So who wants to remain in the EU?

[Pan Pan Pan]

technodup said:

///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.

I am not sure whether or not, the various out groups getting into a bit of ding dong with eachother will make much difference overall.
At the referendum we should each be given a simple in, or out vote. As' to `which' out group encouraged a person to vote out doesn't seem to matter as long as the individual votes OUT. it is not like we are being asked to vote for a particular out group, we each, are (or should be) voting simply for either IN or OUT of the EU. (or am I missing something here?)
What I am really worried about is the OUT vote actually winning the referendum, but the result being twisted by the powers that be, skewing the result into some kind of staying IN situation.

[irocfan]

twist the vote? Simple - add in "not sure". a large number will vote for that and so it'll be counted as a stay vote

[davepoth]

FiF said:

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.

I'm basing my decision on the full worst case scenario - no free trade agreements with anyone at the beginning, the UK out on its own. That means that in terms of tariffs we'll have to pay the standard Most Favoured Nation rates to import into any country. Here's the IMF average tariff list for Most Favoured Nations.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM...

The EU weighted average is 1%. Some things (agricultural products mainly, because of the French) have a much higher tariff, which means that the vast majority of products have no tax on them at all regardless of where they come from - in essence, free trade. Look at the USA tariff average - 1.5%. A similar thing. Japan - 1.2%. Canada - 1.5%. Australia - 1.8%.

Most of the big trading nations have tariffs so close to 0 that free trade deals are much less important than they used to be.

[FiF]

davepoth said:

FiF said:

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.

I'm basing my decision on the full worst case scenario - no free trade agreements with anyone at the beginning, the UK out on its own. That means that in terms of tariffs we'll have to pay the standard Most Favoured Nation rates to import into any country. Here's the IMF average tariff list for Most Favoured Nations.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM...

The EU weighted average is 1%. Some things (agricultural products mainly, because of the French) have a much higher tariff, which means that the vast majority of products have no tax on them at all regardless of where they come from - in essence, free trade. Look at the USA tariff average - 1.5%. A similar thing. Japan - 1.2%. Canada - 1.5%. Australia - 1.8%.

Most of the big trading nations have tariffs so close to 0 that free trade deals are much less important than they used to be.

Exactly, tariffs are completely just old hat. Removal of tariffs isn't where it's at today.

Look at what's happening on a global basis. Trade is being developed through world organisations where the EU restricts our rights to have any say in decisions on important matters, whilst assuming for itself exclusive competencies. We have no say, unlike, for example Norway.

The EU is an unnecessary complication and frankly an expensive encumbrance. Better off out.

I think I've understood the point you were making as I was earlier really having at poke at the poster you'd quoted and his ilk.

[///ajd]

FiF said:

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.

If you think being compared the the scottish neverendum is an insult to the brexit campaign - you're right, it was a shambles laced with lies (oil price etc). and a nasty streak of anti english nationalism, with baseless promises to be everything to everyone.

It is interesting how similar this is

a) SNP confusing plan for currency = many arguments over brexit approach
b) promising any outcome to whichever Yes group - be they green, SNP etc. = a plan for each brexit faction
c) vague financial predictions with no clear prediction or compelling benefit
d) main constant a need to get away from the evil bogie men (tories/english/westminster = brussels etc.) who are holding us back, and we are better fairer etc.
e) try and put the onus on the status quo to say what they'll do etc.
f) when faced with difficult aspects, make vague baseless soundbites about 'let the people decide our future outside the EU' (presumably wearing a student che guevara t shirt) without any substance

It's all there for in this thread. If you find these clearly factual comparisons insulting, I can't do much about that. They are what they are.

[technodup]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I am not sure whether or not, the various out groups getting into a bit of ding dong with eachother will make much difference overall.

It will. The Scottish referendum showed us that one side was united, driven, had a clear and common goal and it has to be said ran a tremendous campaign.

The No side, made up of factions from various parties who disagree on everything else was disjointed, lacklustre and spoke with no clear voice. Had the referendum been held a month later I think we would have lost it.

The In side now will have the full might of the government machine behind it, pulling the strings. A disjointed Out side, with rival factions who want the same thing but in a different way, or with a different front man will sap attention from the key issue.

The one thing the SNP/Yes campaign did (and is still doing) well was to put all other debate about parties, people, policies etc to one side for the duration. The Out lot would be wise to take a look and learn from it.

[///ajd]

Company spells out risk & cost of leaving EU.

Company is run by BREXIT donor.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/06/br...

[speedy_thrills]

///ajd said:

Company spells out risk & cost of leaving EU. Company is run by BREXIT donor.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/06/br...

So? He can hold paradoxical views. For CMC this may seriously slow their business growth or worse but he may still believe this is the right thing to do from a personal perspective.

You can't limit morality to personal gain after all. I would likely stand to do well if New Zealand had better access to markets in the UK but that doesn't preclude wanting the UK to get the best long-term outcome. In fact we should probably dismiss out-of-hand views that are not clearly balanced, considered or lack objectivity.

[AJS-]

Wow. Political donor in principles shocker.

[ClaphamGT3]

I'm going to make the pollsters heads fall off. Committed federalist who would like to see full European integration with joint competencies on defence, justice & foreign policy and converged regional policies of finance and social affairs.

I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia

[Pan Pan Pan]

technodup said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I am not sure whether or not, the various out groups getting into a bit of ding dong with eachother will make much difference overall.

It will. The Scottish referendum showed us that one side was united, driven, had a clear and common goal and it has to be said ran a tremendous campaign.

