Quantcast
EU referendum -UK users

Forums - Politics Discussion - EU referendum -UK users

Leave or remain

Leave 412 53.72%
 
Remain 355 46.28%
 
Total:767
KylieDog said:
The Fury said:

The irony is that many are voting thinking about immigration and the freedom of movement act, yet if we leave we need to draw up an agreement with the EU for trade and with that may come them saying 'agree to the freedom of movement act' (like Norway does), making the immigration part completely pointless.

Won't happen, that is Remain groups trying to make Leave look pointless, but is bullshit like most claims.

If Leave wins it would be political suicide to then go against the will and decision of the people and effectively null one of the major points of the referendum.  Nobody would do it as it is basically ignoring democracy..

That's not the question of the referendum though, is it? 

Problem is, the Leave side don't actually have a coherent plan in place so we're left guessing what would happen. They've said we'd have a deal like Switzerland or Norway in the past yet both of those countries have had to accept free movement of people in order to maintain trade relations. The Swiss system is actually worse because they signed up to Schengen. Even the points system they're now pushing doesn't actually have any substance when you look at it in detail and doesn't then tackle the trade and economic issues that would then arise. 

Even the SNP had a plan for the Scottish referendum. I just don't understand how people can accept this level incoherence and poor planning when the Leave politicians have been pushing this for years.



Around the Network
the_dark_lewd said:

Voted Leave.

The bottom line is just democracy. I don't want my country being governed by laws made by unelected guys in Europe. The ability to kick out people who make bad decisions, so those decisions can be reversed, is absolutely essential if you want to remain a free country.

As the conservative MEP Dan Hannah cleverly quipped the other day: "If the EU applied to join itself, it would be dismissed immediately for being completely undemocratic."

 

maxleresistant said:
I don't know the british economy enough to know if it will be good or bad for them.

The only thing I know, is that if the UK is out, Europe will probably collapse. And I don't even know if it's ood or bad. We can't trust governments, we can't trust politicians and lawmakers, all we know is that we are all fucked.

No-one understands macroeconomics well enough to know. They all feign certainty based on their general worldviews.

Go back and watch various economists debating issues in the past, in cases where we retrospectively know what the outcome ended up being.

I remember seeing a few Nobel Prize winners debating something like government spending after the recession. The US didn't really cut government at all. Whereas the UK did quite a lot. Half of these economists supported 1 policy, the other half supported the other. Now fast forward 5 years and see what happened. UK and US growth are almost identical! It made absolutely no difference what they did.

I don't understand the democracy argument when our own system is no better. The House of Lords is filled with hundreds of unelected people that can dump any legislation they don't like. And it's not like we get to vote for which politicians end up in the most influential cabinet positions (I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hunt or Gove to run anything).

With the EU we vote for our MEPs who represent about 10% of MEPs so we have good overall representation. The EU commission that propose laws are made up of 28 representatives and each one is determined by the leader of each country. It's not different to any other civil servant. They can't actually pass any laws without the agreement of the MEPs (who, as I said, we vote for). 



the_dark_lewd said:
gedge72 said:

Those countries also had to sign up to the freedom of movement in order to access the EU single market, so that would make a mockery of a big reason that people will vote to leave. The idea that we will get as good a trade deal outside as we have in seems pretty unlikely, and UK businesses that export to the EU will still have to adhere to EU regulations in order to trade. So what exactly does that leave? That we will somehow be stronger on our own rather than being part of the second largest economy in the world? There will always be pros and cons, but to me it seems the benefits of being in the EU outweigh the negatives.

Well on the trade issue, yes if you're part of a bigger body you have more negotiating power. But that's hardly the end of the issue. The other part is: how much more regulations do you have to follow to be a part of that bigger body? Most people I speak to on the issue say that essentially what happens is that it just relocates where the costs are. You can get a slightly better deal at the negotiating table. But the cost of getting to that negotiating table has been increased.

The other point to keep in mind is that it's not just the cost of trade IN vs the cost of trade OUT. It's the cost of trade IN vs the cost of trade OUT + the £20Bn membership fee. So the cost of trade could be reduced by £19Bn inside the EU and it would still work out cheaper to leave.

But we're already one of the least regulated countries in the EU. And that doesn't cover his point on the fact we'd still be subject to numerous EU regulations if we wanted to trade with them anyway. 

I also don't get why we supposedly have such a tough time with trade outside the EU yet Germany is more than capable of getting trade with China and the US. 



