EU referendum

[Wes Tender]

Thats not the choice though is it? Rightly or wrongly the Common Market has gone. No the choice is being on our own in a globalised economy, or part of a 28 nation bloc.

 

Naturally we will attempt to renegotiate a new trading relationship with Europe, but could we not join or help form other trading blocs? Why would we have to be on our own?

 

Or in simple analogy terms, if you leave one club, you are free to join others, aren't you?

[buctootim]

Or in simple analogy terms, if you leave one club, you are free to join others, aren't you?

 

Of course. but the trouble is that most are in a club already.

 

I wish the EU had stayed as it was in about 1990. Free movement of people and trade in a smaller group of countries with roughly the same level of economic development. I dont dispute that was better.

 

For the life of me I genuinely cant see a viable option for the UK outside of the EU which doesnt entail a big hit on our wealth and employment. There is a reason every country in Europe is either in the EU; in a free access agreement with it or queuing up to join.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It seems a perfectly reasonable question, but as you cannot with any certainty give any credible reason as to why we couldn't have achieved pretty well the same trade results and economic growth solely as part of the original Common Market rather than as part of the EU, you resort to the typical ploy of somebody stuck for an answer and pour scorn on the question.

 

What do you mean "even you"? Show me anywhere where I have stated the opinion that it was possible to predict what the situation would be had we not joined the European "project." Likewise, I have also found it almost impossible to get the stay brigade to accept that it is not certain that the status quo will be maintained looking forward and that the future under our continued membership is also a leap in the dark.

 

I'm sorry, but I think that your analogy is simplistic crap. Criminal trials deal with fact, not the sort of wild speculation and supposition dressed up as fact that is bandied about by both sides. There simply is no proof either way and the electorate will therefore vote depending on what they believe to be the factors that motivate them personally.

 

You seem to be struggling to comprehend what is I think eminently straightforward and reasonable point. So I'll try again to explain it to you in as simple a way as I can.

 

No one - neither you nor me - can possibly PROVE what would have occured in our economy had we never joined, or indeed have exited, the EU at some point in the unspecified past. The (rather obvious) reason that cannot be proved is that the proposition is an entirly hypothetical one at this time. What we do know for a hard FACT that our economy has performed relatively well within the EU.

 

So we have that factual record of relative economic success in the EU pitted against a Britex hypothesis that we could somehow do even better on our own for some reason. If you don't like my trial analogy then I'll try a scientific one one and see if you like that more. Before any hypothesis can become excepted then those proposing it have to show why it is correct.

The 'Stay' campaign does not have to prove how our economy has actually performed within the single market because that is a matter ot record anyone can check for themselves - so not at all your "wild speculaton" then. The Britex campaign on the other hand do have to show to the British people why we would do better outside of the EU, and its huge single market, because that - unlike the opposit case - remains a highly speculative argument. That persuasive case has yet to be presented by the Britex campaign in my opinion.

 

Now I'm prepared to go over these same points with you from now to kingdom come if you like. However, one suspects that is unlikely to be a very profitable use of time for either of us because we are clearly never going to agree.

[moonraker]

No-one is saying all 75m would come to the UK or that Turkey are going to be joining this year. BUt thanks for your contribution.

 

I remember you telling us before about how much immigration there had been into Bath, you can't really be taken seriously.

 

I was not aware that your place of residence imposed some sort of superiority on your opinion or made it more informed, I have the exactly the same number of votes as you. What I cannot take seriously is people who bandy about claims and numbers and then continually modify their reasoning. You said soon, not this year, you used 75 million without any context. The one thing you have got right is you are wasting your breath, no amount of scaremongering about immigration, European super states, loss of sovereignty or any off the other negatives you perceive will change my view. Leaving the EU is a regressive step, backward looking that will not improve the quality of life for the vast majority of UK residents. It is the out campaign that cannot or should not be taken seriously I still have not read anything that presents a coherent and believable case for Brexit.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by moonraker

[Sour Mash]

I was not aware that your place of residence imposed some sort of superiority on your opinion or made it more informed, I have the exactly the same number of votes as you. What I cannot take seriously is people who bandy about claims and numbers and then continually modify their reasoning. You said soon, not this year, you used 75 million without any context. The one thing you have got right is you are wasting your breath, no amount of scaremongering about immigration, European super states, loss of sovereignty or any off the other negatives you perceive will change my view. Leaving the EU is a regressive step, backward looking that will not improve the quality of life for the vast majority of UK residents. It is the out campaign that cannot or should not be taken seriously I still have not read anything that presents a coherent and believable case for Brexit.

