EU referendum

[Wes Tender]

So basically you are conceding that you choose to believe everything the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage tell you, while anything that does not fit into that picture is dismissed out of hand as enemy propaganda. Has it ever occured to you that BOTH sides here can be quite 'economical with the truth' when it suites them to be?

 

As it happens that '£350m' number was comprehensively demolished by Andrew Neil on his programme weeks ago.

 

Yes, both sides are capable of being economical with the truth, but the remain side are the ones more likely to tell the biggest porkies or to make up scare stories. They are also the ones spreading propaganda using tax-payers money.

 

Andrew Neil also comprehensively tore apart Osborne's numbers regarding the cost to each family if we left the EU.

[derry]

It's not about the money. We give away 0.7% of GDP to all and sundry, a lot of it to corrupt regimes down the pan and about 0.5% of the GDP to the EU. It's about immigration and the effect on the NHS, schools, housing, benefits etc. It's about who runs the country. A country that can't stop immigration, set it's own laws and is subservient to the EU and it's offshoots can't call itself a country. That's why I and many others have already decided to vote out and hopefully get shot of the EU and join the rest the world.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Yes, both sides are capable of being economical with the truth, but the remain side are the ones more likely to tell the biggest porkies or to make up scare stories. They are also the ones spreading propaganda using tax-payers money.

 

Andrew Neil also comprehensively tore apart Osborne's numbers regarding the cost to each family if we left the EU.

 

Well I see on the news today that the '£350m' number is there 'bold as brass' (as my old dad would have said) on the side of Boris Johnson's so-called battle bus. So your man is going into battle armed with a lie then.

[CB Fry]

It's not about the money. We give away 0.7% of GDP to all and sundry, a lot of it to corrupt regimes down the pan and about 0.5% of the GDP to the EU. It's about immigration and the effect on the NHS, schools, housing, benefits etc. It's about who runs the country. A country that can't stop immigration, set it's own laws and is subservient to the EU and it's offshoots can't call itself a country. That's why I and many others have already decided to vote out and hopefully get shot of the EU and join the rest the world.

It's the sheer volume of people that believe this kind of meaningless nonsense that convinced me that leave will win pretty easily.

[moonraker]

It's not about the money. We give away 0.7% of GDP to all and sundry, a lot of it to corrupt regimes down the pan and about 0.5% of the GDP to the EU. It's about immigration and the effect on the NHS, schools, housing, benefits etc. It's about who runs the country. A country that can't stop immigration, set it's own laws and is subservient to the EU and it's offshoots can't call itself a country. That's why I and many others have already decided to vote out and hopefully get shot of the EU and join the rest the world.

Which laws do the EU set? During the general election campaign fag ash Farage claimed it was over 70% this was very quickly proved totally wrong. The best information is that it is about 25%, and even if we leave we will still have to adhere to some EU law so which laws are you so very worried about.

[buctootim]

Which laws do the EU set? During the general election campaign fag ash Farage claimed it was over 70% this was very quickly proved totally wrong. The best information is that it is about 25%, and even if we leave we will still have to adhere to some EU law so which laws are you so very worried about.

 

And most of that 25% are related to the single market - food safety and labelling, car emissions etc. Exactly the kind of stuff we would still need to have in order to trade with the EU.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Many of the measures introduced into our law by the EU are technical matters few could sensibly object to. For example, if we didn't have a Common Fisheries Policy that applied throughout the EU then the UK would surely need to bring in its own version or else fish stocks would soon became exhausted. But fish are of course notorious for not taking very much notice of territorial boundaries and a dozen different national fishery policies would be utterly chaotic.

 

Yes the UK is in effect sharing its soverengthy with other nations. But we do so not out of charity but because international cooperation often leads to a better outcome for all. Indeed, if the EU did not already exist then we'd probably need to invent it.

