So who wants to remain in the EU?

[///ajd]

grumbledoak said:

Forgetting the "Be very afraid (of the unknown)" angle for a moment, am I right in thinking that Neil Kinnock would be out of a job?

"Well, alright!"

I didn't say there weren't any upsides. But that's probably not enough!

[don4l]

///ajd said:

don4l said:

///ajd said:

Ask yourself, would Germany introduce legislation that helped its own financial centre more than the London financial centre if it were outside the EU.

That question contains a lot of "stupid".

Ask yourself, would Germany introduce legislation that helped its own financial centre more than the London financial centre if it were inside the EU.

Now, do you see how stupid your question is?

Our membership of the EU has sod all to do with the fact that Germany will always put her interests first.

Not sure you are following Don.

1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.

Really?

I suggest that you investigate "Google". It is an internet search engine.

If you spend a couple of minutes there, you will discover that the UK did not use a veto to block EU regulation of Britain's Banking. We refused to sign a treaty that would have given them the power to regulate us.

///ajd said:

2. If the UK is outside the EU, it cannot influence regulation in the EU, and our banks - if they want to do business with the EU - would have to follow regulation they could not influence through the UK government (who have a vested interest in protecting our financial services industry due to it massive contribtuion to GDP and hence tax intake).

Now, which bit of this in/out thing are you struggling with?

Or do you just think we can't influence regulation so it doesn't matter - in which case you don't seem to have been following recent EU regulatory history.

If you think we can't influence when we're in, just wait until we're out!

Do you really think that we exert influence in Europe? You are deluded.

[Pan Pan Pan]

s2art said:

///ajd said:

But it won't all collapse. We might limp out having spat our dummy with no real plan for what happens afterwards - only to see DE and FR gleefully legislate us into a backwater.

How could they without falling foul of the WTO? Anyway, we dont have to buy from Germany and France, we can take our huge trade deficit elsewhere. I am sure Japan would love to sell more cars here.

Considering the EU sells more into the UK than the UK sells into the EU, any trade restrictions they impose on the UK can be placed on goods coming from the EU, and such restrictions will hurt them more than it does us, but even this is blinkered because the UK does not have to restrict its trade solely to EU countries.

[///ajd]

don4l said:

///ajd said:

don4l said:

///ajd said:

Ask yourself, would Germany introduce legislation that helped its own financial centre more than the London financial centre if it were outside the EU.

That question contains a lot of "stupid".

Ask yourself, would Germany introduce legislation that helped its own financial centre more than the London financial centre if it were inside the EU.

Now, do you see how stupid your question is?

Our membership of the EU has sod all to do with the fact that Germany will always put her interests first.

Not sure you are following Don.

1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.

Really?

I suggest that you investigate "Google". It is an internet search engine.

If you spend a couple of minutes there, you will discover that the UK did not use a veto to block EU regulation of Britain's Banking. We refused to sign a treaty that would have given them the power to regulate us.

///ajd said:

2. If the UK is outside the EU, it cannot influence regulation in the EU, and our banks - if they want to do business with the EU - would have to follow regulation they could not influence through the UK government (who have a vested interest in protecting our financial services industry due to it massive contribtuion to GDP and hence tax intake).

Now, which bit of this in/out thing are you struggling with?

Or do you just think we can't influence regulation so it doesn't matter - in which case you don't seem to have been following recent EU regulatory history.

If you think we can't influence when we're in, just wait until we're out!

Do you really think that we exert influence in Europe? You are deluded.

Don said "We refused to sign a treaty that would have given them the power to regulate us."

Good, next.

Right, your graph. So only 12% of the time the vote didn't go our way. Looks like we fight our corner though.

I wonder how much of this is UKIP feet stamping, and how much is like - you know - proper government.

But you'd rather have no control whatsoever. Genius!

Run the benefits of BREXIT past me again?

[FiF]

Run the case for Brexit past you again?

Right here goes. The most honest case for Brexit you will ever see.

Hell, at one point I'd almost persuaded myself to remain, but, nope, can't do it. Leave. Do it, and most people will end up wondering what all the argument and rabble rousing was about. Most of it, at the moment, boils down to dear old tribalism anyway rather than as a result of thinking it through.

