The end of the world is nigh.

[sutty27]

My example shows the effect of brainpower moving out of the country, either by choice or because a corporation decides it has to in order to remain competitive. I am not sure how I can make that any clearer.

 

 

 

Businesses should set up where it is best for them to do business. An attractive employment situation is one factor in that package.

 

That's not necessarily good for the people that live nearest to the business.

 

Sport direct wasn't good for Shirebrook.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2016 at 21:58 ----------

 

What about if you jumped too early and the ship didn't actually sink? Surely you'd have been better off waiting to see what was going to happen before you jumped.

 

We only have one opportunity to jump, miss this chance and we don't get another.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2016 at 22:01 ----------

 

How do you know?

Jumping late will be a bigger shock than a planed jump now.

[L00b]

Yes, getting in the life boat is safer than jumping at the last minute.

How does grabbing the tiller & steering that ship clear off the rocks in the first place, and then sail on clear, grab you?

 

That's the stay-in position based on marginally renegotiated terms (likely to be still furthe renegotiated away from Brussels in the coming months and years, since Cameron's better-terms-by-proxy-referendum is starting to get quite a following in other EU states by now).

 

Or will you still plump for the liferaft, and stay stranded, thirsty and starving, for however long?

 

God loves analogies: Brexiters using the 'sinking ship' one basically makes them out to be quitters

Edited March 30, 2016 by L00b

[I1L2T3]

Jumping late will be a bigger shock than a planed jump now.

 

Will it? How do you know?

 

What if the life raft 10 years down the line is a genuine trading bloc that creates a northern European powerhouse based on the UK, German-speaking states, France, Benelux, Scandanavia, shedding the baggage of the southern and eastern states?

 

How can you possibly know.

 

It's like you want to swap a powerful icebreaker sailing through a sea of ice for the Love Boat on a cruise to Fantasy Island.

[sutty27]

How does grabbing the tiller & steering that ship clear off the rocks in the first place, and then sail on clear, grab you?

 

They don't have access to the tiller so can't steer it anywhere.

 

 

That's the stay-in position based on marginally renegotiated terms (likely to be still furthe renegotiated away from Brussels in the coming months and years, since Cameron's better-terms-by-proxy-referendum is starting to get quite a following in other EU states by now).

An in vote is to accept things as they are, its not a vote for more change.

 

 

Or will you still plump for the liferaft, and stay stranded, thirsty and starving, for however long?

 

God loves analogies: Brexiters using the 'sinking ship' one basically makes them out to be quitters

 

I'd jump on the life boat and be thankful I did when I watch it sink, escaping isn't quitting, quitters are the people willing to put up with the status quo because they fear change.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2016 at 07:11 ----------

 

Will it? How do you know?

 

What if the life raft 10 years down the line is a genuine trading bloc that creates a northern European powerhouse based on the UK, German-speaking states, France, Benelux, Scandanavia, shedding the baggage of the southern and eastern states?

 

How can you possibly know.

 

It's like you want to swap a powerful icebreaker sailing through a sea of ice for the Love Boat on a cruise to Fantasy Island.

 

You can dream but that is all it is, a dream, stay hoping for the dream and it will turn out to be a nightmare.

Edited March 31, 2016 by sutty27

[I1L2T3]

 

You can dream but that is all it is, a dream, stay hoping for the dream and it will turn out to be a nightmare.

 

It's not a dream. It's a scenario.

[L00b]

They don't have access to the tiller so can't steer it anywhere.

Rhubarb. The UK is the second largest economy in the EU, and its current economical activity is the envy of all other EU member states. As such, and a net contributor to the pot, it has always had the political power and clout to match in Brussels and Strasbourg.

 

How do you think Thatcher managed to eke out the rebate? Out of the goodness of the hearts of the French and the German premiers of the time?

 

What the UK lacks, is political coherence in the best interest of the country between its legislative arm (MEPs, UKIP ones in particular, are not doing their job and looking after the UK's best interests, and UKIP ones have not done so for a very long time indeed) and its executive arm (successive UK governments not playing the EU game in the defence and furtherance of UK interests, like the German, French, Italian, Spanish <etc.> governments regularly do).

 

The solution to that one can only come from the electoral process in the UK.

An in vote is to accept things as they are, its not a vote for more change.

Er, no. The EU is an uninterrupted change process going back decades, as each successive Agreement and Treaty building on the previous ones proves, replete with self-interested opt-ins and opt-outs for this-that-the other Member State.

 

Cameron's renegotiation initiative has achieved change. Not ground-breaking, but not trivial either. And has been snowballing awhile, to the extent that close to a majority of French voters (48% yesterday in latest poll, and provably rising steadfastly for the past few weeks) are now rumbling for their own 'Frexit' referendum. That is all change.

 

And I'm not mentioning the similar political traction in the smaller EU member states (in addition to those EU member states already long supporting the UK's renegotiation stance). That will bring about still more change.

 

That political bandwagon is still gaining momentum EU-wide, and will only carry on doing so, well past 23 June regardless of the UK vote outcome (Brexit = others will want a referendum too; no Brexit and implementation of negotiated changes = others will want renegotiated terms too).

I'd jump on the life boat and be thankful I did when I watch it sink, escaping isn't quitting, quitters are the people willing to put up with the status quo because they fear change.

Escaping is quitting. Like all the military age male 'refugees' flooding Europe instead of fighting for their lot. That's the usual argument of the anti-immigration lot, isn't it?

 

As noted, the UK is 2nd largest economy in the EU, with the political power in Brussels and Strasbourg to match it: getting out of the EU in that situation and having no further say whatsoever about how the 1st global socio-economic club evolves and where it goes, instead of staying in and making a bid for the tiller, whilst keeping the UK's influence and say in EU legislation and evolution, is quitting. However you try and dress it.

 

We might forget to call for your rescue, as we sail on, so you'd better learn to like raw fish and to distill sea water

Edited March 31, 2016 by L00b

[sutty27]

Rhubarb. The UK is the second largest economy in the EU, and its current economical activity is the envy of all other EU member states. As such, and a net contributor to the pot, it has always had the political power and clout to match in Brussels and Strasbourg.

 

How do you think Thatcher managed to eke out the rebate? Out of the goodness of the hearts of the French and the German premiers of the time?

 

It didn't help Cameron get a good deal, he asked for an hand full of crumbs and got a teaspoon of crumbs.

 

What the UK lacks, is political coherence in the best interest of the country between its legislative arm (MEPs, UKIP ones in particular, are not doing their job and looking after the UK's best interests, and UKIP ones have not done so for a very long time indeed) and its executive arm (successive UK governments not playing the EU game in the defence and furtherance of UK interests, like the German, French, Italian, Spanish <etc.> governments regularly do).

 

UKIP do act in the best interests of the country.

 

 

The solution to that one can only come from the electoral process in the UK.

Er, no. The EU is an uninterrupted change process going back decades, as each successive Agreement and Treaty building on the previous ones proves, replete with self-interested opt-ins and opt-outs for this-that-the other Member State.

 

But its always change for the worse, they get more power we are left with less power.

 

 

Cameron's renegotiation initiative has achieved change. Not ground-breaking, but not trivial either. And has been snowballing awhile, to the extent that close to a majority of French voters (48% yesterday in latest poll, and provably rising steadfastly for the past few weeks) are now rumbling for their own 'Frexit' referendum. That is all change.

 

Sounds like they are also coming to their senses.

 

And I'm not mentioning the similar political traction in the smaller EU member states (in addition to those EU member states already long supporting the UK's renegotiation stance). That will bring about still more change.

 

The in camp should set out the change they want, and then guarantee exit if that change isn't accomplished in five years.

[Zamo]

You realise that free movement and the ability to be employed throughout the zone works both ways?

 

Yes, the skilled, wealth creators and rich pensioners out and the poor in.

 

Selective immigration is required to create a win-win. As things stand it is only immigrants, big business and the multicultural fantasists that get anything out of it. But we can't do anything about it because the EU denies us our sovereign right to determine our own immigrant rules. Therefore, if anyone wants an end to unselective mass immigration then they must vote to leave the EU.

[L00b]

It didn't help Cameron get a good deal, he asked for an hand full of crumbs and got a teaspoon of crumbs.

Not going over the 'crumbs' thing again. There's already 2 or 3 big threads about that.

UKIP do act in the best interests of the country.

Sure they do!

 

I'll just leave this little nugget here

 

It's not exhaustive. By far.

 

We could for instance look at UKIP MEPs' record on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership as it handled by the EU (extremely badly). UKIP could make metric tons of political hay out of that. If it could be bothered, that is...and why it doesn't, is anybody's guess: they're not accountable to the UK Government (who are handling the UK's standalone aspects of the TTIP just as badly as the EU if not worse) nor to the Tory majority in the Commons, so it's not as if they have to toe any line. Perhaps it's because the expected consequences of signing up to TTIP look like a significantly juicier bandwagon opportunity for UKIP politicians, relative to merely EU expenses

But its always change for the worse, they get more power we are left with less power.

That's a tall and sweeping claim, so until it gets a bit better particularised, I'll give it the consideration it merits, i.e. none.

 

In the meantime, refer the above point and link, this explaining that <etc.>

The in camp should set out the change they want, and then guarantee exit if that change isn't accomplished in five years.

If you wanted that condition, you should have campaigned for it. Did you? If not, why not? Edited March 31, 2016 by L00b

[sutty27]

If you wanted that condition, you should have campaigned for it. Did you? If not, why not?

 

I'm happy to vote out so I didn't need to campaign for it.