[Manuel]

What about the Court of Human Rights though? Again, mostly sensible, agreeable decisions, but aren't we capable of deciding these matters for ourselves?

[Nolan]

What about the Court of Human Rights though? Again, mostly sensible, agreeable decisions, but aren't we capable of deciding these matters for ourselves?

Human rights aren't anything to do with the EU. They're linked with the European Council which is an entity that has endured longer than the EU.

[hutch]

Pretty spectacular people are still peddling that one when it was comprehensively debunked in about day three of the campaign.

I was mauled on here (in a Geoffrey Howe fashion) at the outset for anticipating the deluge of dodgy statistics from both sides.

 

It's not about the money. We give away 0.7% of GDP to all and sundry, a lot of it to corrupt regimes down the pan and about 0.5% of the GDP to the EU. It's about immigration and the effect on the NHS, schools, housing, benefits etc. It's about who runs the country. A country that can't stop immigration, set it's own laws and is subservient to the EU and it's offshoots can't call itself a country. That's why I and many others have already decided to vote out and hopefully get shot of the EU and join the rest the world.

 

There are two things that realy trouble me:

 

The rules require that we produce everything to EU standards, just in case we want to export some of it to the EU. Much of that is just common sense, but we should have the right to determine our own requirements. And companies should be free to choose not to meet specific parts of EU requirements if they have no business with the EU. The Germans wouldn't like that because it could give a British manufacturer and edge over his German competitor.

 

But more importantly the open market does bother me. I don't feel comfortable that the French own most of our water and electricity, or that the Germans are eyeing up our railways. And the prospect of the Americans buying up our healthcare industry under TTIP is abhorrent. I'm not completely comfortable with the Chinese taking over our nuclear power industry, but that is under our control. If the British people dislike that enough, they can force our government to abandon it through our ballot boxes, the way it should be done. But we couldn't do that if they were German (or, heaven forbid, Turkish in the future).

 

So, an EU without a veto on absolutely anything that we don't consider to be in our national interest, including the right of a widget manufacturer in Merthyr Tydfill to make doobries for export to Guatemala that don't meet EU regulations, isn't for me.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

What about the Court of Human Rights though? Again, mostly sensible, agreeable decisions, but aren't we capable of deciding these matters for ourselves?

 

Well we could replace the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with a UK equivalent I suppose and we already have a long established 'Judical Review' system.

 

But is it not desirable that a international organisation exists that can protect the Human Rights of a individual against the overwhelming power of the state? If we withdrew from the ECHR then might that not 'send a message' to some more oppressive regimes than ours that would be highly undesirable from a wider Human Rights perspective?

 

In any case this has nothing to do with the EU question. As a matter of fact Teresa May from the 'Remain' camp wants us to leave the ECHR while the Justice Secretery Michael Grove rejects that notion.

Edited 12 May, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CB Fry]

I was mauled on here (in a Geoffrey Howe fashion) at the outset for anticipating the deluge of dodgy statistics from both sides.

 

 

 

There are two things that realy trouble me:

 

The rules require that we produce everything to EU standards, just in case we want to export some of it to the EU. Much of that is just common sense, but we should have the right to determine our own requirements. And companies should be free to choose not to meet specific parts of EU requirements if they have no business with the EU. The Germans wouldn't like that because it could give a British manufacturer and edge over his German competitor.

 

But more importantly the open market does bother me. I don't feel comfortable that the French own most of our water and electricity, or that the Germans are eyeing up our railways. And the prospect of the Americans buying up our healthcare industry under TTIP is abhorrent. I'm not completely comfortable with the Chinese taking over our nuclear power industry, but that is under our control. If the British people dislike that enough, they can force our government to abandon it through our ballot boxes, the way it should be done. But we couldn't do that if they were German (or, heaven forbid, Turkish in the future).

 

So, an EU without a veto on absolutely anything that we don't consider to be in our national interest, including the right of a widget manufacturer in Merthyr Tydfill to make doobries for export to Guatemala that don't meet EU regulations, isn't for me.

