The end of the world is nigh.

[L00b]

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

So why are you claiming that the IN camp should have asked for it?

 

They're happy to vote in so they didn't need to campaign for it either

[monkey104]

I am amazed at how many people spouting their own hypothesis when in fact no one, including the politicians, Eurocrats, businessmen,bankers et al can agree on any one subject in relation to staying in or out of the eu.

Some people on here are quite forceful in their hypothesis to the extent of belittling other commentators when in fact we do not know, we can only hypothesise!

[sutty27]

So why are you claiming that the IN camp should have asked for it?

 

They're happy to vote in so they didn't need to campaign for it either

 

I didn't say they should have asked for it, they do appear to want to change my mind with promises of future change. So setting out those changes and then promising to leave the EU if they failed to secure those changes would have been a way to change my vote.

 

As it stand their promises of future change are worth squat.

[I1L2T3]

I am amazed at how many people spouting their own hypothesis when in fact no one, including the politicians, Eurocrats, businessmen,bankers et al can agree on any one subject in relation to staying in or out of the eu.

Some people on here are quite forceful in their hypothesis to the extent of belittling other commentators when in fact we do not know, we can only hypothesise!

 

You can only hypothesise about what a Brexit would mean. Not even the most ardent supporters are able to coherently state the economic case.

 

Even their case about border controls is fundamentally half-baked.

 

Their woolly notions about sovereignty are just that - woolly.

 

The Bremain alternative is clear, coherent and offers a lot of knowns.

 

It might be that Brexit is the right thing but I'm just waiting to hear something that is even semi-coherent. Nothing yet but I am willing to listen to the arguments, if they ever arrive.

[tzijlstra]

I am amazed at how many people spouting their own hypothesis when in fact no one, including the politicians, Eurocrats, businessmen,bankers et al can agree on any one subject in relation to staying in or out of the eu.

Some people on here are quite forceful in their hypothesis to the extent of belittling other commentators when in fact we do not know, we can only hypothesise!

 

There are certain points that you can know, based on the relation of the EU between other peripheral trading partners. Cutting immigration in the way as sutty and Zamo keep propagating is not likely to happen (as in less than a few percent chance). Norway is a good example. People from the EU are free to work, live and study in Norway, if they are going to be in Norway for over 3 months they have to register. That is it. So the only extra barrier to immigration from the EU would be the need to register.

 

To keep hammering on about 'Controlling our own borders' as a result of this referendum is false hypothesising and needs to be squashed because it is a huge vote-winner, leading people to sleepwalk into an agreement that won't benefit them at all but is certain to cause insecurity in the economy.

[I1L2T3]

There are certain points that you can know, based on the relation of the EU between other peripheral trading partners. Cutting immigration in the way as sutty and Zamo keep propagating is not likely to happen (as in less than a few percent chance). Norway is a good example. People from the EU are free to work, live and study in Norway, if they are going to be in Norway for over 3 months they have to register. That is it. So the only extra barrier to immigration from the EU would be the need to register.

 

To keep hammering on about 'Controlling our own borders' as a result of this referendum is false hypothesising and needs to be squashed because it is a huge vote-winner, leading people to sleepwalk into an agreement that won't benefit them at all but is certain to cause insecurity in the economy.

 

Norway and SWitzerland have some of the fastest rising levels of immigration in Europe.

 

Take the train from Oslo south to the town of Ski and look at the ethnic profile of people getting on and off at some of the stations outside the centre and it's clear that mass immigration is taking place. I mention that train line because I've used it many times, but there are areas in the NE of Oslo that are even more ethnic.

 

Similarly take a train from Geneva as far as Sion in the Valais and look at the ethnic profile of the people getting on and off at the major towns and cities. Again I've made that journey many times.

 

In both cases it is very similar to what you would see in London.

[Zamo]

You can only hypothesise about what a Brexit would mean. Not even the most ardent supporters are able to coherently state the economic case.

 

Even their case about border controls is fundamentally half-baked.

 

Their woolly notions about sovereignty are just that - woolly.

 

The Bremain alternative is clear, coherent and offers a lot of knowns.

 

It might be that Brexit is the right thing but I'm just waiting to hear something that is even semi-coherent. Nothing yet but I am willing to listen to the arguments, if they ever arrive.

 

In what way are the notions about sovereignty or border control woolly or half baked? It is very simply. Inside the EU we are subordinate to the EU and their courts... we must conform to their policies and laws. Outside of the EU we are free to set our own laws and policies. Yes, the EU may try and impose certain laws or policies on us as part of the negotiations for access to the single market but we will have choice and a bargaining position... we currently have none.

 

I'm afraid that you are not going to get detail about how our relationship with the EU will look after exit because it is subject to at least 2 years of negotiations. All you are going to get are scenarios. Yes, the Stay case is clearer because it is the 'as is'... subjugation to the EU.

