it means putting our unemployed to work and end by talking about cost to environment. Not sure what your definition of divergence is, but I am fairly sure mine is spot on and you have displayed it in this thread, as you do in most threads. Try and stick to your guns once in a while, might save you an RSI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Listen love, you start with stating that food can be produced here more cheaply because it means putting our unemployed to work and end by talking about cost to environment. Not sure what your definition of divergence is, but I am fairly sure mine is spot on and you have displayed it in this thread, as you do in most threads. Try and stick to your guns once in a while, might save you an RSI. In which post do you think I said. food can be produced here more cheaply because it means putting our unemployed to work Another member rightly brought the environmental cost into it, cost isn't just about money. Divergence is were you stop talking about the topic and start making false claims about what other have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 We can keep going back and forth, but the only thing we can agree on is that for you it is worth the damage just to get out of the EU and for me it isn't. Where you are factually wrong I will point it out but other than that I will leave it there. Not quite. The "damage" from leaving the EU will in my opinion be far less than the damage from staying in. Europe is becoming a single state. You seem to think this is a good idea, but the only reason the UK looks like voting to stay in is that they have been conned into thinking that either it isn't or we won't be included. I don't believe that. Do you? If the pro-EU people admitted that we are to become absorbed into the country of Europe, there's no way they could win the referendum. If the UK votes to stay in, we will be doing so based on a lie. Perhaps you think this lie is okay as you believe they'd be better off in the European super-state and that justifies it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 What makes you think we will have to pay more for what we import, and if we do it will very likley mean that its cheaper to produce more stuff in the UK which will be good for employment. If food imports are more expensive then home grown food will do well and farmers will thrive. There you go. ---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 12:19 ---------- Not quite. The "damage" from leaving the EU will in my opinion be far less than the damage from staying in. Europe is becoming a single state. You seem to think this is a good idea, but the only reason the UK looks like voting to stay in is that they have been conned into thinking that either it isn't or we won't be included. I don't believe that. Do you? If the pro-EU people admitted that we are to become absorbed into the country of Europe, there's no way they could win the referendum. If the UK votes to stay in, we will be doing so based on a lie. Perhaps you think this lie is okay as you believe they'd be better off in the European super-state and that justifies it? 2-tier EU. Look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Credit rating agency slashes UK outlook to negative because of EU referendum uncertainty http://www.cityam.com/217850/uk-outlook-slashed-negative-standard-poors-over-eu-referndum-risk A bit of arm twisting, wonder if Camerloon will fall for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts