EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

So you mean that he was still in control of his own legs. Bit redundant then really was it not? So you concede that the pro-EU forces in Ukraine ousted the pro-Russian president under threat of violence.

Where on earth in my posts did I post or even suggest such a monumental stupidity?

 

EDIT - I've not reported your post, as that's not my style on here, I like to keep everything out in the clear for all thread readers to make up their own mind. But if you put words into my mouth to the extent of the above again, rest assured I'm not adverse to pressing that button.

Less government intervention in our day to day lives. Less government total. The freedom to make our own decisions. The genuine power to hold those in charge to account.

Looks all rosy to me.

Does it now...

 

How did I know yesterday, when I first asked that question, that you were going to deliberately ignore these inconvenient aspects of the report you linked?

The tough choices facing Britain outside

 

In none of our scenarios would the cost of leaving the single market and the EU customs union be off-set by merely striking a new trade deal with the EU. Britain will only prosper outside the EU if it is prepared to use its new found freedom to undertake active steps towards trade liberalisation and deregulation. It faces a series of difficult choices:

• 
  
• Beyond the border: Opening up the UK economy to trade with the rest of the world – including the USA, India, China and Indonesia – is essential to economic growth post-Brexit. However, this would mean exposing UK firms and workers to whole new levels of competition from low-cost countries, and would therefore be politically very sensitive.
  
• On the border: In order to be competitive outside the EU, Britain would need to keep a liberal policy for labour migration. However, of those voters who want to leave the EU, a majority rank limiting free movement and immigration as their main motivation, meaning the UK may move in the opposite direction.
  
• Behind the border: EU rules have largely been incorporated into UK law, and would remain in force until the UK Parliament decided to amend or scrap them. Outside the EU, we estimate that a very liberally inclined UK government could in theory cut the cost of the most burdensome EU regulations by an amount equivalent to between 0.7% and 1.3% of GDP. However, on current evidence, Britain is likely to keep many of these EU rules, for example on climate change where it has gone further than the EU standard.

 

The choices for Europe

 

The economic advantages and disadvantages of Brexit will depend to a large extent on the future relative economic dynamism of the EU. If it manages to overcome its current economic problems, and liberalises internal and external trade, then the cost of Brexit relative to remaining within the EU will be higher.

 

The process of leaving

 

Article 50 – the only established legal way to leave the EU – is a major liability. Once triggered, there is no turning back, it excludes the UK from key decisions as well as the final vote and it leaves the EU in charge of the timetable during two years of negotiations, following which the UK could be presented with a ‘take it or leave it’ deal. Our results show that leaving without a preferential trading agreement would dent UK GDP significantly.

 

Sector analysis

 

After initial disruption, there is a high likelihood that the UK and the EU could conclude preferential trade deals covering goods sectors, but with new border and administrative costs due to rules governing foreign content in their products. For many sectors, a deal may involve adhering to the EU’s high regulatory standards.

We're already pushing social and income inequality to record levels as it is, so I for one wouldn't want to see what the above measures, required to secure the most positive outcome on UK GDP, would do to the 70%+ of the UK population on low wages and in receipt of welfare. We'd have nothing on Victorians - and then some.

 

So, do you want another go at answering the question?

 

I don't suppose you're retired, by any chance?

Edited June 17, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Where on earth in my posts did I post or even suggest such a monumental stupidity?

Does it now...

 

How did I know yesterday, when I first asked that question, that you were going to deliberately ignore these inconvenient aspects of the report you linked?We're already pushing social and income inequality to record levels as it is, so I for one wouldn't want to see what the above measures, required to secure the most positive outcome on UK GDP, would do to the 70%+ of the UK population on low wages and in receipt of welfare.

 

 

"receipt of welfare". That's a neat trick. We get generous and start giving welfare to those in low paying work and all of a sudden they're classed as in "receipt of welfare" and therefore poor.

You have to look at the whole effect. Not just pick out a few negatives.

 

This daft left wing argument that the gap between rich and poor is the proper metric for prosperity is extremely deceitful. Who cares if the rich are getting richer as long as the poor are getting richer too. It's all down to rather nasty and destructive envy.

What matters to you? Whether people are poor relative to the most successful, or whether they are poor in absolute terms? Measuring success based on the gap between rich and poor always has and always will drive you to policies that just make everybody poor.

 

I don't suppose you're retired, by any chance?

 

Nowhere near. I actually work in the public sector.

I just think about what's best for the country as a whole. You should try it.

 

P.S. Where's the link showing that you've not just made up your economic case?

