Government to spend Nine million on leaflets

[PeteMorris]

I think sending them back is totally moronic to be frank.

 

The Government has made a stance on what it thinks the public should do. They are entitled to do that.

 

The Government received a lot of criticism from the press and the general public for not explaining their reasoning.

 

The Government are taking steps to rectify that by providing written reasons for their position.

 

Its supposed to be about keeping the electorate informed. Its supposed to be answering the questions we demand they answer.

 

Its not a campaign leaflet. Its not supposed to block or oppose leafleting from the in OR out campaign groups.

 

Its official government information in response to a specific demand.

 

They cant do right for doing wrong.

 

Perhaps if all these reactionaries actually bothered to read the leaflet alongside the forthcoming campaign materials they might be in a position to make an informed decision come referendum time.

 

You mean the pretty pictures? (incidentally one of which was stolen from a photographer)...Then read the glib rhetoric?...It's hardly an in-depth informative leaflet!

[tzijlstra]

Loses influence? How can we have influence with 28 other countries arguing and pushing their own agenda? If they ever agree on anything it takes forever to achieve it, and inevitably someone (or several countries) loses out. It's plainly and simply an unseemly rabble.

 

How can you have influence when you aren't part of the club? There is a good argument that the EU needs sorting out, I get that, a lot of Eurocrats get that, that change is coming and the UK is an important driver of reducing legal pressure from the EU whilst emphasising the benefits of joint-up thinking and operating. If the UK leaves it will, unequivocally, still be subject to what you describe as unseemly rabble. So why not stay in and push the necessary reform agenda?

 

Because it means being subject to laws not directly related to that market.

 

A little under 50% of our trade is with the EU.

Being in the EU means being subject to EU law for all our trade, including the >50% not with the EU. It also means being subject to EU laws not directly or not at all related to trade (usually intended to create an economic level playing field within the union).

We'd still have to comply with EU law for trade with the EU. Which is fine. But we would not have to comply with EU law for trade outside the EU, nor would we have to comply in non-trade matters.

 

If the Brexit arrangements following an out vote are such that we're stuck we EU law across the board, then we'll sack the UK government and get one in which makes a less mental deal.

 

I have to say that what you state here is the mental part. Basically you are saying you don't care about the common market because you'd rather have your own laws, right?

 

The consequence of that is a Brexit that would pull the UK clean out of the EU, including all the trade agreements. That includes all the bilateral agreements between the EU and international trading partners that were made since the common market started. That includes deals with the OPEC, China, Russia, Brazil, the US and so on.

 

it doesn't take a genius to realise that that is the exact scenario that would cause significant unrest with CEOs of internationally trading companies, there is no way they would tolerate a period of several years where they are all of a sudden subject to legal re-negotiations of all their trading agreements, it would be a legal nightmare.

 

There is also no way, no matter how often people bleat about 'the fifth largest economy' that the deals would work out in favour of the UK. The simple fact there is that the deals were negotiated between the biggest economy in the world (the EU) and other economies. That is a wholly different situation than a deal negotiated by a country with a sixth of the size of the biggest economy in the world.

 

Get used to it, there isn't a single government that will get voted in that will propose that is the right cause of action.

 

People forget that during the eighties many of the British industries were flat on their backside, it is globalisation and being part of a global market that has pushed things into the right direction. If the UK had not been part of the EU, do you genuinely think that car manufacturers would have chosen the UK over other EU countries to build their factories? That the UK HE sector would have flourished in the way it has? That the UK Finance sector would have?

There is very definite economic statistical evidence that being part of wide-ranging trade agreements and opening up to international trade has a huge positive impact on national economies, an impact that the UK has benefited from due to a real open market liberal approach.

 

PS - have a play with this excellent tool.

Edited April 14, 2016 by tzijlstra

[PeteMorris]

How can you have influence when you aren't part of the club? There is a good argument that the EU needs sorting out, I get that, a lot of Eurocrats get that, that change is coming and the UK is an important driver of reducing legal pressure from the EU whilst emphasising the benefits of joint-up thinking and operating. If the UK leaves it will, unequivocally, still be subject to what you describe as unseemly rabble. So why not stay in and push the necessary reform agenda?

 

Snip...............

 

 

Mainly because it's been going on since 1973, and has only got worse! I voted to come out in 1975....So it's not a sudden shift in my stance.

[tzijlstra]

Mainly because it's been going on since 1973, and has only got worse! I voted to come out in 1975....So it's not a sudden shift in my stance.

 

Can you quantify that? What has got worse?

[Berberis]

We got two on consecutive days. If this is commonplace, I can see this being a bigger waste than it is.