Scoobes said:
KylieDog said:

Won't happen, that is Remain groups trying to make Leave look pointless, but is bullshit like most claims.

If Leave wins it would be political suicide to then go against the will and decision of the people and effectively null one of the major points of the referendum.  Nobody would do it as it is basically ignoring democracy..

That's not the question of the referendum though, is it? 

Problem is, the Leave side don't actually have a coherent plan in place so we're left guessing what would happen. They've said we'd have a deal like Switzerland or Norway in the past yet both of those countries have had to accept free movement of people in order to maintain trade relations. The Swiss system is actually worse because they signed up to Schengen. Even the points system they're now pushing doesn't actually have any substance when you look at it in detail and doesn't then tackle the trade and economic issues that would then arise. 

Even the SNP had a plan for the Scottish referendum. I just don't understand how people can accept this level incoherence and poor planning when the Leave politicians have been pushing this for years.

The SNP were a single party able to place a manifesto for their view.

The leave campaign includes incredibly right wing, centrists, left wing, socialists, trade unions etc. It's hardly a shock that they would all have conflicting ideas as to the best way to proceed after a brexit.

 

Why does such an obvious thing need pointing out to people?

 

Socialists who don't like the EU don't like that it doesn't allow state aid for industry.

 

The more right wing don't like the universal protections.

 

Nationalists just don't like Brussels overriding our own parliaments.

 

Some businessmen think their businesses are held back and they would be able to make better decisions without the EU rules.

 

It would be down to an elected government to shape our direction after the population vote based on their manifestos.

 

This is what makes this such a different decision to any I know I've ever had to make in my lifetime.

 

Every brexit argument is merely sometging that we CAN do outside the EU. It's not what we will do.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Scoobes said:
the_dark_lewd said:

Voted Leave.

The bottom line is just democracy. I don't want my country being governed by laws made by unelected guys in Europe. The ability to kick out people who make bad decisions, so those decisions can be reversed, is absolutely essential if you want to remain a free country.

As the conservative MEP Dan Hannah cleverly quipped the other day: "If the EU applied to join itself, it would be dismissed immediately for being completely undemocratic."

 

No-one understands macroeconomics well enough to know. They all feign certainty based on their general worldviews.

Go back and watch various economists debating issues in the past, in cases where we retrospectively know what the outcome ended up being.

I remember seeing a few Nobel Prize winners debating something like government spending after the recession. The US didn't really cut government at all. Whereas the UK did quite a lot. Half of these economists supported 1 policy, the other half supported the other. Now fast forward 5 years and see what happened. UK and US growth are almost identical! It made absolutely no difference what they did.

I don't understand the democracy argument when our own system is no better. The House of Lords is filled with hundreds of unelected people that can dump any legislation they don't like. And it's not like we get to vote for which politicians end up in the most influential cabinet positions (I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hunt or Gove to run anything).

With the EU we vote for our MEPs who represent about 10% of MEPs so we have good overall representation. The EU commission that propose laws are made up of 28 representatives and each one is determined by the leader of each country. It's not different to any other civil servant. They can't actually pass any laws without the agreement of the MEPs (who, as I said, we vote for). 

2 completely different scenarios. They're actually opposites.

UK house if lords debate laws proposed by the elected body.

EU MEPs debate laws proposed by the unelected commission.

 

Though again. We through the centuries chose our system. We did not choose the EU structure.

Is this really rocket science to people who don't understand why the EU is falling out of favour with EU citizens?

 

I'm really getting sick of remain's blatent lies, when all they do is accuse leave of lying. Newsflash, both sides are lying.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Around the Network
MikeRox said:
Scoobes said:

I don't understand the democracy argument when our own system is no better. The House of Lords is filled with hundreds of unelected people that can dump any legislation they don't like. And it's not like we get to vote for which politicians end up in the most influential cabinet positions (I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hunt or Gove to run anything).

With the EU we vote for our MEPs who represent about 10% of MEPs so we have good overall representation. The EU commission that propose laws are made up of 28 representatives and each one is determined by the leader of each country. It's not different to any other civil servant. They can't actually pass any laws without the agreement of the MEPs (who, as I said, we vote for). 

2 completely different scenarios. They're actually opposites.

UK house if lords debate laws proposed by the elected body.

EU MEPs debate laws proposed by the unelected commission.

 

Though again. We through the centuries chose our system. We did not choose the EU structure.