No, I was just reminiscing about you trying to convince us you lived somewhere that had been significantly impacted by immigration, when it turned out you lived in Bath, just funny that's all.

 

It's alright where you live and doesn't impact you directly, so you don't care about it. That's fair enough I guess.

[aintforever]

Well I'm not sure why on earth you think that I am somehow immune from economic effects and there is precious little hard evidence that migration has driven down wages in our economy.

 

Except I've seen it with my own eyes at my company and elsewhere.

[Wes Tender]

You seem to be struggling to comprehend what is I think eminently straightforward and reasonable point. So I'll try again to explain it to you in as simple a way as I can.

 

No one - neither you nor me - can possibly PROVE what would have occured in our economy had we never joined, or indeed have exited, the EU at some point in the unspecified past. The (rather obvious) reason that cannot be proved is that the proposition is an entirly hypothetical one at this time. What we do know for a hard FACT that our economy has performed relatively well within the EU.

 

So we have that factual record of relative economic success in the EU pitted against a Britex hypothesis that we could somehow do even better on our own for some reason. If you don't like my trial analogy then I'll try a scientific one one and see if you like that more. Before any hypothesis can become excepted then those proposing it have to show why it is correct.

The 'Stay' campaign does not have to prove how our economy has actually performed within the single market because that is a matter ot record anyone can check for themselves - so not at all your "wild speculaton" then. The Britex campaign on the other hand do have to show to the British people why we would do better outside of the EU, and its huge single market, because that - unlike the opposit case - remains a highly speculative argument. That persuasive case has yet to be presented by the Britex campaign in my opinion.

 

Now I'm prepared to go over these same points with you from now to kingdom come if you like. However, one suspects that is unlikely to be a very profitable use of time for either of us because we are clearly never going to agree.

 

I really have to laugh at the assertion that I didn't understand your point, when I had made the same one myself earlier, that nobody could prove whether we would have been better off never having joined the European project. Furthermore, nobody can predict our future prosperity if we stay or if we leave. What is difficult to understand about that?

 

I have accepted that we have been reasonably successful in the EU, but with the caveat already acknowledged by you that we may well have fared better outside. This is really simple stuff so far, so I hope that you have no problems with it.

 

The nitty-gritty is whether in the future we would do better staying in the EU, or better off leaving. You can base your position on our record of the past by all means, but you must accept that our future prosperity outside of the EU would include substantial continuance of our trade with the Euro-zone, despite all of the doom-laden predictions inferring that somehow we would be going it alone, facing trade tariffs, having to accept freedom of movement of people, etc, etc. This ground is already well-trodden and if you believe that how it was in the past with the EU is how it will remain in the future, then good for you. There have already been substantial changes in many of the economies of the Eurozone and seismic recent immigration problems that make the future very uncertain either way.

 

In the same way that we will agree to disagree, as I said, the electorate will vote depending on what they believe to be the factors that motivate them personally. That is the economy, immigration, sovereignty, all sorts of things.

 

PS. Britex is variously a maker of car seatbelts, a fabric supplier, or an Aussie Urinal manufacturer. I believe you meant Brexit.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I really have to laugh at the assertion that I didn't understand your point, when I had made the same one myself earlier, that nobody could prove whether we would have been better off never having joined the European project. Furthermore, nobody can predict our future prosperity if we stay or if we leave. What is difficult to understand about that?

 

I have accepted that we have been reasonably successful in the EU, but with the caveat already acknowledged by you that we may well have fared better outside. This is really simple stuff so far, so I hope that you have no problems with it.

