EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[tzijlstra]

Lots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Repealed_United_Kingdom_Acts_of_Parliament

 

P.S. The UK doesn't have to agree to an EU directive if the competence has been transferred. We're bound by it automatically.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 19:42 ----------

 

 

Obama will be president for about another 10 minutes.

This has been dragging on since 1990.

 

The "lots" argument does not appeal at all. About as much as your response to Chalga. Blinkered comes to mind.

[Eater Sundae]

Lots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Repealed_United_Kingdom_Acts_of_Parliament

 

P.S. The UK doesn't have to agree to an EU directive if the competence has been transferred. We're bound by it automatically.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 19:42 ----------

 

 

Obama will be president for about another 10 minutes.

This has been dragging on since 1990.

 

If we leave the EU or enter any level of reduced membership, AND we want to trade with the EU, then we will can still be required to comply with the relevant directives.

[unbeliever]

The "lots" argument does not appeal at all. About as much as your response to Chalga. Blinkered comes to mind.

 

Okay: 180

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Repealed_Great_Britain_Acts_of_Parliament

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Repealed_United_Kingdom_Acts_of_Parliament

 

That's not counting routine acts overriding old ones such as budgets etc.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 20:05 ----------

 

If we leave the EU or enter any level of reduced membership, AND we want to trade with the EU, then we will can still be required to comply with the relevant directives.

 

No more than the US or China or India.

Perhaps you could direct me to the US application to join the EU.

[I1L2T3]

 

No more than the US or China or India.

Perhaps you could direct me to the US application to join the EU.

 

So you are proposing to leave the single market altogether, not just the EU?

[unbeliever]

So you are proposing to leave the single market altogether, not just the EU?

 

Ideally yes, but I'll take what I can get.

If we're only in the single market we get a lot (if not all) of our sovereignty back.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 20:41 ----------

 

It's the economic case that will swing it either way. At the end of the day people care more about that than anything else.

 

We're still waiting for any positive assessment of how exit would affect us economically. Ukip don't even mention the possible impact on economic growth. Ever. They know!

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 19:51 ----------

 

 

US foreign policy won't change. It wants and needs a strong Europe. Letting it fragment is against its interests, especially as we enter a new phase of cold war.

 

That's surely speculation. What's it based on?

We have strong ties with the US going back over 100 years.

NATO is what won the last cold war. The EU was still in nappies.

All the EU has done so far in Foreign affairs is start a civil war in Ukraine.

 

How are you "Still waiting for a positive assessment"? Have you been reading my posts?

Reduced regulatory compliance costs.

Cheaper Energy.

The right to make free trade agreements in less than 25 years (and counting).

 

All the non-political economic assessments I can find suggest a total effect on UK GDP of plus or minus less than 1% over the next 15 years depending on how the trade agreements pan out and how much domestic deregulation we go in for. That's not <1% per year. But <1% total, so maybe 0.05% per year compounded.

Here's one: http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/.

That's why I've been focusing on the politics. The economic effect is likely rather small and could go either way.

Anybody have any links to more dramatic predictions (by genuine non-political experts)?

Edited June 16, 2015 by unbeliever

[Jeffrey Shaw]

If we leave the EU or enter any level of reduced membership, AND we want to trade with the EU, then we will can still be required to comply with the relevant directives.

"Required" unenforceably.

[chalga]

Ideally yes, but I'll take what I can get.

If we're only in the single market we get a lot (if not all) of our sovereignty back.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 20:41 ----------

 

 

That's surely speculation. What's it based on?

We have strong ties with the US going back over 100 years.

NATO is what won the last cold war. The EU was still in nappies.

All the EU has done so far in Foreign affairs is start a civil war in Ukraine.

 

How are you "Still waiting for a positive assessment"? Have you been reading my posts?

Reduced regulatory compliance costs.

Cheaper Energy.

The right to make free trade agreements in less than 25 years (and counting).