[///ajd]

FiF said:

Run the case for Brexit past you again?

Right here goes. The most honest case for Brexit you will ever see.

Hell, at one point I'd almost persuaded myself to remain, but, nope, can't do it. Leave. Do it, and most people will end up wondering what all the argument and rabble rousing was about. Most of it, at the moment, boils down to dear old tribalism anyway rather than as a result of thinking it through.

That reminds me of some of the hollow bluff from Salmond during the neverendum.

Take this piece of fluffy nothingness:

"While in the first instance, the Norway Option is suboptimal, it does give Efta the shot in the arm it needs to revise the EEA agreement, so in fact everybody wins from Brexit including non-EU states. Whether or not Britain then ends up in a superior position to the status quo then largely depends on the people of Britain and how they rise to the political challenges."

So we leave and we magically transform the EFTA/EEA into something much better (though magic?), and we end up "superior" (er, just like better, sounds like Salmond bullsh*tting about his 'fairer' Scotland).

Ah, but, yes, whether we end up "superior" is upto the people! Of course! The people! Again, just like vacuous SNP nonsense.

You read it, and it says nothing.

Its hollow nonsense with a few trigger phrases chucked in to make a casual reader think "yay, we are superior, I agree with this".

Oldest nationalist trick in the book.

[loafer123]

We are the fifth largest economy in the world.

Do you really think that Japan has an issue negotiating a trade deal?

We buy more from them than they buy from us.

Why do you find it hard to see a mutually beneficial economic arrangement after a Brexit?

[don4l]

///ajd said:

Don said "We refused to sign a treaty that would have given them the power to regulate us."

Good, next.

Let's deal with your errors one at a time.

You said:-

///ajd said:

Not sure you are following Don.

1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.

Do you now admit that this statement was incorrect, perhaps a lie? The UK did not, as you asserted, use a veto in relation to banking regulation.

Once we have cleared this up we can deal with the other points that you raised.

It is best that we deal with them one by one.

[///ajd]

don4l said:

///ajd said:

Don said "We refused to sign a treaty that would have given them the power to regulate us."

Good, next.

Let's deal with your errors one at a time.

You said:-

///ajd said:

Not sure you are following Don.

1. If the UK is in the EU, it gets a veto and has used this in relation to some banking regulation in the EU.

Do you now admit that this statement was incorrect, perhaps a lie? The UK did not, as you asserted, use a veto in relation to banking regulation.

Once we have cleared this up we can deal with the other points that you raised.

It is best that we deal with them one by one.

I didn't google it, just going from memory, it wasn't a veto but we did refuse to go along with it as you kindly pointed out - proving my point that we CAN influence.

Now we get get pedantic over details - as it seems you intend to - or look at the big picture.

PS You did vote for a UKIP MEP didn't you?

[irocfan]

///ajd said:

PS You did vote for a UKIP MEP didn't you?

TBH I did vote for a UKIP MEP. Why? Simple, I wanted CMD to 'hear'/realise that there was an opposition to ever greater integration into what will end up as the EUSA. Now that this aim has been accomplished I feel that UKIP have (IMO) served their purpose and now I'm happy for them to fade away, can you deny that without UKIP this is unlikely to have occurred?

[With these feet]

irocfan said:

TBH I did vote for a UKIP MEP. Why? Simple, I wanted CMD to 'hear'/realise that there was an opposition to ever greater integration into what will end up as the EUSA. Now that this aim has been accomplished I feel that UKIP have (IMO) served their purpose and now I'm happy for them to fade away, can you deny that without UKIP this is unlikely to have occurred?

Likewise. If it were not for Farrage, CMD would still be rolling along refusing to give the promised referendum. He had to sit up and listen when voting for UKIP, people basically said theyre sick of Brussels, the way our government allow them to interfere and that its time for a proper change. Even if the UK stays in, at least there will be a referendum.

[FiF]

With these feet said:

irocfan said:

TBH I did vote for a UKIP MEP. Why? Simple, I wanted CMD to 'hear'/realise that there was an opposition to ever greater integration into what will end up as the EUSA. Now that this aim has been accomplished I feel that UKIP have (IMO) served their purpose and now I'm happy for them to fade away, can you deny that without UKIP this is unlikely to have occurred?