 

The nitty-gritty is whether in the future we would do better staying in the EU, or better off leaving. You can base your position on our record of the past by all means, but you must accept that our future prosperity outside of the EU would include substantial continuance of our trade with the Euro-zone, despite all of the doom-laden predictions inferring that somehow we would be going it alone, facing trade tariffs, having to accept freedom of movement of people, etc, etc. This ground is already well-trodden and if you believe that how it was in the past with the EU is how it will remain in the future, then good for you. There have already been substantial changes in many of the economies of the Eurozone and seismic recent immigration problems that make the future very uncertain either way.

 

In the same way that we will agree to disagree, as I said, the electorate will vote depending on what they believe to be the factors that motivate them personally. That is the economy, immigration, sovereignty, all sorts of things.

 

PS. Britex is variously a maker of car seatbelts, a fabric supplier, or an Aussie Urinal manufacturer. I believe you meant Brexit.

 

If you really want to debate the thorny problem of predicting our econmic future, then surely the best place to start from is the known ground of where we now stand in the EU, rather than this unknowable future on our lonesome you are arguing for.

 

The record shows that we have been relativly successful economically in the EU for some time now. Indeed, it seems that the UK has at long last found something of a 'sweet spot' - i.e. inside the EU but outside of the single currancy - where it may well prosper for generations to come. Our economy is far from perfect of course and has problems that require urgent action, principly surrounding our public finances and poor productivity record. However, we do now have record high levels of employment, decreasing unemployment, a growth rate that is the envey of many other states and remarkably low inflation too. So hardly a picture of some EU sponsered hell hole that we must escape at all costs is it?

 

It is simply not true to equate the risks of our staying within the EU with the risks of leaving because the two situations are far from analogous. For example, we can predict with some degree of confidence the trading environment our economy will face within the EU in the decades to come, while outside no one can say what would happen because there is simply no relevant precedent to base a judgment on. A leap of faith.

 

Why on earth any responsible person would want to risk what we have now for the "pocket full of promises" on offer from europhobes such as yourself remains something of a mystery to this observer of events.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[moonraker]

No, I was just reminiscing about you trying to convince us you lived somewhere that had been significantly impacted by immigration, when it turned out you lived in Bath, just funny that's all.

 

It's alright where you live and doesn't impact you directly, so you don't care about it. That's fair enough I guess.

 

I recognise that Bath is not as imapcted by immigartion as larger cities, however I have lived in Southampton (Well Park Gate) and that other place down the road, I have claose family in Peterborough so I am not ignorant of the different impacts immigration has across the country. Just for the record Bath has an immigrant population (not counting students) of 10%.

Edited 22 March, 2016 by moonraker

[Lord Duckhunter]

A fine seaside town marred only by the presence of Harry Redknapp ...

 

**** me I'm moving , Redknapp is one thing but living near a pinko like Charlie quite another

[Wade Garrett]

Does anyone think, bearing in mind our shortage of housing and creaking public services, that we benefit from inward freedom of movement? I just can't see it. We are a small nation in size and I just don't see it as sustainable.

 

Are you comfortable with the lack of democracy in the EU? In the UK, we can vote out governments we don't like. We can't do that with the EU. If we want change within the superstate, it is nigh on impossible to get the level of agreement necessary.

[badgerx16]

Are you comfortable with the lack of democracy in the EU? In the UK, we can vote out governments we don't like.

 

Since WW2, no UK government has been elected with a majority of the vote.

[Whitey Grandad]

Does anyone think, bearing in mind our shortage of housing and creaking public services, that we benefit from inward freedom of movement? I just can't see it. We are a small nation in size and I just don't see it as sustainable.

 

Are you comfortable with the lack of democracy in the EU? In the UK, we can vote out governments we don't like. We can't do that with the EU. If we want change within the superstate, it is nigh on impossible to get the level of agreement necessary.

 

I have never found that my vote has made any difference.

[Batman]

I have never found that my vote has made any difference.

 

the vote in the UK is far more powerful than anything we have in the EU or likely to ever have

[moonraker]

the vote in the UK is far more powerful than anything we have in the EU or likely to ever have

 

But surely this can't be true as the E U make all the laws!