The No side, made up of factions from various parties who disagree on everything else was disjointed, lacklustre and spoke with no clear voice. Had the referendum been held a month later I think we would have lost it.

The In side now will have the full might of the government machine behind it, pulling the strings. A disjointed Out side, with rival factions who want the same thing but in a different way, or with a different front man will sap attention from the key issue.

The one thing the SNP/Yes campaign did (and is still doing) well was to put all other debate about parties, people, policies etc to one side for the duration. The Out lot would be wise to take a look and learn from it.

Still don't see it that way. People are not voting for parties here, or for a specific campaigning group, but on a simple IN or OUT of the EU vote, so it does not really matter which OUT campaign a particular voter was influenced by, as long as they simply vote OUT at the referendum.

[Funkycoldribena]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Still don't see it that way. People are not voting for parties here, or for a specific campaigning group, but on a simple IN or OUT of the EU vote, so it does not really matter which OUT campaign a particular voter was influenced by, as long as they simply vote OUT at the referendum.

Totally agree,don't really need anyone.I think people have finally woke up to the gravy train.

[technodup]

Pan Pan Pan said:

People are not voting for parties here, or for a specific campaigning group, but on a simple IN or OUT of the EU vote,

Which is precisely why there needs to be absolute clarity in the key message. And especially as it's the Out side which need to break the status quo.

Having Farage in one group, a prominent Tory in another and some business leader in a third, using different arguments and offering different outcomes will confuse people and dilute the message.

The SNP, Scottish Greens, socialists and others managed this in the IndyRef. No deviation from the Yes message. No mention of differences, no visual differences, no confusion. Just yes, yes, yes.

Keep it simple.

[Einion Yrth]

technodup said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

People are not voting for parties here, or for a specific campaigning group, but on a simple IN or OUT of the EU vote,

Which is precisely why there needs to be absolute clarity in the key message. And especially as it's the Out side which need to break the status quo.

Having Farage in one group, a prominent Tory in another and some business leader in a third, using different arguments and offering different outcomes will confuse people and dilute the message.

The SNP, Scottish Greens, socialists and others managed this in the IndyRef. No deviation from the Yes message. No mention of differences, no visual differences, no confusion. Just yes, yes, yes.

Keep it simple.

But your disjointed, unco-ordinated "No" side, won. Your argument doesn't work for me.

[technodup]

Einion Yrth said:

But your disjointed, unco-ordinated "No" side, won. Your argument doesn't work for me.

Only just. And possibly only because Cameron shat himself and conjured up the vow bks at the 11th hour. The lead was being eroded all the time, from a massive gap at the start.

No won in spite of the Better Together campaign, not because of it.

Out doesn't have the status quo advantage BT had, has polarising figures involved (Farage) and so far has three (I think) campaigns. They've spoken of merging because it makes perfect sense but they're too busy arguing with themselves to act in the greater good. And it's that I think will be a mistake.

ETA: just watching Carswell on Marr. First question about people being confused because UKIP's leader and only MP are in different Out factions. It really doesn't take a genius to realise they should put aside their differences for 6 months to secure their common goal. Mental.

Edited by technodup on Sunday 7th February 18:37

[///ajd]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Still don't see it that way. People are not voting for parties here, or for a specific campaigning group, but on a simple IN or OUT of the EU vote, so it does not really matter which OUT campaign a particular voter was influenced by, as long as they simply vote OUT at the referendum.

The way I remember the Yes referendum was that the SNP managed to rule the whole message with a iron rod and stamped on any wayward messages to focus on the simple "yes, get out, its the english, we'll be fairer, richer, lots of oil, better" etc.

I reality many of the factions had totally different reasons for wanting Yes - this was infact another reason why a Yes would have been an unmitigated disaster as the would have been huge arguments and disatisfaction once the SNP or whoever tried to deliver the false promises of the Yestapo.

Of course, the mantra - it doesn't matter why, just out - exposes some similar lack of clarity on what out really means, or should mean. It is more about getting away from the baddies (brussels etc.), than having any clear plan to do anything else.

Classic nationalism.

If you do get an OUT, then who do you blame for your woes?

[davepoth]

///ajd said:

If you do get an OUT, then who do you blame for your woes?

Ourselves. That's entirely the point.

[FiF]

davepoth said:

///ajd said:

If you do get an OUT, then who do you blame for your woes?

Ourselves. That's entirely the point.

Correct, no excuses.

[don4l]

///ajd said:

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?

Your point was that we had used a veto on banking regulations.

You were wrong on this subject, in the same way that you are wrong on so many other subjects.

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.

The last time that the UK exercised a veto was 19 years ago.

I'd like us to be accurate and honest. You may label this as pedantry, but we really cannot have a straight discussion if you constantly reinterpret what I have written.

So, if you admit that you were wrong when you claimed that the UK used a veto to scupper EU banking regulations, then we can move on to deal with the other bks that you wrote.

[Zod]

///ajd said:

Company spells out risk & cost of leaving EU.

Company is run by BREXIT donor.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/06/br...

The reason CMC's prospectus contains that risk factor is that any UK IPO prospectus at the moment would contain it, in the same way that prospectuses issued in Q3 and Q$ 2014 contained Scottish independence risk factors. Cruddas didn't choose to put it there. The lawyers advised that it was needed. There would be plenty of other examples out there, were it not for the fact that, thanks in part to the Brexit farce, there are hardly any IPOs in the market and there won't be until the farce is over.