So who wants to remain in the EU?

[wolves_wanderer]

Scuffers said:

MarshPhantom said:

There may be "info" out there. Who wrote it and what is their agenda?

You have no way of knowing what the the future may hold after brexit.

really?

is it that hard to figure out who wrote anything and figure out what (if any) agenda they have?

Here, I'll gibe you some starters:

Anything published by:

BBC, LSE, CBI, Lib/Lab/Con, Any university, Any company who is involved with government contracts (ie Serso/Capita/etc), Greens, JP Morgan and all their chums, any environmental group, etc. will all be lying to you.

And anything published by Breitbart, UKIP, Nigel Farage [pbuh], any one of the several leave campaigns or the Daily Mail will be true

[s2art]

wolves_wanderer said:

And anything published by Breitbart, UKIP, Nigel Farage [pbuh], any one of the several leave campaigns or the Daily Mail will be true

To be fair, Farage has a good track record. He has been right more often then anyone else where the EU is concerned, or even where Putin is concerned.

[Scuffers]

wolves_wanderer said:

And anything published by Breitbart, UKIP, Nigel Farage [pbuh], any one of the several leave campaigns or the Daily Mail will be true

did I say that?

did I even hint at that?

There is plenty of published material out there that's not politically tainted.

[FiF]

Scuffers said:

plasticpig said:

If there will be no punitive import tariffs why does Norway have a tariff of 277% for importing Cheddar cheese?

wow, that's a real biggie!

Now quantify this in £/pa

and I am sure there's probably some history here.

Because Norway put a 72% tarrif on Cheddar cheese and some others to protect sales of Jarlsberg etc. It was a stupid protectionist deed pushed by a small Center party desperate to look after its support from the farming lobby.

Tarrif wars, nobody wins.

In the main as written above tariffs aren't where free trade is these days, it's standardisation and removal of technical barriers to trade, the development of which is at a global level. EU is just an interfering middleman. I did say I wasn't going to give up reminding people of this.

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

Tariff wars, nobody wins.

I'm not sure about that. Wasn't the USA booming with the (presumably small) state funded by tariffs and no income tax?

[FiF]

Esseesse said:

FiF said:

Tariff wars, nobody wins.

I'm not sure about that. Wasn't the USA booming with the (presumably small) state funded by tariffs and no income tax?

First of all will apologise for my abysmal and variable spelling in the earlier post.

Now when was this to which you refer, just for my education. Thanks.

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

Esseesse said:

FiF said:

Tariff wars, nobody wins.

I'm not sure about that. Wasn't the USA booming with the (presumably small) state funded by tariffs and no income tax?

First of all will apologise for my abysmal and variable spelling in the earlier post.

Now when was this to which you refer, just for my education. Thanks.

Apart from a few years, there was no income tax in the US until 1914, and significant tariffs. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, however the idea that 'tariffs == nobody wins' seems to currently be the conventional wisdom and goes unchallenged, despite tariffs until recently seeming to be quite common.

[TEKNOPUG]

walm said:

TEKNOPUG said:

And why can't you continue to employ these people post BREXIT? What risk? What does the EU provide, that only the EU could provide?

OK perhaps I have misunderstood the whole point of Brexit.
All the kippers seem to insist that we should be out because all these nasty Eurotrash have come over and either stolen our jobs or taken our benefits.

So if we Brexit then these people (EU migrants) will no longer be able to work in the UK, thus saving British Jobs for British Workers.

That means I won't be able to employ cheaper, better qualified and more hardworking Poles, doesn't it?

Unless of course there is still free movement of labour (like Switzerland) in which case there is no point Brexiting in the first place???

(I agree it would be nice not to throw money at Strasbourg but ignoring that bit for a moment and concentrating on the employment/immigration side...)

It's a referendum to determine the UK's continued membership of the EU, not to determine whether UKIP form the next Government, you do understand that, right?