Is this really rocket science to people who don't understand why the EU is falling out of favour with EU citizens?

 

I'm really getting sick of remain's blatent lies, when all they do is accuse leave of lying. Newsflash, both sides are lying.

They're opposite, yet still as undemocratic as each other. Not really an argument either way for me which is why I don't understand it. Two systems, both shit. 

And because it's a system that we chose after centuries makes it better? That's terrible reasoning considering we  helped "choose" the EU structure as much as we chose the current British system. I suppose Saudi Arabia having "chosen" its ruling monarchy means its better than these upstart democracies that keep cropping up?

And yes, both sides are lying and I'm getting fed up of it. 



MikeRox said:
Scoobes said:

That's not the question of the referendum though, is it? 

Problem is, the Leave side don't actually have a coherent plan in place so we're left guessing what would happen. They've said we'd have a deal like Switzerland or Norway in the past yet both of those countries have had to accept free movement of people in order to maintain trade relations. The Swiss system is actually worse because they signed up to Schengen. Even the points system they're now pushing doesn't actually have any substance when you look at it in detail and doesn't then tackle the trade and economic issues that would then arise. 

Even the SNP had a plan for the Scottish referendum. I just don't understand how people can accept this level incoherence and poor planning when the Leave politicians have been pushing this for years.

The SNP were a single party able to place a manifesto for their view.

The leave campaign includes incredibly right wing, centrists, left wing, socialists, trade unions etc. It's hardly a shock that they would all have conflicting ideas as to the best way to proceed after a brexit.

 

Why does such an obvious thing need pointing out to people?

 

Socialists who don't like the EU don't like that it doesn't allow state aid for industry.

 

The more right wing don't like the universal protections.

 

Nationalists just don't like Brussels overriding our own parliaments.

 

Some businessmen think their businesses are held back and they would be able to make better decisions without the EU rules.

 

It would be down to an elected government to shape our direction after the population vote based on their manifestos.

 

This is what makes this such a different decision to any I know I've ever had to make in my lifetime.

 

Every brexit argument is merely sometging that we CAN do outside the EU. It's not what we will do.

Except only one of these parties actually has a majority in the house of commons and as such they should be the ones to put together a detailed plan. Having a wide group of people with different reasons for Brexit is no excuse for not having something more concrete in place.

All the other groups can't actually do anything without some pretty major alliances across different parties with very different ideologies. 



American here. I hope they stay. The EU needs reforming though. The instability of an exit will roil the markets. Any sharp economic downturn that hits America will be blamed on Obama and hurt Hillary potentially propelling Trump to presidency.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

MikeRox said:

See my response post. We can't make trade deals with any country. It has to be done by the whole EU for the whole EU.

We can TRADE with countries the EU doesn't have deals with, but if we wanted to amend terms in a way which we and that country think would be beneficial, we can't.

So we can make trade deals with countries EU doesn't have trade deals with yet can't make trade deals the EU has deals with. But if we already have a deal with a country in the EU setup why would we then setup a separate deal outside the EU setup with the same country? Undercutting the EUs deal in some way to gain some kind of advantage?



Hmm, pie.

Scoobes said:

I don't understand the democracy argument when our own system is no better. The House of Lords is filled with hundreds of unelected people that can dump any legislation they don't like. And it's not like we get to vote for which politicians end up in the most influential cabinet positions (I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hunt or Gove to run anything).

With the EU we vote for our MEPs who represent about 10% of MEPs so we have good overall representation. The EU commission that propose laws are made up of 28 representatives and each one is determined by the leader of each country. It's not different to any other civil servant. They can't actually pass any laws without the agreement of the MEPs (who, as I said, we vote for). 

That's a complete non-sequitur. 80% democracy is better that 60%. It's not binary. After we ditch the EU, we can consider ditching the house of lords if we want.

Yes, the commission proposes the laws. That's where the power lies. The MEPs input into that is incredibly weak, because you slant everything by only ever proposing laws that go in a single direction on a particular issue. Imagine if there's an issue where the population is divided between positions A and B. Half of the MEPs are therefore representing people who want position A and half for people who want position B. Well the commission can then propose 10 different laws that work towards position A and none than works toward position B. They'll then say "well you had the chance to reject our 10 laws, so it was still ultimately up to you".  That just doesn't work. Sooner or later, that leads to you going with position A. It's just rigging the system. Like weighting a coin flip.