[Wes Tender]

But surely this can't be true as the E U make all the laws!

 

Precisely. And they made the law that said that their laws have precedence over ours. But I'm sure that you're happy about that.

[John B]

Precisely. And they made the law that said that their laws have precedence over ours. But I'm sure that you're happy about that.

 

We are part of the EU and are involved with creating Laws there we also have the veto but what laws are you concerned with

 

Most seem pretty good to me on workers rights and the environment

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

We are part of the EU and are involved with creating Laws there we also have the veto but what laws are you concerned with

 

Most seem pretty good to me on workers rights and the environment

 

I guess he is still upset about the lightbulbs.

[Wes Tender]

I guess he is still upset about the lightbulbs.

 

Typical of the remainers to trivialise the important issues. I prefer to consider the bigger picture.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12175398/EU-Referendum-everything-you-need-to-know-about-British-sovereignty.html

[moonraker]

Precisely. And they made the law that said that their laws have precedence over ours. But I'm sure that you're happy about that.

 

Well as any one who can be bothered to find out would know that is plain wrong. The power vested in the EU is enshrined in successive treaties agreed between national Governments e.g Maastricht , Lisbon. Whilst I am sure you will dismiss the fact, it is a fact that treaties can be changed, indeed to achieve your vision of hell, the US Europe, would require a treaty change. The principles behind joint EU law-making make a lot of sense, commonality of law makes cross border trading easier. The current system is founded, as I am sure you are aware, on the principle of Subsidiarity, in practice this means that the vast majority of laws are made at national, not EU, level. Making law at EU level makes sense in certain circumstances E.G. due to scale, trans border factors.

[Wes Tender]

Well as any one who can be bothered to find out would know that is plain wrong. The power vested in the EU is enshrined in successive treaties agreed between national Governments e.g Maastricht , Lisbon. Whilst I am sure you will dismiss the fact, it is a fact that treaties can be changed, indeed to achieve your vision of hell, the US Europe, would require a treaty change. The principles behind joint EU law-making make a lot of sense, commonality of law makes cross border trading easier. The current system is founded, as I am sure you are aware, on the principle of Subsidiarity, in practice this means that the vast majority of laws are made at national, not EU, level. Making law at EU level makes sense in certain circumstances E.G. due to scale, trans border factors.

 

Cross EU laws make sense in some instances, but not in others. It would be nice if we could decide which was which.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Typical of the remainers to trivialise the important issues. I prefer to consider the bigger picture.

 

Is it the Hoovers then?

[CB Fry]

Typical of the remainers to trivialise the important issues. I prefer to consider the bigger picture.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12175398/EU-Referendum-everything-you-need-to-know-about-British-sovereignty.html

 

 

Funny. That articles has lots of "coulds" , "might be", "might", "may" and all about predictions of things that might or may happen.

 

Yesterday you were getting jolly upset about reports like that and concluded that absolutely no one can predict anything about anything that could ever happen were we to stay or leave on any part because no one can ever predict anything that can happen in the future.

 

So I expect you to dismiss this much like any other report that dares to predict the future, right?

[moonraker]

Cross EU laws make sense in some instances, but not in others. It would be nice if we could decide which was which.

 

We can decide, national parliaments must be consulted before any new legislation can be made. If objections or amendments are raised they must be addressed. It is possible to stop an EU recommendation becoming Law

[derry]

I think that immigration and security will decide the referendum result.

[ScepticalStan]

Do people think that the Labour party will ever recover?

 

You can't win elections when the public will never trust you on

 

1) The Economy

2) National Security

3) Your actual leader

 

3 is recoverable, but I honestly can't see Labour ever overtaking the Conservatives on 1 and 2.

[John B]

Do people think that the Labour party will ever recover?

 

You can't win elections when the public will never trust you on

 

1) The Economy

2) National Security

3) Your actual leader

 

3 is recoverable, but I honestly can't see Labour ever overtaking the Conservatives on 1 and 2.

