EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[LeMaquis]

I think we could do it in two days.

 

Britain is open for business. Tarrifs will be zero unless there are tarrifs on our goods/services from your end in which case they will match yours. Mail any tarrif revisions to us and we will put them in place by close of play.

 

Not hard.

 

The Canada–European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement negotiations began in 1999 and took over eight years. And that's just one country.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93European_Free_Trade_Association_Free_Trade_Agreement

 

And the fact that you can't spell tariff doesn't convince me you're an expert on trade agreements.

[Zamo]

Amazing how you can look into the future and be so sure. Or maybe you're making things up.

 

You say "long" before we left. So how long do you think it would take to actually leave?

 

We would have to negotiate trade deals not just with the EU but also all the other major trading nations - China, India, USA, etc. This would take years and years. Even if we did start before we left there is no way all the deals would be completed before we did leave.

 

I don't know how long it will take (and nor do you) or care... we need to get out however long it takes.

[Quik]

The Canada–European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement negotiations began in 1999 and took over eight years. And that's just one country.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93European_Free_Trade_Association_Free_Trade_Agreement

 

And the fact that you can't spell tariff doesn't convince me you're an expert on trade agreements.

 

Touche on the spelling. Just an ex bootie running a business not a top international trade negotiator like you.

 

But what you miss is that you are talking about proposed deals.

 

What this would involve is the urgency of you (and all your businesses) have a deal. In two years it will disappear. Sense of urgency dear boy, makes 'em jump to.

[LeMaquis]

We'd start renegotiating trade deals long before we actually left.

 

I don't know how long it will take (and nor do you) or care... we need to get out however long it takes.

 

So if you don't know how long it will take why did you state earlier that it will take us a long time and give us enough time to renegotiate trade deals?

 

Oh, it was because you were making things up again.

[Zamo]

So if you don't know how long it will take why did you state earlier that it will take us a long time and give us enough time to renegotiate trade deals?

 

Oh, it was because you were making things up again.

 

I don't know how long it would take to cycle to China but I know it will take a long time. Am I making things up?

[tzijlstra]

Take a look at the rise of anti-immigration parties across Europe... isn't that proof of the growing rejection of the EU's soft immigration policies?

 

I'll get to this after your third point.

 

The strategy for dealing with migrants making perilous journeys to Europe i.e. not only letting them in when they arrive but also going and fetching them. The strategy for distributing migrants in the (false) hope it will dissipate and dilute problems enough for people to endure them. The strategy for promoting integration in the (false) hope it will address social tensions. The strategy for paying Turkey to hold on to migrants as a work-round to avoid having to adhere to their own asylum policy.

 

I'll get to this after your third point as well.

 

I don't blame the EU for the increase in refugees. I blame then for not rejecting and returning them and sending a clear 'not wanted' message.

 

It is pretty clear you don't understand who is responsible for immigration policies of refugees. It is not the EU, it is the individual member states. You are doing the typical UK thing - blame the EU for something you can't blame them for and then using it as an argument against the EU instead of against the national governments. The confusion can be traced back to European heads of state using the EU-summits and EU-presidency as a means to discuss means to tackle the growing problem that unchecked migration by refugees brings, and by the fact that the EU is indeed talking about integrated policy to address the issue, but that can not be confused with 'EU policy' as that does not exist yet, so it is not EU policy to be "soft on migrants". You could know this because the Danes decided that they are going to take migrants' possessions and the UK decided to ignore the mass of people in Calais.

 

What is EU policy is to help EU member-states to address issues of grave importance, I think we can all agree that tens of thousands crossing the med on dinghies to land on completely overcrowded Greek/Italian islands is of grave importance and as this relates to Schengen-policy it is perfectly understandable that the EU is currently discussing the ins and outs of that treaty in relation to mass-migration by refugees and simultaneously facilitating discussions between the various heads of state to come to a joint solution to distribute legit refugees. You could know this as well because Britain took a measly few thousand of Syrians compared to the hundreds of thousands that Merkel invited to Germany.

 

So using migration, the rise of the right or whatever as an argument against the EU as an institute of relevance for the UK is about as flawed as the nonsense that Angelfire spouted a few pages back.

 

But carry on, it provides an interesting insight into the lack of understanding amongst the British population about what the EU is and isn't.

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2016 at 22:01 ----------

 

PS if your argument is that the EU is moving too slowly/sluggishly on this issue, couldn't agree more, it would be extremely beneficial to be able to formulate foreign policy as the EU without the petty interference of nation states, further integration is indeed required and I am fairly confident that this is one of the carrots that Cameron will get, a two-speed Europe with the UK on the fringe.

[Zamo]

I'll get to this after your third point.

 

 

 

I'll get to this after your third point as well.

