E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

After a lot of reading;

We have two options.

If we vote remain, we pretty much know what we'll get because it's what we have now.

If we vote leave, all our cards are thrown into the air.
The leave camp would have us believe that they'll all come down in a nice pyramid, but bigger and better than the one we have now.

All the respected economic bodies say that our economy will do badly after Brexit.
You may choose to ignore all of them but if someone in your family was having a life-saving operation, would you trust the advice of a Consultant brain surgeon or get advice from a plumber or some shouty bloke down the pub?

What is for certain is that we'll be tearing up all our trade agreements.
This is not just the ones within the EU but also the 60+ genuinely advantageous agreements we have with other nations through the EU, including the US.
It can take a long time to set up trade deals.
It can take over ten years.
It's not the tarriffs that are the problem, it's all the legal issues; different countries have different standards, different prohibited materials, different safety standards.
This means that any manufacturer would then have to set up different production lines for different countries and they would have to do likewise for us.
What a single market really means is a single set of standards that manufacturers comply to.
This is what the EU is - not some autocratic body challenging our authority but the most advanced trading market in the world.

https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1293361974024537/?pnref=story

Contrary to popular opinion, nothing is really done in the EU without the consent of 'the big three' - the UK, France and Germany.

If we leave, we give up one of the most powerful positions in Europe - for what? To become like Norway and get the latest directives emailed to us without any say in them?

No-one has explained how a nation of our size can negotiate better trade deals than a market of 500m can.

Immigration; we have an opt out of the Schengen agreement.
We do not have open borders for non EU citizens.
If we vote leave, illegal immigration won't change because we have the same borders (unless the French get shirty and don't police their end, in which case we could end up with more)
Refugees - our responsibilities to refugees have nothing to do with the EU and will remain unchanged regardless of the vote.
That leaves EU citizens.
Any deal we cut with the EU following an exit vote will likely involve us still paying contributions to the EU and agreeing to the free movement of peoples.
This is what Norway has.

The leave campaign would have us believe that we can leave a members only club and say that we're not going to be paying our fees, not accept the club rules but still want full use of the facilities.
In the real world is this likely to happen?

The Swiss don't want to accept free movement of people but the EU is playing hard ball with them and not budging.

Is it worth risking our entire economy and the future of our country on the risk that we might be able to have a bit more control over EU migrants - who are more likely to be in work and not getting benefits than UK citizens?

Contributions to the EU; any deal we cut with the EU will involve us still paying contributions.
There's the Brexit 'Pink Fluffy Bunny' version where the EU and the rest of the world will just cave in to our demands and let us dictate terms to them.
Deals will be concluded quickly (not possible) and be 'highly favourable' because we have 'our own representatives' at the table.
Is this really an adult way to plan our Nations future?

Sovereignty; is not even an issue if you listen to people who actually know what they're talking about (at 3.20);
https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1293361974024537/?pnref=story

If you're undecided, or willing to listen; the link above is the most compelling piece of genuine expert opinion I've seen in the whole debate. It is a must see.

 

This is true. I know someone that works with a food product that sells internationally. Their company needs to follow different food standards for each region they sell into. Meaning different recipes and different production lots and different legislation to follow. I'm sure it increases logistical costs as well as production and administration costs

 

Remind me again how our current form of democracy came into being.
My understanding of what you are saying is that we can't change anything, correct?

It is quite clear that any reforms made in the EU that would satisfy our electorate will be swept aside regardless, Look at Cameron's white letter. Adjustments to the treatypossibly made after we vote to remain.....the flip side being if we vote to remain, that is the green light for full integration in the eyes of Brussels and possibly no regard for that white bit of paper.

How much media attention was giving to alt-vote, hardly none, which doesn't surprise me.
However, I do think we need to change the system of voting. Utilizing some technology wouldn't go to miss here.
I do believe that leaving the EU will give us the power to change our system and our political course if we choose to do so.
My biggest fear if we vote to leave is people will go back to being politically inactive on a community level, I believe that is key to changing direction.
If we vote to remain that is exactly what will happen.

@Corky
Well I don't try to hide my "ad hominem attacks" in matter of fact tones, Sorry but that's how you come across.

@Corky @Krazeh
What I am saying is why shouldn't a person who spent an entire career studying something not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they could always go and work for a corporation or business where they would be........held accountable for their actions.
So yeah, Why not have the option for these skilled folks making our laws and rules to be MP's and hold the position with responsibility. Once again, It would provide the shortest route from electorate to policy and maybe give the electorate some pride and faith in the people who govern them. Of course would be unskilled politicians would be out of a job.
I mean, surely if one was held with such esteem and was so dedicated, so honest about their career they wouldn't want some slippery MP standing between them and the people they are making rules for would they?

These are ideas and only that, but that's how democracy started. Nobody say's we can't do it, we'll there are some as we have seen in recent years.

I trust those who I talk to outside of my door, real people in a real community, Most people are just plain old angry at the lies, lack of leadership and professionalism, lack of accountability which extends beyond Westminster to the EU.
Positive change happens from the ground up, not the top down.


