EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[I1L2T3]

We had British standards before. I assume we'll have them again. They'll probably start of from the EU standards and drift away with time.

It's not my analysis. I'm not an economist. There are other models from elsewhere in the world where the regulatory compliance costs are not so high.

UK customers will notice that things are cheaper whilst standards are maintained and that the economy is doing well so they have jobs and money and such.

 

Any proof of this? You seem pretty emphatic about it so you need to back it up.

[unbeliever]

It appears that there is a lot of guff talked about red tape and regulations.

When I ask local business people supporting Brexit what EU regulations they want to do away with, they answer:

• Working Time Directive

• Agency Workers Directive

• TUPE

• Part-time work – comparable rights

• Parental Leave entitlement

• Directive on informing and consulting employees

• Health and Safety framework

and that’s it.

I’d be interested to hear what other regulations or standards it is proposed should go.

 

From my own experience, I'd start with a massive overhaul of the health and safety regulations. I know first hand that it's all about lengthy paperwork and not about actually keeping people safe at work. Obviously there needs to be regulation of workplace safety, but a concussed, senile monkey could do better than the current system.

Trouble is, I'm not sure that the health and safety regulations derive from the EU.

 

Okay I checked and it does: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse49.pdf

 

In general an employee and employer should be able to negotiate a contract rather more freely. I'm sure Colin enjoys very much his parental leave entitlement, but I'm not entirely sure he's happy at being limited to thirty odd hours of work per week when he may ned some extra cash. And I'm pretty sure his mate Douglas would like to have a job too if only Colin's employer could afford to take them both on.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2016 at 20:50 ----------

 

Any proof of this? You seem pretty emphatic about it so you need to back it up.

 

Nope. Any proof for any of the Remainers' economic predictions?

 

Common sense really. Regulatory compliance costs always end up being paid by the consumer in the end. Where else could the money come from?

Deregulation is like a tax cut which doesn't reduce tax revenue.

Or to put it another way. Over-regulation is like a tax rise that doesn't bring any money in for the state.

Edited June 4, 2016 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

 

Nope. Any proof for any of the Remainers' economic predictions?

 

Common sense really. Regulatory compliance costs always end up being paid by the consumer in the end. Where else could the money come from?

Deregulation is like a tax cut which doesn't reduce tax revenue.

 

I think the remain economic predictions have far greater certainty. You would be stupid to argue otherwise. What you really need to do is outline the risks of Brexit and explain how each risk could or would be managed.

 

What proof do you want about regulation? The positive results of good regulation are around you every day. They stop your bank going bust, ensure the quality of your food, ensure you are treated fairly at work and help ensure your safety at work.

 

Admittedly there is also bad regulation, but it would be better if you focused on targeting the examples of bad regulation and explaining how the EU stops us improving it.

 

It's a big mistake to argue that all EU regulation is bad regulation just because it has been made by the EU.

 

The other thing that gets me about this is the idea that EU regulation has always been created by others and then foisted on us. That's not true. We participate in shaping every piece of regulation as one of the 28.

[*_ash_*]

It's a lie. It has already been proven to be a lie. It says in the same paragraph that we could spend that £350m on the NHS. We can't because we never send £350m.

 

Is the in campaign telling the truth?

 

The one I'm looking at right now that came through my door says this: (word for word)

 

2. Family Finances:

Being in the EU makes the UK economy stronger. If we left, our economy would be hit to the tune of £4,300 a year for each UK household.

Source: Official Treasury Report.

 

When pulled up on this on TV when both sides were being grilled, Osbourne said it was a forecast for 2020.

 

It doesn't say this on my leaflet. And it's a guess.

 

Is that what you consider to be the truth? Or equally bull****.

[I1L2T3]

Is the in campaign telling the truth?

 

The one I'm looking at right now that came through my door says this: (word for word)

 

 

 

When pulled up on this on TV when both sides were being grilled, Osbourne said it was a forecast for 2020.

 

It doesn't say this on my leaflet. And it's a guess.

 

Is that what you consider to be the truth? Or equally bull****.

 

I covered this in an earlier post.

 

I don't know how the stay campaign can make such claims. It would be much better if they didn't.