Likewise. If it were not for Farrage, CMD would still be rolling along refusing to give the promised referendum. He had to sit up and listen when voting for UKIP, people basically said theyre sick of Brussels, the way our government allow them to interfere and that its time for a proper change. Even if the UK stays in, at least there will be a referendum.

Problem is that UKIP haven't moved on. The hashtags and posts are filled with anti immigration and anti Muslim spittle, they ask for completely unrealistic and unworkable exit plan, objections to and advantages of Brexit are being trumpeted over issues that are insignificant or have so many holes in that if I can see the holes then so can the Remainders who will exploit these holes to discredit the leave campaign. They don't appear to have an endgame, a real workable plan for exit, yet smear Flexcit which, so far, is the only realistic worked out plan.

I guess for UKIPers the thing they have been looking for is some reaction to the years of Cons/Lab/LibDems lalala not listening . With the Referendum they've got it, but with all the tribalism they, and others too, have lost sight of what really matters, which is defeating the scummy little deception that Cameron has dreamed up. The answer to that is Preparation. Without preparation what we're getting is Piss Poor Performance.

[wiggy001]

///ajd said:

I didn't google it, just going from memory, it wasn't a veto but we did refuse to go along with it as you kindly pointed out - proving my point that we CAN influence.

Now we get get pedantic over details - as it seems you intend to - or look at the big picture.

PS You did vote for a UKIP MEP didn't you?

So if "we refuse to go along with it" we are influential. Yet if UKIP "refuse to go along with it" they are lazy. Right. gotcha...

The simple fact at the moment is that we cannot know FOR CERTAIN whether we will be financially better in or out because we don't know what in or out will look like in 10 years time. But that is not the only point up for scrutiny...

I'm happy to state that morally we will be better off out in the same way that I was morally better off after leaving home in my 20s despite being financially worse off for a number of years.

Those shouting for ever closer union (what you want if you are in favour of staying in) are missing a few massive but pertinent points:

- we are not "in" in the same way that France and Germany are
- our voice in Europe is mute at the moment
- we do not share a border, currency or culture with anyone else in Europe

At the same time, the silent majority are sick of those that play Britain down. Say we are not important on the world stage again and I Will ask why you don't foxtrot oscar to a country that actually wants you. You do britain a disservice by being the apologist for a federal Europe.

[///ajd]

With these feet said:

irocfan said:

TBH I did vote for a UKIP MEP. Why? Simple, I wanted CMD to 'hear'/realise that there was an opposition to ever greater integration into what will end up as the EUSA. Now that this aim has been accomplished I feel that UKIP have (IMO) served their purpose and now I'm happy for them to fade away, can you deny that without UKIP this is unlikely to have occurred?

Likewise. If it were not for Farrage, CMD would still be rolling along refusing to give the promised referendum. He had to sit up and listen when voting for UKIP, people basically said theyre sick of Brussels, the way our government allow them to interfere and that its time for a proper change. Even if the UK stays in, at least there will be a referendum.

Tick. It's them lot in Brussels. Thems the ones who are doing us in. If only we got away from them we'd be dandy. Sounds a bit like the fishy pair making a bigoted rant about the bastid english.

One minute the argument is we're the 5th biggest economy etc. and once liberated from the EU we can do any trade deal we want with anyone in the world (including better terms with one of our biggest markets, the EU?)

The next we're poor down trodden victims who can't get a good deal in EU even though we are one of the biggest players within it.

It is just like the neverendum all over again.

[wiggy001]

///ajd said:

One minute the argument is we're the 5th biggest economy etc. and once liberated from the EU we can do any trade deal we want with anyone in the world (including better terms with one of our biggest markets, the EU?)

The next we're poor down trodden victims who can't get a good deal in EU even though we are one of the biggest players within it.

Read your 2 sentences again then let us know if a) you still think anyone is saying that and b) you feel a bit stupid.

The argument is that we ARE a large economy and there is no reason for us to stay in the EU. We DON'T have a big voice in Europe because we are not part of "THE CLUB" - we are neither Germany with France in toe, nor are we downtrodden Greece/Italy/Spain/Ireland beholden to EU saviours.