 

You must be joking the the economy is a really bad shape at the moment no growth low wages people not getting enough work and the no economic plan

 

Until the Global crash of 207/2008 Labour was doing a good job with the economy with the Tories agreeing to their economic spending

 

Most people do not take enough notice of what goes on with regard to politics and economics and just read sound bites which are usually myths from the newspapers.

 

Since I was born in 1946 the GDP of the country has risen by an average of 2% per year under both Labour and Tory in fact I believe Labour has a very small advantage 2.194% to 2.188% growth is now expected to be around 1.5%.

 

But the facts are never a strong point for the Tories just lies and smear as could be seen today with Boris and his terrible showing at the Select Committee meeting today

[Verbal]

I think that immigration and security will decide the referendum result.

 

Well it had better not be the economy and jobs because on those subjects Brexiters are coming across as blathering idiots. Boris's lauded 'Canada' model is the best offer so far of a future outside the EU - and that's pathetic. CETA, the EU/Canada trade agreement, is now in its seventh year of negotiation and is still no closer to a conclusion.

 

This would be disastrous for Canada were it not for the fact that the vast bulk of its trade is actually across its border with the US. Not that NAFTA has been a breeze, as a small player with a much larger trading partner. Trade with the US is conducted within the NAFTA agreement, under which 98% of all foreign investment were for foreign takeovers.

[Whitey Grandad]

You must be joking the the economy is a really bad shape at the moment no growth low wages people not getting enough work and the no economic plan

 

Until the Global crash of 207/2008 Labour was doing a good job with the economy with the Tories agreeing to their economic spending

 

Most people do not take enough notice of what goes on with regard to politics and economics and just read sound bites which are usually myths from the newspapers.

 

Since I was born in 1946 the GDP of the country has risen by an average of 2% per year under both Labour and Tory in fact I believe Labour has a very small advantage 2.194% to 2.188% growth is now expected to be around 1.5%.

 

But the facts are never a strong point for the Tories just lies and smear as could be seen today with Boris and his terrible showing at the Select Committee meeting today

 

You must be joking! They were running up an enormous debt that will never be repaid, certainly not in my lifetime. The growth figures are misleading because they don't allow for the huge increase in population over and above the official figures. Factor in a population of 70 to 80 million and then see what they look like.

 

Back to the EU...

[Wes Tender]

Funny. That articles has lots of "coulds" , "might be", "might", "may" and all about predictions of things that might or may happen.

 

Yesterday you were getting jolly upset about reports like that and concluded that absolutely no one can predict anything about anything that could ever happen were we to stay or leave on any part because no one can ever predict anything that can happen in the future.

 

So I expect you to dismiss this much like any other report that dares to predict the future, right?

 

As I would expect of you, you confuse a range of options and choices that would be available with regard to sovereignty, with predictions that are forecast on the economic scenario that might occur should we leave. You never disappoint.

[CB Fry]

As I would expect of you, you confuse a range of options and choices that would be available with regard to sovereignty, with predictions that are forecast on the economic scenario that might occur should we leave. You never disappoint.

 

No confusion at all, apart from the fact that "sovereignty" is a far more nebulous proposition than, like, economy and prosperity and jobs and stuff.

 

I thought you would find it hard to reprise your jolly funny "you can't predict anything" routine in the face of articles that you happen to agree with.

 

Oh well, tomorrow there will be a different article in a different newspaper from a different source and you can get back to highlighting every "could" "might" and "maybe" in that instead.

 

Looking forward to that already.

[CB Fry]

...

[Wes Tender]

No confusion at all, apart from the fact that "sovereignty" is a far more nebulous proposition than, like, economy and prosperity and jobs and stuff.

 

I thought you would find it hard to reprise your jolly funny "you can't predict anything" routine in the face of articles that you happen to agree with.

 

Oh well, tomorrow there will be a different article in a different newspaper from a different source and you can get back to highlighting every "could" "might" and "maybe" in that instead.

 

Looking forward to that already.

 

Naturally I will continue to disparage the fear campaign's predictions of the trade implications made by the Department of Guesswork's worst case scenario if we left, whilst also optimistically considering the options available to us on matters other than trade.

[Wes Tender]

...