The French owning our electricity has nothing to do with the EU and absolutely everything to do with the Conservative sell-offs of the 1980s and 1990s, cheer-led by the kind of people who are lining up for Leave now.

 

It's also been said many times but the kind of de-regulating free market folk that the Leave campaign are typically drawn to would sign up to TTIP in a flash and it's the Brits in the EU who are pushing to get it done. Leaving the EU is zero protection from TTIP.

 

There's plenty of that persuasion that would shut down Port Talbot tomorrow because "the market" has spoken. The idea that old school protectionism will take over come Leave is pretty fanciful. It won't be Boris's style that's for sure.

 

And I'm not convinced that in the battle of the widget makers, the one not adhering to EU regulations is the one with the competitive advantage over the one that does. As the largest trading bloc in the world, EU regs are a very strong currency and guide of quality across the globe. I'm not convinced there is any evidence that manufacturing things to a completely new set of regs we have to make up is going to genuinely unlock any market for any British business.

Edited 12 May, 2016 by CB Fry

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Far from being a bad thing foreign investment into the UK is actualy a crucial component of our relative economic success. For example official statics show that in 2014-15 alone some 100,000 jobs were either created, or a least secured, by Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the UK. The record also shows that not only are we highly successful in attracting this type of investment, but we are in fact the number one destination for foreign investment into the EU:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-wins-a-record-number-of-investment-projects-and-maintains-position-as-top-investment-destination-in-europe

 

So if you want to sell stuff in the EU Single Market area then the evidence is that the world sees the UK as a pretty good place to 'set up shop' as it were. Yet another reason methinks why leaving the EU would imperil our future prosperity.

[Nolan]

Far from being a bad thing foreign investment into the UK is actualy a crucial component of our relative economic success. For example official statics show that in 2014-15 alone some 100,000 jobs were either created, or a least secured, by Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the UK. The record also shows that not only are we highly successful in attracting this type of investment, but we are in fact the number one destination for foreign investment into the EU:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-wins-a-record-number-of-investment-projects-and-maintains-position-as-top-investment-destination-in-europe

 

So if you want to sell stuff in the EU Single Market area then the evidence is that the world sees the UK as a pretty good place to 'set up shop' as it were. Yet another reason methinks why leaving the EU would imperil our future prosperity.

Turkeys doing okay for foreign investment. They're not in the EU but in the single market.

[hutch]

...manafucting things...

That's a pretty powerful case for staying in right there :lol:

[CB Fry]

That's a pretty powerful case for staying in right there :lol:

World leaders at it.

[hutch]

So if you want to sell stuff in the EU Single Market area then the evidence is that the world sees the UK as a pretty good place to 'set up shop' as it were. Yet another reason methinks why leaving the EU would imperil our future prosperity.

I know it's been said before, but does that explain why Mercedes makes all the "C" Class vehicles for the UK market in South Africa? BMW 3-series? VW Polos? Not to mention the Turkish Transits again.

 

There are countless examles where stuff is manufactured by EU companies outside the EU for sale inside the EU markets.

[CB Fry]

I know it's been said before, but does that explain why Mercedes makes all the "C" Class vehicles for the UK market in South Africa? BMW 3-series? VW Polos? Not to mention the Turkish Transits again.

 

There are countless examles where stuff is manufactured by EU companies outside the EU for sale inside the EU markets.

Fascinating that the debate always goes back to heavy industrial manufacturing - that's not really what we do anymore and not really why businesses might set up shop in the UK to access the EU.

 

The little bit of production line parts assembly of Nissans and Toyotas is a small-to-negligible part of the UK economy. We're all driving around in cars with parts and assembled in different places all over the world. Being in or out isn't going to make much difference to that.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Turkeys doing okay for foreign investment. They're not in the EU but in the single market.