Post BREXIT, we can let into the country whoever we damn well like - the entire world if we want. Or not. That's the point. If we want to continue to admit better qualified and more hardworking Poles, we can. Currently we have no say over 742m residents of the EU. We might, for example, not wish to allow unqualified, lazy Poles, is that a bad thing? That's just one of many benefits of exiting the EU.

So I'd say yes, you have misunderstood the whole point of Brexit.

[fido]

plasticpig said:

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was abandoned. Lisbon was what occurred afterwards when they decided to just reform the current treaties rather than tearing up everything and imposing a complete new agreement which is what the Constitution for Europe was meant to do.

Not to mention getting the Irish to vote twice just to get a 'Yes'. That's EU democracy for you!

[alfie2244]

walm said:

Well I for one enjoy employing skilled workers for half the usual price for Walm Towers home improvements.
In my team of 9 at work, 3 are from the EU not the UK. I don't want to lose them.
Although I could do without the chocolates the Polish guy insists on bringing back from home when he visits... urgh.

In fairness, like Switzerland I am sure it COULD be possible to maintain many of the benefits from outside but it is the UNCERTAINTY that I have a problem with.
That risk just isn't worth it given the benefit of exiting appears minimal.

It's beyond me how someone can post such long and detailed replies and yet does not understand the basic fundamentals of what the IN / OUT referendum is all about.

Control our own country which in simple terms,and in relation to your post, means being able to decide who we want to let into the country, whether from Europe or elsewhere in the world, based on the country's requirements - be that Polish builders for Walm Towers or a GP for your health....which, incidentally, isn't the case at the moment due to the UK being in the EU and discriminating against those outside of it.

How does that sound?

[Scuffers]

walm said:

That risk just isn't worth it given the benefit of exiting appears minimal.

Minimal?

really?

predictions are some 8% drop in cost of living just for starters, I don't call that minimal, do you?


https://youtu.be/leKEUT1TiLU

[plasticpig]

alfie2244 said:

It's beyond me how someone can post such long and detailed replies and yet does not understand the basic fundamentals of what the IN / OUT referendum is all about.

Control our own country which in simple terms,and in relation to your post, means being able to decide who we want to let into the country, whether from Europe or elsewhere in the world, based on the country's requirements - be that Polish builders for Walm Towers or a GP for your health....which, incidentally, isn't the case at the moment due to the UK being in the EU and discriminating against those outside of it.

How does that sound?

It's nothing to do with being in the EU. The EU has absolutely no say in who the UK lets in from outside the EU. The discrimination is purely down to Cameron trying to keep to his pledge to restrict immigration.

[FiF]

Esseesse said:

FiF said:

Esseesse said:

FiF said:

Tariff wars, nobody wins.

I'm not sure about that. Wasn't the USA booming with the (presumably small) state funded by tariffs and no income tax?

First of all will apologise for my abysmal and variable spelling in the earlier post.

Now when was this to which you refer, just for my education. Thanks.

Apart from a few years, there was no income tax in the US until 1914, and significant tariffs. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, however the idea that 'tariffs == nobody wins' seems to currently be the conventional wisdom and goes unchallenged, despite tariffs until recently seeming to be quite common.

Just wondering what the USA balance of trade was in those days. Certainly a small state. Guess in those days there was a significant element of protectionism to protect local industry.

I think the conventional wisdom comes from various studies which included modelling to suggest that in the event of a trade war both countries end up worse off than if they had enjoyed free trade principally due to retaliation.

[dandarez]

walm said:

TEKNOPUG said:

I'd like some evidence as to why being in the EU is beneficial, where it is going and how those benefits can only be enjoyed by remaining in the EU.

Well I for one enjoy employing skilled workers for half the usual price for Walm Towers home improvements.
In my team of 9 at work, 3 are from the EU not the UK. I don't want to lose them.
Although I could do without the chocolates the Polish guy insists on bringing back from home when he visits... urgh.