@Nexxo
You think new ideas came from towing the line and following the guy in front of you?
I called something out for being wrong, I see it differently and forgive me for seeing a way to make it better (or at least attempting to), I have the means to pass these ideas around (as we all do).

Why can't I not make a point of thinking outside the box, After all this thread has been nothing of a mudslinging fest between leave and remain, left and right, right and wrong.

And Nexxo, I got you to utter "unicorn", I'm still laughing.

 

You are contradicting yourself. You say politics should be conducted by skilled experts. Yet you ignore the skilled experts who tell you that a Brexit would be bad and follow demagogue right wing piliticians who have no expertise in the economy, immigration policy or international law, their arguments based in some feel-good sentiments. You ARE following the guy in front of you.

You base your argument for change --uninformed change-- on: "Hey, people are feeling angry". How is that rule by skill and knowledge?

OK: Im a skilled NHS professional, 24 years in the service, lead clinician. I am saying that a Brexit would be bad for the NHS and that immigration is not the cause of its problems. Are you listening to my expertise yet? Valuing my years of skill, knowledge and experience? Of course not, because it is not what you want to hear. Your ideas of 'skilled politicians' is so much bollocks. You wouldn't be running after a bunch of glib politicians if you truly believed that. Heck, you'd have a clue about how government actually works. So give over already. You're ready to walk this country off a cliff because you are angry. That's all.

 

And so the swiss people voted to scrap their application to join the EU, overwhelmingly. Hard ball indeed.

 

Yep, but they didn't leave the EFTA, did they? They're not scrapping free movement.

 

No, I say skilled experts should be held accountable (in the shoes of MP's) if they wish to experiment with laws and rules which affect an electorate in a democratic system.
The fact these experts are saying to remain, with the sound knowledge they will never be held accountable if/when the EU falls apart (taking us down with it) tells me to proceed with caution.

EDIT: Looking at the EU from a cultural historical point of view, There is a nasty storm brewing, That's just my observation.

Let me tell you Nexxo, I would be screaming from the rooftops to remain in the EU if that was not the case.

I finally have a right to a vote just like everyone else, I alone do not have the capacity to "walk a country off a cliff".
But the politicians that signed us up to Maastrict and Lisbon without a public referendum did so, didn't they.
Who were the experts then? Why did we not here from them? The last time the public had a say was on a trade agreement in the 70's.
You only have to ask "would we join the EU now?" to get the answer why they conducted themselves with lack of publicity.

The EU's answer to every problem is "more centralization" "more power" "more member states" and if anyone thinks these UK opt-outs mean anything they are foolish. That is something the non-accountable experts will not tell you and people should wonder why.

 

Sorry, how will Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage be held accountable if Brexit backfires? They won't even decide what happens afterwards. They've already said so: It's the government's problem to sort out. Johnson and Gove both have denied that they wish to become PM and replace Cameron; he'll be the one left to pick up the pieces, make all the difficult decisions and deal with all the consequences.

Yeah, great accountability. They're so responsible about it that they haven't even got a Brexit plan. They're so accountable that they have already disavowed any role or responsibility in what happens next.

 

The same skilled experts also said that not joining the Euro would spell disaster and that didn't come to pass, that people wouldn't pay much attention to what they say should come as no surprise. As for international law that law is actually trumped by the trust agreement that exists between the nation and its government, hence sovereign nation state. Most people are unaware of this and government would like to keep it that way.

 

Actually Gordon Brown is one of the people who opposed joining the Euro; as someone with a key role in salvaging the global financial crisis in 2008 he might be expected to know his stuff. He is now in favour of remaining in the EU.

But this whole narrative of experts spelling disaster if the UK did not join the Euro is another Brexit myth. In reality they said it would disadvantage the City because the clearing house for Euro transactions would have to be in the Eurozone, this taking a bunch of European financial services out of London. However the UK contested this in the European Court, arguing that it was eligible as a EU member and did not have to adopt the currency to be eligible to house its financial services. Unexpectedly the European Court ruled in favour of the UK so it kept those profitable financial services.

In case of a Brexit however they will definitely leave.

EDIT: the reason why the UK now couldn't join the Euro is not because of a weak Euro, but because of a fragile UK economy, paradoxically. The UK has a huge financial services sector with liabilities to match and not much else in terms of assets and productivity. It has a high level of household debt due to residential mortgages, coupled with the relatively high level of sovereign debt and stubborn primary deficit. All this exposes it to huge risk in a financial global crisis, and if it was in the Euro it would have nowhere to go to mitigate it by quantitative easing or lowering interest rates. Basically it would be a bad deal for both currencies.

 

Always makes me giggle when you talk of Gordon who had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis as chancellor for the previous ten years bravely trying to spend his way to an election victory, er, um, I mean out of the crisis.

What I will agree on is that if the UK had joined the Euro at the start it would have probably destroyed the Euro when the crisis hit. The UK was running a bigger budget deficit that Greece most definitely not all to do with bailing out the two Scottish banks and Northern Rock. The Euro could cope with a small economy crashing like that, but having the UK would have been too much and a chotic breakup inevitable. If anyone has found a serious counter-factual on what might have happened if we'd joined the Euro , I'd be fascinated to read it

 

That's because he didn't; the crisis came from the US, the UK deficit was already reducing when it hit and the current deficit under Osborne is actually larger than it ever was under Brown.