 

Turkey now has what is known as a 'Customs Union' type arrangement with the EU that is not at all the same thing as the full access to the EU Single Market area the UK now enjoys. Furthermore, this arrangement does not cover financial services - which every man and his dog on here knows is a large and vital part of the UK economy.

 

I will also point out that Turkey has to conform to Single Market rules and regulations without having any say whatsoever in how these regs are formed. The fact is that even this limited form of (tariff free) access to the SIngle Market area has only been agreed because Turkey is a candidate state for future EU membership.

 

So another case of 'apples and oranges' then.

[aintforever]

Turkey now has what is known as a 'Customs Union' type arrangement with the EU that is not at all the same thing as the full access to the EU Single Market area the UK now enjoys. Furthermore, this arrangement does not cover financial services - which every man and his dog on here knows is a large and vital part of the UK economy.

 

I will also point out that Turkey has to conform to Single Market rules and regulations without having any say whatsoever in how these regs are formed. The fact is that even this limited form of (tariff free) access to the SIngle Market area has only been agreed because Turkey is a candidate state for future EU membership.

 

So another case of 'apples and oranges' then.

 

I'm sure we are in a much better position to get a better deal than Turkey. The day we leave we will become the EU's biggest market, how much stuff do the EU sell in Turkey?

 

Interesting that Turkey will soon be in the EU though, most of the in campaigners seem to have kept that quiet.

Edited 12 May, 2016 by aintforever

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I know it's been said before, but does that explain why Mercedes makes all the "C" Class vehicles for the UK market in South Africa? BMW 3-series? VW Polos? Not to mention the Turkish Transits again.

 

There are countless examles where stuff is manufactured by EU companies outside the EU for sale inside the EU markets.

 

Because the EU has agreed to categorize the Republic of South Africa as a poor 'Emerging Economy' it has secured a preferential trade arrangement with the EU. As the UK manufacturing economy 'emerged' as far back as the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century I fear that our chances of gaining this particular trading status don't look especialy good!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm sure we are in a much better position to get a better deal than Turkey. The day we leave we will become the EU's biggest market, how much stuff do the EU sell in Turkey?

 

You feel that the EU exports more to the UK than China or the USA?

[Wes Tender]

You feel that the EU exports more to the UK than China or the USA?

 

I don't know the figures, but the first thing that occurs to me, is that the figures of what the EU exports to China or the USA include those exports from us, don't they?.

[Wes Tender]

Well I see on the news today that the '£350m' number is there 'bold as brass' (as my old dad would have said) on the side of Boris Johnson's so-called battle bus. So your man is going into battle armed with a lie then.

 

And today from the Remain Battle Bus there is the fallacy from the Remainians that the cost of leaving the EU would be £4300 per family

 

Leaving and adopting the Leave campaigns’ pie-in-the-sky economic plans will hit our economy to the tune of £4,300 a year for the average family. We are all stronger on Europe, while leaving would be a leap in the dark.”

[hutch]

Fascinating that the debate always goes back to heavy industrial manufacturing - that's not really what we do anymore and not really why businesses might set up shop in the UK to access the EU.

 

The little bit of production line parts assembly of Nissans and Toyotas is a small-to-negligible part of the UK economy. We're all driving around in cars with parts and assembled in different places all over the world. Being in or out isn't going to make much difference to that.

I don't disagree, I just raise it because, as a part-time South African I happen to know it from personal experience. I don't think it's a particularly relevant argument for either case, but Charlie does.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I don't know the figures, but the first thing that occurs to me, is that the figures of what the EU exports to China or the USA include those exports from us, don't they?.