 

One of your more lucid posts

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Boris Johnson - rather amusingly I think - caught out telling silly lies about the EU:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12202541/EU-referendum-Boris-Johnson-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-tea-bags.html

[CB Fry]

Naturally I will continue to disparage the fear campaign's predictions of the trade implications made by the Department of Guesswork's worst case scenario if we left, whilst also optimistically considering the options available to us on matters other than trade.

 

Except you've made lots of optimistic predictions about trade, with the old "The bosses of BMW and Mercedes will be banging on Merkel's door" routine more than once.

 

You'll merrily rubbish huge tomes of analysis covering lots of financial scenarios ("it says 'could'!! it says might!!') while simultaneously creaming yourself over will-this-do rent a column articles by Anne Widdecombe.

[Sheaf Saint]

You must be joking! They were running up an enormous debt that will never be repaid, certainly not in my lifetime.

 

You are quite wrong...

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

 

Not only have the Tories borrowed more per year in office over the last 70 years, they have repaid less as well.

[Wes Tender]

Except you've made lots of optimistic predictions about trade, with the old "The bosses of BMW and Mercedes will be banging on Merkel's door" routine more than once.

 

You'll merrily rubbish huge tomes of analysis covering lots of financial scenarios ("it says 'could'!! it says might!!') while simultaneously creaming yourself over will-this-do rent a column articles by Anne Widdecombe.

 

Yes, I'm quite incorrigible, aren't I?

[CB Fry]

Yes, I'm quite incorrigible, aren't I?

 

Nah, just some sap drooling over Anne Widdecombe.

[Whitey Grandad]

You are quite wrong...

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

 

Not only have the Tories borrowed more per year in office over the last 70 years, they have repaid less as well.

 

...and what is wrong with what I said?

 

...nothing.

 

 

(The comments are interesting)

[John B]

You must be joking! They were running up an enormous debt that will never be repaid, certainly not in my lifetime. The growth figures are misleading because they don't allow for the huge increase in population over and above the official figures. Factor in a population of 70 to 80 million and then see what they look like.

 

Back to the EU...

 

I am sorry to go on but the deficit was not caused by chronic overspending by the Labour Party as lied by the Tories but by the global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues.

 

By 2007 Labour had cut the level of national debt, and was running a lower annual deficit than it inherited when Tony Blair moved into Number 10.

In fact, as the 2009 budget shows, what actually happened is that the Treasury’s own projections for the tax take plummeted. They had expected growth in revenue, but in fact they got a collapse. By 2009/10 they were taking in about £112 billion less than they had expected to. And that’s why they needed to borrow so much. Yes, spending went up a bit. But really, they just had a lot less income than they had planned for.

Labour cut some of its debts, but it could have done much more. That said, the drop in tax receipts triggered by the economic crisis is what’s behind the bulk of the £149bn deficit.

 

So who can be trusted more to run the economy – Labour or the Tories? If the Conservatives succeed in eliminating the deficit and reviving the economy then Labour will be in trouble. However, if the recovery starts to falter again, the Labour might once again earn the right to be heard on economic matters which is where we are at the moment because growth is slowing and the deficit is not falling as fast as was promised despite all this austerity as tax receipts in January were worse than expected this leaves the public sector deficit heading for a higher figure by the end of the financial year this month than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s £72.2bn target..

 

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/time-to-rewrite-bit-of-oral-history.html

 

Most of the GDP growth has occurred because of immigration and the economic activity of the migrants so an increase in immigration will lead to more growth and a lowering of the deficit who would have thought that

https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf

 

But of course there needs to be investment in Schools Roads Housing etc if migration is to be viewed as an economic success

 

Portsmouth is understood to have become the first city council to vote to leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum so people like Wes Tender might like to move there and be with BREXIT brothers mind you I would be surprised if anyone there was interested in Sovereignty

[Verbal]

I wonder who Brexit is actually for. Should the vote be to leave, the SNP have already declared their intention to demand independence, and with their electoral presence now there's precious little that could stop them. Wales and Northern Ireland are also substantial beneficiaries of EU funding arrangements, including the ERDF, and are likely to vote heavily to remain. So Brexit is really Eexit, as the vote to leave will precipitate a constitutional crisis with the Scots walking off.