[tinfoilhat]

From my own experience, I'd start with a massive overhaul of the health and safety regulations. I know first hand that it's all about lengthy paperwork and not about actually keeping people safe at work. Obviously there needs to be regulation of workplace safety, but a concussed, senile monkey could do better than the current system.

Trouble is, I'm not sure that the health and safety regulations derive from the EU.

 

Okay I checked and it does: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse49.pdf

 

In general an employee and employer should be able to negotiate a contract rather more freely. I'm sure Colin enjoys very much his parental leave entitlement, but I'm not entirely sure he's happy at being limited to thirty odd hours of work per week when he may ned some extra cash. And I'm pretty sure his mate Douglas would like to have a job too if only Colin's employer could afford to take them both on.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2016 at 20:50 ----------

 

 

Nope. Any proof for any of the Remainers' economic predictions?

 

Common sense really. Regulatory compliance costs always end up being paid by the consumer in the end. Where else could the money come from?

Deregulation is like a tax cut which doesn't reduce tax revenue.

Or to put it another way. Over-regulation is like a tax rise that doesn't bring any money in for the state.

 

Not all of them to the best of my knowledge. Fire retardency for example is different in France, different in Germany and different in the UK. With various touring shows you'd think that would be standard. A lot of H&S is useful and important but the details often end up on a desk of someone who doesn't have a clue what they are looking at. It's used by companies as a box ticking excercise and it needs more attention than that.

 

And Colin can opt out if he wants.

[sutty27]

Is the in campaign telling the truth?

 

The one I'm looking at right now that came through my door says this: (word for word)

 

2. Family Finances:

Being in the EU makes the UK economy stronger. If we left, our economy would be hit to the tune of £4,300 a year for each UK household.

 

Source: Official Treasury Report.

 

When pulled up on this on TV when both sides were being grilled, Osbourne said it was a forecast for 2020.

 

It doesn't say this on my leaflet. And it's a guess.

 

Is that what you consider to be the truth? Or equally bull****.

 

 

That just under £114 billion a year or £2.2 billion a week.

 

That's a much bigger porky.

 

The out claim is much closer to the truth.

Edited June 4, 2016 by sutty27

[*_ash_*]

I covered this in an earlier post.

 

I don't know how the stay campaign can make such claims. It would be much better if they didn't.

 

Sorry I missed your earlier post I1, I've not been keeping up with this thread so much now, as it has become as tiresome as most of the TV stuff.

 

There were another 4 claims on this leaflet. And it was very cleverly written as I said earlier. Unless one has a keen eye for the tiny writing, it says nothing about how to vote. Just heavily loaded statements. IMO, this probably will sway the vote.

 

This bit is good:

 

These facts will help you decide whether being in Europe or leaving to be on our own is better for creating jobs, keeping prices low and ensuring financial security of your family.

 

It's your vote - and your future

 

MAKE SURE YOU VOTE ON THURSDAY 23rd JUNE

 

-

 

It's the most loaded thing I've seen since the council sent out a 'Parking Permit Enquiry Form' a few years ago, when I lived in Hillsborough.

 

---------- Post added 04-06-2016 at 22:33 ----------

 

That just under £114 billion a year or £2.2 billion a week.

 

That's a much bigger porky.

 

The out claim is much closer to the truth.

 

It's probably the entire EU pig population porks-worth of porky.

[panzer1]

Agree with you ash, this thread appears to revisit the same themes regularly. At the start of this thread there were ins/outs and undecided. Has any body because of any reason on this thread or otherwise changed from an inner to an outer or vice versa.

As an inner it was clinched for me when merkel said stay, equated to me definitely voting out as she could have won this for Dave but chose not to.

She is the power in the eu despite what anybody says, all she had to do was allow no benefits for 4 years for eu migrants and no entry without a job.She chose not to and now she is cacking herself that we will leave, well tough you brought it in yourself.

[Harrystottle]

The Beeb have been at it again, talking about how "EU funds have greatly benefitted Orkney and the Shetlands".

 

We give the EU £13 billion a year. They give us back in "EU funds" £6 billion.

 

The BBC is deliberately giving the impression that the money is granted to us by the wonderful, selfless, generous EU. Which is rubbish. We give them £13 billion, they give us £6 billion back - less than half. Some "benefit"!

 

This is just typical of the BBC. Never the direct lie, but always half of the truth, and the half that suits their book.

 

It is so depressing that they sink to this.