 

Well current EU export stats would obviously include the UK. But if you want to place our international significance into its proper perspective then (for example) the UK is actualy Germany's third largest export market after the USA and France. Treating the UK as if it were already not in the EU, then according to this website we would represent some 16% of EU exports in goods:

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/

 

So while some 45% of UK exports (in goods) go to the EU, they would send 16% of their comparable exports to us. However, should the UK break-up in the aftermath of our EU departure then all those numbers would have to adjusted and the trading significance of our diminished nation would clearly decline somewhat.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

And today from the Remain Battle Bus there is the fallacy from the Remainians that the cost of leaving the EU would be £4300 per family

 

So I take it we agree then that BOTH sides are inclined towards misleading, if not damn right dishonest, propaganda.

[Whitey Grandad]

I was mauled on here (in a Geoffrey Howe fashion) at the outset for anticipating the deluge of dodgy statistics from both sides.

 

 

 

There are two things that realy trouble me:

 

The rules require that we produce everything to EU standards, just in case we want to export some of it to the EU. Much of that is just common sense, but we should have the right to determine our own requirements. And companies should be free to choose not to meet specific parts of EU requirements if they have no business with the EU. The Germans wouldn't like that because it could give a British manufacturer and edge over his German competitor.

 

But more importantly the open market does bother me. I don't feel comfortable that the French own most of our water and electricity, or that the Germans are eyeing up our railways. And the prospect of the Americans buying up our healthcare industry under TTIP is abhorrent. I'm not completely comfortable with the Chinese taking over our nuclear power industry, but that is under our control. If the British people dislike that enough, they can force our government to abandon it through our ballot boxes, the way it should be done. But we couldn't do that if they were German (or, heaven forbid, Turkish in the future).

 

So, an EU without a veto on absolutely anything that we don't consider to be in our national interest, including the right of a widget manufacturer in Merthyr Tydfill to make doobries for export to Guatemala that don't meet EU regulations, isn't for me.

 

They can make those widgets providing they don't place them on the European Market. Whether the Guatemalans would buy them without a CE mark or whatever is a different question.

[Whitey Grandad]

And today from the Remain Battle Bus there is the fallacy from the Remainians that the cost of leaving the EU would be £4300 per family

 

Fallacy?

[Wes Tender]

So I take it we agree then that BOTH sides are inclined towards misleading, if not damn right dishonest, propaganda.

 

Please refer to my post 2101 where I say just that.

[Wes Tender]

Fallacy?

 

What is wrong with that? I understand it to be a logical fallacy, in that the basis of the structure of the argument was flawed, as explained here:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

[buctootim]

They can make those widgets providing they don't place them on the European Market. Whether the Guatemalans would buy them without a CE mark or whatever is a different question.

 

and whether making batches of products to different standards would make any economic sense. Generally it makes more sense to mass produce to a single standard.

[buctootim]

What is wrong with that? I understand it to be a logical fallacy, in that the basis of the structure of the argument was flawed, as explained here:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

 

It may or may not be a fallacy, no-one knows. It could be more, it could be less.

[Whitey Grandad]

What is wrong with that? I understand it to be a logical fallacy, in that the basis of the structure of the argument was flawed, as explained here:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

 

And the conclusion: If you want to be influenced by economic modelling, the useful thing to take away is that the Treasury thinks leaving the EU would be bad for the economy, by an amount that would dwarf the savings from not having to contribute to the EU Budget.

[Kingsland Codger]

What is wrong with that? I understand it to be a logical fallacy, in that the basis of the structure of the argument was flawed, as explained here:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

 

Thank you for posting the above link. Like most others on this forum I am fed-up with the deliberate misinformation/spin inflicted upon us voters by both sides. In an ideal world, we should all abstain until they stop treating us like idiots.

 

At least the BBC Reality Check page you direct us to above offers the following conclusion ...

 

"If you want to be influenced by economic modelling, the useful thing to take away is that the Treasury thinks leaving the EU would be bad for the economy, by an amount that would dwarf the savings from not having to contribute to the EU Budget".