In fairness, like Switzerland I am sure it COULD be possible to maintain many of the benefits from outside but it is the UNCERTAINTY that I have a problem with.
That risk just isn't worth it given the benefit of exiting appears minimal.

Who on earth have you been listening to? What makes you believe you'll lose your European workers?
YOU WON'T!

That's like me worrying I'll lose my customers across Europe (note I don't say the EU, that's the doomed and failed project). I won't lose them ...I know, I've asked them (some time ago, and recently). The companies I use too, are not going anywhere, one is French-owned and 'over here'. Guess why? They have too much money tied up here and are making too much money to uproot.

You're just getting falsehoods from the slimy jerks who want the gravy train to continue. Fortunately, it looks like their message is being so f'd up by them, they are losing the argument more as each day passes. Good!

[alfie2244]

plasticpig said:

alfie2244 said:

It's beyond me how someone can post such long and detailed replies and yet does not understand the basic fundamentals of what the IN / OUT referendum is all about.

Control our own country which in simple terms,and in relation to your post, means being able to decide who we want to let into the country, whether from Europe or elsewhere in the world, based on the country's requirements - be that Polish builders for Walm Towers or a GP for your health....which, incidentally, isn't the case at the moment due to the UK being in the EU and discriminating against those outside of it.

How does that sound?

It's nothing to do with being in the EU. The EU has absolutely no say in who the UK lets in from outside the EU. The discrimination is purely down to Cameron trying to keep to his pledge to restrict immigration.

Semantics I suppose but because we can't control movement within the EU we therefore don't have the option to employ skilled builders (that Walm Towers needs) from outside the EU... so IMO there is a direct correlation.

eta the best chippy I ever employed came from SA but was refused permission to stay in the country

Edited by alfie2244 on Wednesday 10th February 18:55

[don'tbesilly]

MarshPhantom said:

I'll vote to stay if only because we have no idea what may happen if we leave. There are no facts, it's all guesswork and lies, and I think we need more than that to make such a big decision.

This post sums up what a lot of people will think and act on unfortunately.

Happy to put up with what we currently have, happy with the lies being fed them by Cameron and his cohorts and the apparent (not true) concessions being made/won.

Arguably the biggest decision many will make in their lifetime about their future in the UK is being made on the back of the alleged lies being told them by the 'out' groups being bigger/worse than those being told by the 'in' group.

It's both very sad and unbelievable.

[wolves_wanderer]

don'tbesilly said:

This post sums up what a lot of people will think and act on unfortunately.

Happy to put up with what we currently have, happy with the lies being fed them by Cameron and his cohorts and the apparent (not true) concessions being made/won.

Arguably the biggest decision many will make in their lifetime about their future in the UK is being made on the back of the alleged lies being told them by the 'out' groups being bigger/worse than those being told by the 'in' group.

It's both very sad and unbelievable.

For a big decision like this a lot of people need more than airy promises to make a leap into the unknown.

[grumbledoak]

wolves_wanderer said:

For a big decision like this a lot of people need more than airy promises to make a leap into the unknown.

Can you remind me how we got "in"?

[v8250]

As per thread title...well, the Swiss certainly want as little as possible to do with the EU and Islamification. Have been following the Swiss for a while now...hat's off to them for standing up to their independent federal rights. They even banned the building of minarets as far back as 2009. This for your evening's pleasure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCW2hxux3Ro

Love the phrase..."The prophet's beard is not for fondling..."

[Murph7355]

MarshPhantom said:

I'll vote to stay if only because we have no idea what may happen if we leave. There are no facts, it's all guesswork and lies, and I think we need more than that to make such a big decision.

Out of interest, do you think you know what will happen under the auspices of "ever closer union" if we stay in?

Which additional countries are going to be brought in? What other restrictions, fees, rules etc we may be subjected to?

And should you not like those things, what can you do about it? Who do you vote for....?

My guess is that not much will change for the first few years after the vote. But I do not like the idea of an unelected power holding sway over my future....