EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

Can we afford a Maserati?

If you have to ask, you can't

[AmourDesign]

I wanted to be on the fence until the last day but the 'Stay In' campaign has just really made me angry. I think that they are doing long term damage to British politics.

 

However, i do not think that the British public will vote out because on the day they will go for the safer option.

 

We are not like the french, we fear change.

[JFKvsNixon]

I wanted to be on the fence until the last day but the 'Stay In' campaign has just really made me angry. I think that they are doing long term damage to British politics.

 

However, i do not think that the British public will vote out because on the day they will go for the safer option.

 

We are not like the french, we fear change.

 

I see things a different way.

 

I've always thought that the people who have become disgruntled to how our country has changed have often blamed the EU for those changes. So their opposition to the EU is in fact an opposition to the change that has happened in the last couple of decades.

[Tomjames]

One thing vote leave should sort out is this 350 million per week claim....that's based on 18 billion per year in 2015....we get a rebate of 5 billion straight away and 4.5 billion direct investment not under our control....so that makes 8.5 billion or 163 million per week.

 

We are paying 8.5 billion for access to the single market.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2016 at 09:13 ----------

 

It's not fixed. If the UK has a downturn we will pay less to the EU. In 1990 we paid less than 1 billion.

But if we improve economically that figure will increase.

 

That's the truth.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Tomjames
....

[retep]

Not looking good for Dodgy Dave,

"Knives out for Cameron: Dozens of Tories threaten no-confidence vote over PM's 'shabby' Brexit scaremongering"

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3605648/Knives-Cameron-Dozens-Tories-threaten-no-confidence-vote-PM-s-shabby-Brexit-scaremongering.html#ixzz49YyfLnlJ

[AmourDesign]

One thing vote leave should sort out is this 350 million per week claim....that's based on 18 billion per year in 2015....we get a rebate of 5 billion straight away and 4.5 billion direct investment...so that makes 8.5 billion or 163 million per week.

 

We are paying 8.5 billion for access to the single market.

 

We also need to reduce our foreign aid budget.

 

Last year we were the the first G7 country to honour its commitment to ring-fence 0.7 per cent of gross national income for foreign aid.

 

We sent out £11.7bn in 2014......£216m of that figure went to India who has the fastest growing economy in the world.

 

Thats £24bn that we send out to other countries (without any controls on how its spent) per year. That has to stop.

Edited May 24, 2016 by AmourDesign

[L00b]

We are paying 8.5 billion for access to the single market.

Based on the Norwegian and Swiss precedents, the UK would likely pay less than that for maintaining access to the single market if it Brexits.

 

But it would still pay, and get nothing back whatsoever.

 

Nor have any say about or influence in the development of EU legislation (which that 8.5bn also buys us, quite importantly), which it would still have to implement as part and parcel of maintaining that access (along with providing for free movement of people).

 

Weigh them scales carefully

Also, The UK paid out £6.2billion to EU countries to cover the treatment of Britons in their hospitals last year – but received only £405million in return from EU countries for treating ill foreigners in the National Health Service.

That's hardly the EU's fault: it's long been acknowledged both by the NHS and successive governments that the NHS is rubbish at collecting information (and payments where due) from the foreign citizens, EU and not, which it treats.

 

A fundamental reason for that (and why it is very difficult to solve the problem) is that the NHS is designed to provide its services entirely free at the point of access ("treat first no questions asked"), unlike most NHS-like equivalents in the EU which are designed on a refunding model ("questions first, treat next, pay for treatment, get refund").

 

If people in the UK had to pay a (later-refunded) token charge when they see their GP, and pay (later-refunded) for treatment and hospital stays, you'd see less of a problematic budget black hole (and far less of a differential between inbound and outbound NHS-related payments), no difference in the quality and level of care provided, and little if any difference in outcomes for people in need of that care (people on benefits and low income would not have to pay these charges, again based on overseas models).

 

It'd certainly take the serial hypochondriacs out of the system, and focus financial management within the NHS (which, in my admittedly limited experience and exposure to it, appears fairly profligate, unless that is incompetent).

 

Nowt to do with the EU/referendum, all to do with the UK's own (sovereign) health and budgetary policies.

Edited May 24, 2016 by L00b

[Tomjames]

We also need to reduce our foreign aid budget.

 

Last year we were the the first G7 country to honour its commitment to ring-fence 0.7 per cent of gross national income for foreign aid.

 

We sent out £11.7bn in 2014......£216m of that figure went to India who has the fastest growing economy in the world.

 

Thats £24bn that we send out to other countries (without any controls on how its spent) per year. That has to stop.

 

Also, The UK paid out £6.2billion to EU countries to cover the treatment of Britons in their hospitals last year – but received only £405million in return from EU countries for treating ill foreigners in the National Health Service.

 

We send more foreign aid than Japan, Denmark, Sweden, and Australia combined. I agree it's too much and we should veto the UN 0.7% and bring it down to a more acceptable level for our size and output

[AmourDesign]

We send more foreign aid than Japan, Denmark, Sweden, and Australia combined. I agree it's too much and we should veto the UN 0.7% and bring it down to a more acceptable level for our size and output

 

I can understand why Europe foesnt want us to leave. We are a money machine for them...

 

The UK paid out £6.2billion to EU countries to cover the treatment of Britons in their hospitals last year – but received only £405million in return from EU countries for treating ill foreigners in the National Health Service.

 

The deficit works out at £723million a year or £2million a day, a figure described by J Meirion Thomas, a hospital consultant who blew the whistle on health tourism, as “staggering”.

 

The deficit would be enough to pay the salaries of an additional 2,638 GPs, or abolish prescription charges for everyone in England.

 

In 2014 there were 23 million visits by EU citizens to the UK, and 44million visits by Britons to the EU, although there are twice as many EU nationals - 2.7million - in the UK, as in the EU - 1.1million people.

 

Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP and Vote Leave chairman, said: "The UK has been getting short changed by the EU for years. We hand over £350 million to Brussels every week but get less than half of that back - with strings attached.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/health-tourists-cost-uk-taxpayers-nearly-6billion-in-eight-years

[Tomjames]

Based on the Norwegian and Swiss precedents, the UK would likely pay less than that for maintaining access to the single market if it Brexits.

 

But it would still pay, and get nothing back whatsoever.

 

Nor have any say about or influence in the development of EU legislation (which that 8.5bn also buys us, quite importantly), which it would still have to implement as part and parcel of maintaining that access (along with providing for free movement of people).

 

Weigh them scales carefully

That's hardly the EU's fault: it's long been acknowledged both by the NHS and successive governments that the NHS is rubbish at collecting information (and payments where due) from the foreign citizens, EU and not, which it treats.

 

A fundamental reason for that (and why it is very difficult to solve the problem) is that the NHS is designed to provide its services entirely free at the point of access ("treat first no questions asked"), unlike most NHS-like equivalents in the EU which are designed on a refunding model ("questions first, treat next, pay for treatment, get refund").

 

Does the EU create jobs, trade etc that we could not otherwise generate outside of the EU? Remember we can always have a free trade agreement with the EU.