 

At the peak of a boon you should be in surplus not "reducing your deficit". Building up public spending based on cyclical tax revenues from the city isn't exactly "prudence". Bear in mind this was the time when we were ordering aircraft carriers we can barely afford to run.

And funnily enough the deficit does tend to rise higher after a downturn than before it.

 

Not long now and doubt anyone will not be sleeping on Thursday night.

 

We've had this discussion before in the Austerity thread, which all comes down to a total misunderstanding of how a country's economics work. It's not like running a household budget.

I should point out that the previous deficit under the Conservatives was bigger than the deficit ever was under Gordon Brown as well.

 

Sorry but what ad hominem attacks have i tried to hide in a matter of fact tone? Please feel free to point them out.

A person whose spent an entire career studying something isn't held accountable because their not the one that made the decision, that's made by the MP after having read opinions from various people whose spent an entire career studying something, after having read impact assessments, after having read what people working in the field have to say, their the ones that are held accountable because the buck-stops-hear.

But the skilled experts aren't the ones making the decisions, they're just giving their expert advise, it's like asking a builder for advise on an extension you want built, he's not responsible for what you do with that advise as your the one who chooses to either listen to him/her or another builders advise, you're the one that makes the final decision based on input from multiple experts using your own judgment of what you've been told.

You've had the right to vote ever since you reached voting age and that's what i assume you've been doing every time there's been an election, and i assume you've based your vote on the manifestos that told you the direction they wanted to take.

Yes politicians signed us up to Maastricht and Lisbon but that's what you (the country) voted for, you (the country) voted for political parties that wanted to forge closer ties with Europe, from Blair to Thatcher they've all been elected under that premiss, name me one government that's been elected with an openly Eurosceptic view.

No it's not, the Conservative's 2015 manifesto said they've repatriated 100 powers from Brussels, something that was fact checked and found to be true so this claim that the EU only ever takes and never gives back is false.

No they didn't, expert opinion was split at the time, some said it would have a small positive effect others said it would be a small negative effect, iirc in the end the risks to reward ratio was deemed to be to high.

Funnily enough, with all this talk of experts, none of the experts thought we were in a boom at the time, something that with hind sight turned out to be wrong, what you gonna do.

 

Well, on Radio 4 a Leaver has admitted that what a Brexit would look like is a rather fluid concept at the moment, and that if nearly half of the population votes Remain (as he'd expect) then that has to be taken into account and "some agreements may have to be maintained". Basically: the UK would stay in the EEA.

As Corky42 and I pointed out before: it's all a bit of a sham.

 

A clear, concise, independent, expert view on how our trade prospects and investment prospects would really look after a leave vote;

https://www.facebook.com/StrongerInCampaign/videos/1176877825685873/

Less than two minutes long folks

 

@Corky

There was no huge public debate (as we see now) about the signing of those treaties, No prominent mention in the manifestos, NO EXPERTS giving us their "professional" opinions.
Heck, People on the street didn't even know what those treaties were let alone what they contained.
I should know, I did my best to make people aware during Lisbon, people didn't want or care to know about the changes those treaties would give elected, un-elected and corporations, the power to enact, beyond the control of the electorate.
It played nicely into the hands of the people who signed them to not have a public debate....LET ALONE A REFERENDUM, which never happened on both counts.
With the expansion and planned further expansion of the superstate, we can now see why.

This is a problem the British people MUST counter from now on, We HAVE to hold politicians and experts accountable for things they do/don't do and discuss behind closed doors (lack of transparency) We need a legal system enshrined to punish them and protect us, That is for another day in the future I hope.



Flashback...intersting to hear the numbers...how low they were and the predictions of the future.



Economic collapse coming if we stay or leave folks, Plenty of "experts" saying so today.
This is the REAL project fear, the elephant in the room.

 

So whose fault is that?

Actually never mind as it doesn't matter whose fault it was as it's clear that despite claims of never being asked it was the contrary, people didn't care enough to make it an issue, for years people saw the EU as something done to us, something that doesn't effect us, for years the UK ignored the EU and now some 40 years later you want to throw your toys out of the pram because the UK didn't realise something was more important than they gave it credit for.

Yet that Lisbon treaty that you seemed to have thought so badly about has resulted in the repatriation of 100 powers to the UK, powers that could only be handed back because despite claims to the contrary the EU can and has changed.

We do hold politicians accountable, it's called an election.

I get it you're angry at what you see as the ruling elite and you want to punish them, i get it, but leaving the EU isn't going to punish them, far from it, you'll be rewarding them by reducing the voice of the people from 500 million to 65 million, you'll be rewarding them by allowing them to reshape the UK into a system that better serves them not you, you'll be rewarding them by allowing them to act alone without the interference of 27 other nations.

FYI If you want YouTube videos to show up in your post correctly you need to drop the "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=" parts, for example in your above post you'd just paste the "WAfmE6cxcQU" between the "{YOUTUBE] [/YOUTUBE}" bits.