[unbeliever]

I have to say that what you state here is the mental part. Basically you are saying you don't care about the common market because you'd rather have your own laws, right?

 

The consequence of that is a Brexit that would pull the UK clean out of the EU, including all the trade agreements. That includes all the bilateral agreements between the EU and international trading partners that were made since the common market started. That includes deals with the OPEC, China, Russia, Brazil, the US and so on.

 

it doesn't take a genius to realise that that is the exact scenario that would cause significant unrest with CEOs of internationally trading companies, there is no way they would tolerate a period of several years where they are all of a sudden subject to legal re-negotiations of all their trading agreements, it would be a legal nightmare.

 

There is also no way, no matter how often people bleat about 'the fifth largest economy' that the deals would work out in favour of the UK. The simple fact there is that the deals were negotiated between the biggest economy in the world (the EU) and other economies. That is a wholly different situation than a deal negotiated by a country with a sixth of the size of the biggest economy in the world.

 

Get used to it, there isn't a single government that will get voted in that will propose that is the right cause of action.

 

People forget that during the eighties many of the British industries were flat on their backside, it is globalisation and being part of a global market that has pushed things into the right direction. If the UK had not been part of the EU, do you genuinely think that car manufacturers would have chosen the UK over other EU countries to build their factories? That the UK HE sector would have flourished in the way it has? That the UK Finance sector would have?

There is very definite economic statistical evidence that being part of wide-ranging trade agreements and opening up to international trade has a huge positive impact on national economies, an impact that the UK has benefited from due to a real open market liberal approach.

 

PS - have a play with this excellent tool.

 

Okay.

 

For a start we were part of the club in the '80s (although it went by a different name then) so I don't see how you can blame economic problems from the '80s on UK independence.

 

You talk about the trade deals that an independent UK would get as a matter of fact, but it's all very much a matter of opinion. The UK is not weak as your statements imply and the EU is not going to want to lose a major trading partner when a simple free trade deal is on the table. Well they are a bunch of muppets so maybe some will.

 

The EU is racked by unemployment, a rolling common currency crisis and all manner of other messes of it's own making. They're dumb, but I doubt they're dumb enough to burn hundreds of billions being awkward about a trade relationship with the UK.

 

We heard all the same earnest and emphatic declarations about the dire economic woes that would befall the UK if we failed to join the Euro. We refused anyway and the reverse turned out to be the reality.

 

Convince me that this is different. Ideally using facts, rather than hypotheses dressed up as facts.

[PeteMorris]

Can you quantify that? What has got worse?

 

Well back in 1975 it was referred to as the 'common market'...Then it morphed into the European Economic Community, now it's simply the EU. The bigger it gets, the more complex and restrictive it gets. Allowing even less to be achieved in a much longer timeframe.

 

There are different cultures, different religions, different everything. Now we have countries 'effectively' blackmailing us into allowing them to join (I assume you know who I mean)...It's a case of never the twain shall meet.

 

The alleged 'deal' that Cameron negotiated, depending upon who you listen to, apparently isn't legally binding, and could be turned on it's head on a sixpence. In any case, to me it seems a bit of a non-deal anyway. So for me, that's no reason to stay.

 

I believe, (wrongly or rightly) that we've been treated pretty shabbily by the EU. Paying lots of money for little in return. Yes I know we get grants for this that and the other. But isn't that just monetary ping-pong? Cut out the middle man and things might be more efficient?

[JFKvsNixon]

Well back in 1975 it was referred to as the 'common market'...Then it morphed into the European Economic Community, now it's simply the EU. The bigger it gets, the more complex and restrictive it gets. Allowing even less to be achieved in a much longer timeframe.

 

There are different cultures, different religions, different everything. Now we have countries 'effectively' blackmailing us into allowing them to join (I assume you know who I mean)...It's a case of never the twain shall meet.

 

The alleged 'deal' that Cameron negotiated, depending upon who you listen to, apparently isn't legally binding, and could be turned on it's head on a sixpence. In any case, to me it seems a bit of a non-deal anyway. So for me, that's no reason to stay.

 

I believe, (wrongly or rightly) that we've been treated pretty shabbily by the EU. Paying lots of money for little in return. Yes I know we get grants for this that and the other. But isn't that just monetary ping-pong? Cut out the middle man and things might be more efficient?

 

What do you expect we should get in return for our membership?

[PeteMorris]

What do you expect we should get in return for our membership?

 

The point is: If we didn't have to pay it all, we could spend it entirely for our own benefit as a nation.

[unbeliever]

The point is: If we didn't have to pay it all, we could spend it entirely for our own benefit as a nation.

 

Net saving is about £10billion per year. That's assuming that we keep to EU spending on farming subsidies and various grants.

Buys a fair amount of public services that.