 

 

 

It is pretty clear you don't understand who is responsible for immigration policies of refugees. It is not the EU, it is the individual member states. You are doing the typical UK thing - blame the EU for something you can't blame them for and then using it as an argument against the EU instead of against the national governments. The confusion can be traced back to European heads of state using the EU-summits and EU-presidency as a means to discuss means to tackle the growing problem that unchecked migration by refugees brings, and by the fact that the EU is indeed talking about integrated policy to address the issue, but that can not be confused with 'EU policy' as that does not exist yet, so it is not EU policy to be "soft on migrants". You could know this because the Danes decided that they are going to take migrants' possessions and the UK decided to ignore the mass of people in Calais.

 

What is EU policy is to help EU member-states to address issues of grave importance, I think we can all agree that tens of thousands crossing the med on dinghies to land on completely overcrowded Greek/Italian islands is of grave importance and as this relates to Schengen-policy it is perfectly understandable that the EU is currently discussing the ins and outs of that treaty in relation to mass-migration by refugees and simultaneously facilitating discussions between the various heads of state to come to a joint solution to distribute legit refugees. You could know this as well because Britain took a measly few thousand of Syrians compared to the hundreds of thousands that Merkel invited to Germany.

 

So using migration, the rise of the right or whatever as an argument against the EU as an institute of relevance for the UK is about as flawed as the nonsense that Angelfire spouted a few pages back.

 

But carry on, it provides an interesting insight into the lack of understanding amongst the British population about what the EU is and isn't.

 

So you acknowledge that decisions about immigration are being made at EU-summits and via the EU-presidency but they have nothing to do with the EU... right you are.

 

And the plan proposed by the European Commission to share our migrants across member states is also nothing to do with the EU even though they are the executive body of the EU... right you are.

 

And the UK being forced to allow in nationalised migrants from Europe due to freedom of movement also has nothing to do with the EU... right you are.

 

Wow... ain't the British public thick for thinking this has something to do with the EU. Thanks for setting us straight. I for one will definitely be voting to stay in now.

[tzijlstra]

So you acknowledge that decisions about immigration are being made at EU-summits and via the EU-presidency but they have nothing to do with the EU... right you are.

they are facilitated by the EU, that does not mean the EU makes the decisions.

 

And the plan proposed by the European Commission to share our migrants across member states is also nothing to do with the EU even though they are the executive body of the EU... right you are.

 

Member states were not forced to accept, they couldn't be forced because there was no EU policy to back that up.

 

And the UK being forced to allow in nationalised migrants from Europe due to freedom of movement also has nothing to do with the EU... right you are.

That is nothing to do with refugee migration, it is to do with the fundamentals of the Union, the pillars it was founded on. In case you haven't noticed, the EU is discussing these as it is becoming clear there might be issues with this particular pillar, that is called democracy, a process you can participate in.

 

Wow... ain't the British public thick for thinking this has something to do with the EU. Thanks for setting us straight. I for one will definitely be voting to stay in now.

 

The British public isn't thick, it is misinformed/malinformed; just as you demonstrate with your not very well thought through reply.

[Zamo]

they are facilitated by the EU, that does not mean the EU makes the decisions.

 

 

 

Member states were not forced to accept, they couldn't be forced because there was no EU policy to back that up.

 

 

That is nothing to do with refugee migration, it is to do with the fundamentals of the Union, the pillars it was founded on. In case you haven't noticed, the EU is discussing these as it is becoming clear there might be issues with this particular pillar, that is called democracy, a process you can participate in.

 

 

 

The British public isn't thick, it is misinformed/malinformed; just as you demonstrate with your not very well thought through reply.

 

Forget your ridiculous technicalities and hair splitting. The bottom line is this:

• We are powerless to stop EU nationals coming here if we don't want them for social or economic reasons
  
• We are powerless to stop other EU states allowing in millions of non-EU migrants and granting them asylum
  
• We are powerless to stop non-EU migrants granted asylum from coming here if the proposed redistribution policy secures enough support to achieve a qualified majority
  
• We are powerless to stop nationalised non-EU migrants from other EU member states coming here
  

 

All of that is a result of being an EU member and why so many would rather opt out.

[tzijlstra]

Forget your ridiculous technicalities and hair splitting. The bottom line is this:

• We are powerless to stop EU nationals coming here if we don't want them for social or economic reasons
  
• We are powerless to stop other EU states allowing in millions of non-EU migrants and granting them asylum
  
• We are powerless to stop non-EU migrants granted asylum from coming here if the proposed redistribution policy secures enough support to achieve a qualified majority
  
• We are powerless to stop nationalised non-EU migrants from other EU member states coming here
  

 

All of that is a result of being an EU member and why so many would rather opt out.

 

The naive view here is that leaving the EU would stop immigration. It won't, I have shown the statistics for Switzerland and Norway in the past so I won't do that again, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the NHS will still need cheap nurses, farmers still need cheap labour, factories need diligent workforce, bars and restaurants need cheap labour, tech companies need talent from all over the world, delivery companies need drivers... did I mention yet that the UK has one of the lowest unemployment rates combined with one of the highest job-creation rates in Europe?