 

P.P.S. Since you asked me. I don't suppose you're living on government hand-outs by any chance?

Edited June 17, 2015 by unbeliever

[chalga]

So you mean that he was still in control of his own legs. Bit redundant then really was it not? So you concede that the pro-EU forces in Ukraine ousted the pro-Russian president under threat of violence.

 

No,the pro EU forces were the ones under threat,the foreign delegation that met Yanukovich the day before he fled came out of the meeting and told the Ukrainians protesting outside against Yanukovich that if they didn't agree to the terms of the meeting that they just had with Yanukovich,they would all be dead.

[unbeliever]

Where on earth in my posts did I post or even suggest such a monumental stupidity?

 

EDIT - I've not reported your post, as that's not my style on here, I like to keep everything out in the clear for all thread readers to make up their own mind. But if you put words into my mouth to the extent of the above again, rest assured I'm not adverse to pressing that button.

Does it now...

 

You said he fled because of danger.

I assumed it was physical danger from his opponents. Was it perhaps spiritual danger?

 

Go ahead and report it. See how far you get.

I'm well within the rules and you'll find I'm not easily intimidated.

[L00b]

"receipt of welfare". That's a neat trick. We get generous and start giving welfare to those in low paying work and all of a sudden they're classed as in "receipt of welfare" and therefore poor.

No trick at all, it's just an objective statement of fact, not class warfare.

You have to look at the whole effect. Not just pick out a few negatives.

In the same way as you have to look at the whole effect. Not just pick out a few positives. Wishful ones at that.

This daft left wing argument that the gap between rich and poor is the proper metric for prosperity is extremely deceitful. Who cares if the rich are getting richer as long as the poor are getting richer too. It's all down to rather nasty and destructive envy.

What matters to you? Whether people are poor relative to the most successful, or whether they are poor in absolute terms? Measuring success based on the gap between rich and poor always has and always will drive you to policies that just make everybody poor.

You're politicising the point needlessly.

 

As noted above, it's an objective statement of fact: a non-trivial amount of the British population is in receipt of welfare payments.

 

That's not a criticism (of them, or 'the system') at all, it's just inviting you to reflect about what socio-economic consequences implementing the sort of tough choices mentioned in the report which you linked will have for these people. And British society in a wider context, as they form an equally non-trivial share of it.

Nowhere near. I actually work in the public sector.

I just think about what's best for the country as a whole. You should try it.

I work in the private sector, services. I employ people. I don't think about anything else but what's best for the country as a whole, because when the country outside the EU (and the EFTA according to you) starts to get kicked about by the EU, US, China, the BRICs and these "tough choices" get implemented -even in part- to keep afloat, I'll be in a race to the bottom with the EU, US, China, the BRICs - and it's a bloody deep way to go with China and the BRICs, let me tell you.

 

Means paying people (including myself) less, means less profitability, means less tax income to the Gvt, means smaller budgets, means less capacity to even maintain what's already there.

 

Rinse-repeat for every sector of the economy. Nothing hypothetic about these consequences, it's basic common sense and how economies work, and have worked since time immemorial, the world over.

P.S. Where's the link showing that you've not just made up your economic case?

Look a few posts earlier, there's a good one. And that one is not exhaustive, by a long shot: I've linked countless such academic analyses in other EU-, UKIP- and other political threads in years, months and days gone by, trying to correct the sort of blinkered rethoric your like peddles, for the sake of debating balance.

 

But on the evidence of how you've considered (i.e. completely ignored) other posters' links contradicting your position so far, I might as well pee in a violin to try and get a tune

P.P.S. Since you asked me. I don't suppose you're living on government hand-outs by any chance?

See above. I pay for them. I don't begrudge them. At all. I just don't want to live in a Dickensian society in the XXIst century, for the sake of trying to bring back the Empire days.

You said he fled because of danger.

I assumed it was physical danger from his opponents. Was it perhaps spiritual danger?

I didn't say anything whatsoever about Yanukovich, or the EU. You asked a simple question, I replied to it. I suggest you stop digging on that one, unless you want to appear any dafter.

 

Edited June 17, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever]

No trick at all, it's just an objective statement of fact, not class warfare.

In the same way as you have to look at the whole effect. Not just pick out a few positives. Wishful ones at that.

You're politicising the point needlessly.

 

As noted above, it's an objective statement of fact: a non-trivial amount of the British population is in receipt of welfare payments.