As a net contributor to the EU it's logical we gain nothing financially directly. So our decision to stay would have to be moral. And my morals don't stretch to us staying part of a morally and financially corrupt club that takes a lot and gives nothing as far as the UK is concerned.

[technodup]

///ajd said:

Sounds a bit like the fishy pair making a bigoted rant about the bastid english.

The next we're poor down trodden victims who can't get a good deal in EU even though we are one of the biggest players within it.

It is just like the neverendum all over again.

It's really not. Scotland and England share everything with each other and nothing with Europe. Economy, culture, language, currency, a land border etc.

The SNP said Scotland could go it alone based on nothing but hope and a high oil price. The UK has a history of success, a thriving economy, all the infrastructure and governmental processes already in place. Scotland had none of that. So what do we need the EU for?

We don't influence it now, and even if we remain we'll be seen as a reluctant member (just as many on here are now negative to Scotland because of the SNP) so certainly won't hold any more influence after.

I think the whole influence thing is a red herring anyway. I personally don't care much for what benefits Spain hands out or how much debt Greece is in. I'd far rather we sorted ourselves out first as opposed to constantly trying to influence and correct other countries way of thinking. The only time we have any real influence is when we're dropping bombs, and look where that gets us.

At the minute the only thing I can see fking up a Brexit is the various campaigns infighting and making a of it.

[powerstroke]

citizensm1th said:

I hope we stay in Europe just so half of the posters in N,P and E implode with rage

It would be like a massive deer cull

I don't think most will give a fk , and there will be opportunitys for people
in bussiness or who spot opportunities , lawyers will fill their boots , the feckless will still be feckless , the clever and wealthy will carry on
some will leave taking their money and enterprise skills with them .... But the way the EU is going all the member states will sink to the same uncompetitive red tape infested iinward looking level while the rest of the world carrys on ...

Edited by powerstroke on Saturday 6th February 23:50

[///ajd]

wiggy001 said:

///ajd said:

One minute the argument is we're the 5th biggest economy etc. and once liberated from the EU we can do any trade deal we want with anyone in the world (including better terms with one of our biggest markets, the EU?)

The next we're poor down trodden victims who can't get a good deal in EU even though we are one of the biggest players within it.

Read your 2 sentences again then let us know if a) you still think anyone is saying that and b) you feel a bit stupid.

The argument is that we ARE a large economy and there is no reason for us to stay in the EU. We DON'T have a big voice in Europe because we are not part of "THE CLUB" - we are neither Germany with France in toe, nor are we downtrodden Greece/Italy/Spain/Ireland beholden to EU saviours.

As a net contributor to the EU it's logical we gain nothing financially directly. So our decision to stay would have to be moral. And my morals don't stretch to us staying part of a morally and financially corrupt club that takes a lot and gives nothing as far as the UK is concerned.

The two sentences were replays of views of two BREXIT fans. They are on this thread.

If you think that makes them look stupid, well, they're your words.

[davepoth]

///ajd said:

But it won't all collapse. We might limp out having spat our dummy with no real plan for what happens afterwards - only to see DE and FR gleefully legislate us into a backwater.

Playground tantrums. They always end well, don't they?

Except on the current evidence, DE and FR will gleefully legislate themselves into a backwater.

[FiF]

davepoth said:

///ajd said:

But it won't all collapse. We might limp out having spat our dummy with no real plan for what happens afterwards - only to see DE and FR gleefully legislate us into a backwater.

Playground tantrums. They always end well, don't they?

Except on the current evidence, DE and FR will gleefully legislate themselves into a backwater.

There will be a lot more of the empty fear and insult spreading to come unfortunately.

Like the comment about no real plan for what happens afterwards, obviously not read Flexcit, or the Market Solution, which explains the earlier comments which amount to nothing more than insults and banging on about the Scottish referendum.

If people are happy with the EU the way it is, fair enough, entitled to that opinion. If they want into the EU but with reforms, then let them spell out what reforms they want, and more to the point, what they'll do if/when they don't get those reforms, and if it's remain anyway then they may as well be in the first lot.

But simply to think they'll win their arguments by being insulting and belittling, no chance.

On the other hand the tantrums and spats between the various Leave campaigns really won't end well unless each pull to a common coordinated goal. They can each speak to their respective audiences, but they need a common ground and to stop using old arguments that a bus can be driven through.