 

All the non-political economic assessments I can find suggest a total effect on UK GDP of plus or minus less than 1% over the next 15 years depending on how the trade agreements pan out and how much domestic deregulation we go in for. That's not <1% per year. But <1% total, so maybe 0.05% per year compounded.

Here's one: http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/.

That's why I've been focusing on the politics. The economic effect is likely rather small and could go either way.

Anybody have any links to more dramatic predictions (by genuine non-political experts)?

 

Ukrainians camping out for weeks in their country to demand their ruler delivers on closer ties with the EU is the EU starting a civil war?...........what planet are you on?

[RickyM]

I'll be voting 'No' in the EU referendum.

 

The EU has done huge damage to the United Kingdom and I strongly believe that we should leave. It has enabled the corporations to exploit workers in the UK by advocating the mass immigration seen since 2004. The mass immigration was aimed at lowering labour costs as business couldn't increase profit margins anywhere else.

 

The EU has also undermined the sovereignty of the UK as the government has to abide the EU rulings - whether or not it agrees with them. We are a democracy and it is up to us as voters to punish parliament by voting out its members.

 

Also, I really object to the way the EU interferes in nearly all aspects of our life. On any matter the EU has to either express an opinion, condemn it, issue a ruling against something (prisoners right to vote) or call for a summit (an example being the recent illegal immigrants flooding into Italy).

 

I'll definitely be voting 'No' and there's no prospect of me changing my mind!

[retep]

Then "variable speed" is incorrect terminology.

 

The point is that most EU Member States might be going to London, but a few of us are going elsewhere. We just share the M1 for most of the way

By constantly reverting to this image that the EU is "out to get us" Borg-style.

 

It isn't.

 

But even if it was...Brits wouldn't ever let it.

Fine, happy to disagree.

Which one

Because you posit it as a logical fallacy.

 

My stance is crystal clear (I'd like to think ): there is no interference by the EU in many core aspects of the UK's governance, there is some interference by the EU in other aspects of the UK's governance, and where some of that interference has taken place, it's been good, and in others, it's not been so good. The sum total, on balance, is that it's significantly better for the UK to be in than out, but it would be still better if we could formalise this constant love-hate thing with Brussels - and eke the most of our economic topdog slot at the negotiating table while we can.

 

As you posted a short while before - let's see what bacon Cameron manages to bring back. Then we'll have a more informed view for discussing the in/out issue further. Where we differ is that I have a reasonable amount of faith that Cameron will pull most of it off. You don't.

 

Probably not enough to make a sandwich,

 

"Even if he held a referendum in 2017 without renegotiating first, and it resulted in a vote to leave the EU, renegotiation would not begin until two years later. Even so, under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty those ‘renegotiation’ would take at least another two years, and could be prolonged indefinitely. The whole process could be kicked into the long grass for years or decades."

http://gerardbattenmep.com/2015/04/16/unconditional-withdrawal-is-the-only-way-out/

[L00b]

Probably not enough to make a sandwich,

 

"Even if he held a referendum in 2017 without renegotiating first, and it resulted in a vote to leave the EU, renegotiation would not begin until two years later. Even so, under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty those ‘renegotiation’ would take at least another two years, and could be prolonged indefinitely. The whole process could be kicked into the long grass for years or decades."

http://gerardbattenmep.com/2015/04/16/unconditional-withdrawal-is-the-only-way-out/

That the Gerard Batten UKIP MEP?

 

Is that a regular thing with UKIP posters, quoting their own (biased in the extreme) party sources to backup anti-EU opinions? It's not exactly balanced.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2015 at 23:33 ----------

 

All the non-political economic assessments I can find suggest a total effect on UK GDP of plus or minus less than 1% over the next 15 years depending on how the trade agreements pan out and how much domestic deregulation we go in for. That's not <1% per year. But <1% total, so maybe 0.05% per year compounded.

Here's one: http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/.

That's why I've been focusing on the politics

So, having read that report which leads you to conclude that the economic effect is marginal, and so focused on the politics...what can you tell me about the socio-economic consequences to gearing the UK for achieving the 'best' positive 1% outcome?