 

That's not a criticism (of them, or 'the system') at all, it's just inviting you to reflect about what socio-economic consequences implementing the sort of tough choices mentioned in the report which you linked will have for these people. And British society in a wider context, as they form an equally non-trivial share of it.

I work in the private sector, services. I employ people. I don't think about anything else but what's best for the country as a whole, because when the country outside the EU (and the EFTA according to you) starts to get kicked about by the EU, US, China, the BRICs and these "tough choices" get implemented -even in part- to keep afloat, I'll be in a race to the bottom with the EU, US, China, the BRICs - and it's a bloody deep way to go with China and the BRICs, let me tell you.

 

Means paying people (including myself) less, means less profitability, means less tax income to the Gvt, means smaller budgets, means less capacity to even maintain what's already there.

 

Rinse-repeat for every sector of the economy. Nothing hypothetic about these consequences, it's basic common sense and how economies work, and have worked since time immemorial, the world over.

Look a few posts earlier, there's a good one. And that one is not exhaustive, by a long shot: I've linked countless such academic analyses in other EU-, UKIP- and other political threads in years, months and days gone by, trying to correct the sort of blinkered rethoric your like peddles, for the sake of debating balance.

 

But on the evidence of how you've considered (i.e. completely ignored) other posters' links contradicting your position so far, I might as well pee in a violin to try and get a tune

See above. I pay for them. I don't begrudge them. At all. I just don't want to live in a Dickensian society in the XXIst century, for the sake of trying to bring back the Empire days.

 

You're forgetting that the only objective analysis presented (linked here be me) makes it clear that there will be no such doom and gloom arising from Brexit.

 

On top of that, if one parliament makes bad decisions we, the people, can replace them. Wouldn't it be nice to have that back?

 

Nobody credible is suggesting that we'd compete with developing countries for labour costs any more than we do now. That's not how it works. It's rather preposterous to suggest it. We'd keep our pay higher by keeping our skills higher and infrastructure better the way we always have. That doesn't mean that we can't help business by reducing regulatory compliance costs.

 

If you really do have a link to an independent expert analysis actually predicting serious economic problems, please post the link. I can't trawl through this entire site trying to find it.

[tzijlstra]

You're forgetting that the only objective analysis presented (linked here be me) makes it clear that there will be no such doom and gloom arising from Brexit.

 

On top of that, if one parliament makes bad decisions we, the people, can replace them. Wouldn't it be nice to have that back?

 

Nobody credible is suggesting that we'd compete with developing countries for labour costs any more than we do now. That's not how it works. It's rather preposterous to suggest it. We'd keep our pay higher by keeping our skills higher and infrastructure better the way we always have. That doesn't mean that we can't help business by reducing regulatory compliance costs.

 

If you really do have a link to an independent expert analysis actually predicting serious economic problems, please post the link. I can't trawl through this entire site trying to find it.

 

The debate isn't about the economy, I agree it isn't necessary immediate gloom, although I do think long term it will set the UK back considerably. It is about the loss of influence. The UK will still have to adopt directives, whether it likes it or not.

[retep]

LOL! OK peter

 

Here's a university professor who seems to know a tad more than your MEP about how Brexiting under Article 50 TEU would work in practice.

 

Any mention that "renegotiation would not begin until two years later"? Nope, because there is no provision or mechanism that allows postponement of the official notification by 2 years. There's also a useful and very accessible legal analysis about the (non-)possibility of extending negotiations for the exit agreement 'indefinitely'.

 

I like my 'sources of enlightenment' to be academic...less of a self-serving bias permeating the analysis, you see

About that 'neutral at worst' study...do you mind considering my earlier question?

 

 

So your expert university professor is saying much the same as the UKIP MEP, who didn't have to visit the wizard of OZ.

We'll see what happens after April 1 2017, unless we are out before.

You may look booLish.

[unbeliever]

The debate isn't about the economy, I agree it isn't necessary immediate gloom, although I do think long term it will set the UK back considerably. It is about the loss of influence. The UK will still have to adopt directives, whether it likes it or not.

 

Some directives. Nothing like as many as now. You don't have to control people to trade with them. We do over half our trade outside the EU and we have no control over them at all. We don't need it. It's not even useful.

 

We're a voice in a choir of 27. Our influence is negligible. It's next to useless.

 

What is the basis for your assertion the Brexit will set the UK back at all?

Do you have an independent expert analysis on the matter?

None of the other "In" people have offered any that I can find.

[Havanaclub]

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

 

 

2 points.

 

1. It's not a civil war.

 

2. It was not started by the EU.