 

The economic argument, then, suggests I should vote to stay in. (But does one have confidence in the Treasury? )

 

Now my attention needs to be turned to the sovereignty argument - and I recall this was a major talking point back in 1975. I don't think there was an easy answer back then and there certainly isn't an easy answer now. Does one leave and then be at the mercy of whatever decisions the EU make - or do we stay and try (vainly) to change from within?

[Wes Tender]

It may or may not be a fallacy, no-one knows. It could be more, it could be less.

 

It seems to qualify for more than one of these types of fallacy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[Whitey Grandad]

It seems to qualify for more than one of these types of fallacy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

I think that Wikipedia article is itself one big fallacy.

[buctootim]

It seems to qualify for more than one of these types of fallacy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

More than anyone could ever wish to know about fallacies

[Wes Tender]

(But does one have confidence in the Treasury? )

 

Now my attention needs to be turned to the sovereignty argument - and I recall this was a major talking point back in 1975. I don't think there was an easy answer back then and there certainly isn't an easy answer now. Does one leave and then be at the mercy of whatever decisions the EU make - or do we stay and try (vainly) to change from within?

 

When the Treasury constructs its argument against leaving the EU on a mix of figures which confuse GDP with household income and then make forecasts based on our economic position 14 years hence without taking into account either the projected population in 2030 or the potential new trade we manage to generate with the rest of the World together with the continued trade we would reasonably expect to continue with the EU, then it is indeed very sensible to wonder whether one can have confidence in the Treasury. They are often adrift with forecasting a couple of years down the road.

 

Everything was a lot simpler in the Harold Wilson referendum in 1975 and the old Common Market of generally prosperous northern European countries that were members bears then very little resemblance to the mix of 28 member states now. The succession of Treaties that have been signed by us since has changed the political landscape of Europe significantly and there ought to have been a referendum on each Treaty that lost us sovereignty or the right of veto.

 

The dilemma you face between the implications of our leaving and the possibility of the EU leopard changing its spots is one that could be answered by applying one's experience of the logic of human nature. There was a debate earlier in the thread about what the best outcome of the referendum might be in terms of the percentage advantage of one side or the other. The majority opinion was very sensible and it was that a narrow majority either way would not be a bad thing, as it was the most likely to produce the reforms to the EU that might allow a further referendum once those reforms had been made. Personally, the evidence of how little the EU was prepared to offer Cameron is indicative of the intransigence of Brussels and if we voted to remain, I don't believe they will reform anything and press on towards their goal of a Federal United States of Europe. A majority Brexit vote could trigger a domino effect of other member states holding referenda and faced with the potential collapse of the whole project, the EU would have to take significant steps to amending those policies that were increasingly antagonising the electorates of their members.

[Wes Tender]

More than anyone could ever wish to know about fallacies

 

I agree. Who knew that there were so many?

[aintforever]

Well current EU export stats would obviously include the UK. But if you want to place our international significance into its proper perspective then (for example) the UK is actualy Germany's third largest export market after the USA and France. Treating the UK as if it were already not in the EU, then according to this website we would represent some 16% of EU exports in goods:

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/where-does-eu-export/

 

So while some 45% of UK exports (in goods) go to the EU, they would send 16% of their comparable exports to us. However, should the UK break-up in the aftermath of our EU departure then all those numbers would have to adjusted and the trading significance of our diminished nation would clearly decline somewhat.

 

Your own link says that the UK would be the EU's single biggest market.

 

"The UK is the EU’s largest single export market in goods, if you treat the UK as if it were outside the EU. The United States is a close second. They make up 16% and 15% of exports to non-EU countries respectively. This assumes exports to the UK would be the same if we weren’t an EU member."

 

Yet you think we couldn't negotiate a deal better than Turkey.

[Whitey Grandad]

Your own link says that the UK would be the EU's single biggest market.

 

"The UK is the EU’s largest single export market in goods, if you treat the UK as if it were outside the EU. The United States is a close second. They make up 16% and 15% of exports to non-EU countries respectively. This assumes exports to the UK would be the same if we weren’t an EU member."