 

The Little Englanders on here will end up being just that.

[Whitey Grandad]

The trouble with referendums is that you might end up with a Boaty McBrexit.

[Wes Tender]

Portsmouth is understood to have become the first city council to vote to leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum so people like Wes Tender might like to move there and be with BREXIT brothers mind you I would be surprised if anyone there was interested in Sovereignty

 

Typical of the small-minded petty and personal insults bandied about by the stay cohorts. Why would I need to move from Eastleigh to anywhere else when all of the local Conservative MPs support us leaving the EU? In fact, why would anybody wish to move anywhere else based on their views on one issue which transcends political boundaries? This really is one of the most bizarre posts I have seen on this thread.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wonder who Brexit is actually for. Should the vote be to leave, the SNP have already declared their intention to demand independence, and with their electoral presence now there's precious little that could stop them. Wales and Northern Ireland are also substantial beneficiaries of EU funding arrangements, including the ERDF, and are likely to vote heavily to remain. So Brexit is really Eexit, as the vote to leave will precipitate a constitutional crisis with the Scots walking off.

 

The Little Englanders on here will end up being just that.

 

Brexit is for the uk , it is a uk wide vote.

 

There is no chance of Welsh or NI breaking away from the uk . In any case the polls in Wales are as close as they are in England .

 

Do you think the Sweatys are totally stupid ? They knew there was the prospect of Brexit when they voted , it was factored in .

 

However , perhaps you could point us in the direction of a leading SNP spokesman saying they'll " demand" another vote in the event of Brexit . There must be a quote somewhere , im sure you don't just make things up lol. So look forward to reading it , because on QT from Dundee ( a yes city) people were pretty hostile to another vote & the snp spokesman on there said it won't be in their May manifesto and refused to say they would call for another vote in the event of Brexit . Hopefully the little Europeans start peddling this nonsense , it'll be a win win for the English . Go out into the wider world without the Jocks holding us back .

[moonraker]

Brexit is for the uk , it is a uk wide vote.

 

There is no chance of Welsh or NI breaking away from the uk . In any case the polls in Wales are as close as they are in England .

 

Do you think the Sweatys are totally stupid ? They knew there was the prospect of Brexit when they voted , it was factored in .

 

However , perhaps you could point us in the direction of a leading SNP spokesman saying they'll " demand" another vote in the event of Brexit . There must be a quote somewhere , im sure you don't just make things up lol. So look forward to reading it , because on QT from Dundee ( a yes city) people were pretty hostile to another vote & the snp spokesman on there said it won't be in their May manifesto and refused to say they would call for another vote in the event of Brexit . Hopefully the little Europeans start peddling this nonsense , it'll be a win win for the English . Go out into the wider world without the Jocks holding us back .

 

Thank god for that, and there was I under the impression that nothing is certain post the referendum, apart of course, if we leave, we will get brilliant trade deals, immigration will cesae, we will be more secure than Fort Knox. It is so reassuring that their individuals like you who can predict the future, are you related to Doris Stokes per chance.

[LuckyNumber7]

I wonder who Brexit is actually for. Should the vote be to leave, the SNP have already declared their intention to demand independence, and with their electoral presence now there's precious little that could stop them. Wales and Northern Ireland are also substantial beneficiaries of EU funding arrangements, including the ERDF, and are likely to vote heavily to remain. So Brexit is really Eexit, as the vote to leave will precipitate a constitutional crisis with the Scots walking off.

 

The Little Englanders on here will end up being just that.

 

Shock horror, I am English so yes of course for me it is Eexit. I don't support the union and couldn't give a toss what Scotland, Wales and NI do after the vote.

[John B]

Typical of the small-minded petty and personal insults bandied about by the stay cohorts. Why would I need to move from Eastleigh to anywhere else when all of the local Conservative MPs support us leaving the EU? In fact, why would anybody wish to move anywhere else based on their views on one issue which transcends political boundaries? This really is one of the most bizarre posts I have seen on this thread.