 

Can I ask you a question? If the EU said that we could leave and retain access to the single market (without having to sign up to the free movement of people) would you then vote to stay or leave?

 

There are certain points that you can know, based on the relation of the EU between other peripheral trading partners. Cutting immigration in the way as sutty and Zamo keep propagating is not likely to happen (as in less than a few percent chance). Norway is a good example. People from the EU are free to work, live and study in Norway, if they are going to be in Norway for over 3 months they have to register. That is it. So the only extra barrier to immigration from the EU would be the need to register.

 

To keep hammering on about 'Controlling our own borders' as a result of this referendum is false hypothesising and needs to be squashed because it is a huge vote-winner, leading people to sleepwalk into an agreement that won't benefit them at all but is certain to cause insecurity in the economy.

 

What Norway negotiated is irrelevant. We are a much more valuable trade partner and the EU is in a massively weakened position compared to when the Norway negotiations took place. Most EU members have stuttering economies, the Euro crisis has hit it hard and now it faces a migrant crisis that it has no idea how to solve... it's like watching a drowning man trying to drink his way out of trouble. Britain is also not the only member state where the public are turning on the EU and if we vote to leave then there will be further pressure from within for changes that will make our negotiations easier. The EU is not in a position to play hardball and dictate all the terms.

[L00b]

Can I ask you a question? If the EU said that we could leave and retain access to the single market (without having to sign up to the free movement of people) would you then vote to stay or leave?

Had I a vote, then under that hypothesis, I would vote to leave.

Some people on here are quite forceful in their hypothesis to the extent of belittling other commentators when in fact we do not know, we can only hypothesise!

Since that is quite clearly aimed at me, and whilst in full agreement that we can only hypothesise (under the caveat that hypothesising based on knowns is more accurate that hypothesising based on unknowns), the 'belittling' of which you speak is only ever in response to the bad faith in debating manifested by others...and it's more fun to poke fun at them than putting them on ignore.

 

I'm never asking for posters to always agree with me at all, but just to articulate and support their opinions and counter-opinions (in opposition to using simplistic populist and/or illogical and/or baseless one liners in 'reply'). If they choose to snipe in reply instead of discussing on the merits, that is always their choice and, well..."don't dish it if you can't take it".

 

If and when they should engage in debate straightforwardly and reasonably, without misrepresentations, strawmans, fallacies and other debating artifices, no belittling whatsoever, only reciprocal respect. Simple and fair, I think

Edited March 31, 2016 by L00b

[I1L2T3]

In what way are the notions about sovereignty or border control woolly or half baked? It is very simply. Inside the EU we are subordinate to the EU and their courts... we must conform to their policies and laws. Outside of the EU we are free to set our own laws and policies. Yes, the EU may try and impose certain laws or policies on us as part of the negotiations for access to the single market but we will have choice and a bargaining position... we currently have none.

 

I'm afraid that you are not going to get detail about how our relationship with the EU will look after exit because it is subject to at least 2 years of negotiations. All you are going to get are scenarios. Yes, the Stay case is clearer because it is the 'as is'... subjugation to the EU.

 

Can I ask you a question? If the EU said that we could leave and retain access to the single market (without having to sign up to the free movement of people) would you then vote to stay or leave?

 

 

As has been explained many times the borders argument is half-baked because there is no guarantee that our security will increase. I'm far more convinced by the Bremain arguments, principally because we already have strong borders along with opt-outs on Schengen and asylum policy.

 

The sovereignty argument is a dud. We already have sovereignty.

 

Now we have a clear commitment to a two-speed Europe, and we have a legally binding commitment that we will not have to integrate any further then I am minded to vote to stay in with the hope that we can shape our relationship far more towards trade.

 

The thing that could change my view is the behaviour of the core countries towards the smaller countries. I was very disturbed by the treatment of Greece last year, and a repeat could completely change my mind in a way that the economic, borders and sovereignty arguments are totally failing to do.

[L00b]

The thing that could change my view is the behaviour of the core countries towards the smaller countries.

Juncker and the Germans have calmed down on that front since last summer, markedly so. I didn't hear so much as a pip from Brussels about Austria and the Balkan EU states' recent get-together about the immigration question, despite Greece's outrage at not being invited.

 

Orban's illiberal approach and discourse, now fast growing in popularity beyond Hungarian borders, has had a fair bit to do with that, methinks. As the link states, I think he's single-handedly shifted the EU-wide position from 'how to accommodate millions of refugees' to 'how to stop the flow' with his firebrand.

 

It's just a pity that it took the EU's very own incarnation of Putin (-lite) to achieve that, rather than pre-empt the problem with early and practical policy formulation. It's not as if the rubber dinghies in the Med started in June 2015, is it?

Edited March 31, 2016 by L00b