 

Yet you think we couldn't negotiate a deal better than Turkey.

 

Not in a hurry we couldn't. There are 'only' 27 parliaments that we would need to get approval from and not all of them export to the UK.

[Kingsland Codger]

When the Treasury constructs its argument against leaving the EU on a mix of figures which confuse GDP with household income and then make forecasts based on our economic position 14 years hence without taking into account either the projected population in 2030 or the potential new trade we manage to generate with the rest of the World together with the continued trade we would reasonably expect to continue with the EU, then it is indeed very sensible to wonder whether one can have confidence in the Treasury. They are often adrift with forecasting a couple of years down the road.

 

Quite. Ask 10 economists for a view and you will get 11 different answers.

 

The idea of voting to leave in the hope/expectation that it will cause the whole EU project to implode may be a realistic one but will the upheaval this will cause be desireable? On balance I'd rather we continue to fight from within and to do so it would be handy to have allies, but these seem few and far between. Why are we so unpopular within the EU?

[buctootim]

Why are we so unpopular within the EU?

 

Lasrgely because we are duplicitous and hypocritical. We also have a tendency to blame the EU for the results of domestic policy.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

... Yet you think we couldn't negotiate a deal better than Turkey.

 

I've done my level best to explain the facts of the matter but you still don't appear to comprehend the situation. I think that the most likley outcome here is that the UK (or rather whatever remains of the UK) would end up with trade arrangement with the EU that broadly mirrors that which other comparable industrialised nations (such as Norway or Switzerland) have already achieved. The notion that we can drive a veritable coach and horses through the EU Single Market concept - in effect 'cherry picking' only what we happen to like - seems improbable to put it mildly.

[Wade Garrett]

It's the sheer volume of people that believe this kind of meaningless nonsense that convinced me that leave will win pretty easily.

 

Very arrogant.

[Wade Garrett]

Turkey now has what is known as a 'Customs Union' type arrangement with the EU that is not at all the same thing as the full access to the EU Single Market area the UK now enjoys. Furthermore, this arrangement does not cover financial services - which every man and his dog on here knows is a large and vital part of the UK economy.

 

I will also point out that Turkey has to conform to Single Market rules and regulations without having any say whatsoever in how these regs are formed. The fact is that even this limited form of (tariff free) access to the SIngle Market area has only been agreed because Turkey is a candidate state for future EU membership.

 

So another case of 'apples and oranges' then.

 

Do we really have a say in anything though? To make fundamental change within the EU, you need the agreement of all the member states. Cameron's feeble pre-referendum deal is proof of how little say we actually have.

[Wes Tender]

For those blinkered Remainians who trumpet the risks that they associate with us leaving but refuse to acknowledge that there are also risks in staying in, here is an interesting article pointing out the significant risk implications to our economy if we stay in and certain likely circumstances come to pass.

 

http://masterinvestor.co.uk/brexit/britain-sucked-eu-bailout-vortex/

 

Even though we are not in the Euro-zone, we could still end up paying billions into the EU budget to bail out the deficits caused by the collapse of those member states with basket case economies in the Euro-zone.

[aintforever]

Do we really have a say in anything though? To make fundamental change within the EU, you need the agreement of all the member states. Cameron's feeble pre-referendum deal is proof of how little say we actually have.

 

Exactly, a vote to leave is the only way to ever reform the EU. At the moment it is just an uncontrollable move towards a federal Europe, any one who thinks otherwise is ignoring what has happened over the last few decades.

 

Vote leave if only to give Camron some leverage next time the Polish leader tells him we have to send child benefit to kids in his country.

[Wes Tender]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/12/eu-migration-twice-high-previously-thought-ons-admits/

 

Staggering underestimate of the actual immigration numbers. All we need now is for some prominent figure in the Remain camp to dismiss them as a drop in the ocean.