 

I am sorry Wes I was only trying to have a laugh I voted no in the 1970s but now I am not sure out is a good thing because I live in an area which is very dependent on North American Companies for work and most are here because of access to the single market

 

In fact my elder daughter works for a Canadian company which sell products and services through out Europe and the likelihood is that they will move to Paris where they have a small office.

 

I think this referendum is pants as we are only seem to be having it because our incompetent PM decided to have one to placate the right wing of his party and to stop MPs and voters going to UKIP.

 

It would be different if there was a clear choice stay in a slightly reformed EU or leave with firm proposals as what that would entail and whether non UK companies would leave the UK eventually to gain access to the single market and what would happen to the pound and tariffs within the EU.

 

You just have to look how our country is so dependent on foreign companies locally with Dell HP Microsoft Oracle Honeywell Fujistu and Siemens being the main employers

 

But now all we have is outers going on about migration and sovereignty and inners saying what might happen with regard to farming energy or anything else.

 

According to the OECD the Euro zone s growing better than than the UK and we are heading for a period of low growth thanks to Austerity so I would prefer to stay with the status quo and not risk anything happening to the economy which makes it go into recession which has been suggested by the Mark Carney of the Bank of England.

 

http://www.oecd.org/std/leading-indicators/CLI-Mar16.pdf

 

But I understand concerns that people like you have about EU making laws which are unacceptable to the UK but I think there are enough checks to make certain that this does not happen.

 

Most seem to be beneficial I particularly like the reduction of costs to mobile phone users when they are in other countries within Europe

[Whitey Grandad]

Brexit is for the uk , it is a uk wide vote.

 

There is no chance of Welsh or NI breaking away from the uk . In any case the polls in Wales are as close as they are in England .

 

Do you think the Sweatys are totally stupid ? They knew there was the prospect of Brexit when they voted , it was factored in .

 

However , perhaps you could point us in the direction of a leading SNP spokesman saying they'll " demand" another vote in the event of Brexit . There must be a quote somewhere , im sure you don't just make things up lol. So look forward to reading it , because on QT from Dundee ( a yes city) people were pretty hostile to another vote & the snp spokesman on there said it won't be in their May manifesto and refused to say they would call for another vote in the event of Brexit . Hopefully the little Europeans start peddling this nonsense , it'll be a win win for the English . Go out into the wider world without the Jocks holding us back .

 

How bout this leading SNP spokesman:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167448/Sturgeon-EU-exit-would-almost-certainly-trigger-second-independence-referendum.html

[Whitey Grandad]

I am sorry Wes I was only trying to have a laugh I voted no in the 1970s but now I am not sure out is a good thing because I live in an area which is very dependent on North American Companies for work and most are here because of access to the single market

 

In fact my elder daughter works for a Canadian company which sell products and services through out Europe and the likelihood is that they will move to Paris where they have a small office.

 

I think this referendum is pants as we are only seem to be having it because our incompetent PM decided to have one to placate the right wing of his party and to stop MPs and voters going to UKIP.

 

It would be different if there was a clear choice stay in a slightly reformed EU or leave with firm proposals as what that would entail and whether non UK companies would leave the UK eventually to gain access to the single market and what would happen to the pound and tariffs within the EU.

 

You just have to look how our country is so dependent on foreign companies locally with Dell HP Microsoft Oracle Honeywell Fujistu and Siemens being the main employers

 

But now all we have is outers going on about migration and sovereignty and inners saying what might happen with regard to farming energy or anything else.

 

According to the OECD the Euro zone s growing better than than the UK and we are heading for a period of low growth thanks to Austerity so I would prefer to stay with the status quo and not risk anything happening to the economy which makes it go into recession which has been suggested by the Mark Carney of the Bank of England.

 

http://www.oecd.org/std/leading-indicators/CLI-Mar16.pdf

 

But I understand concerns that people like you have about EU making laws which are unacceptable to the UK but I think there are enough checks to make certain that this does not happen.

 

Most seem to be beneficial I particularly like the reduction of costs to mobile phone users when they are in other countries within Europe

 

Yep, spot on there.

 

(I agree with the rest of it too)