EU referendum

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So we get to be 1/28 of the vote for laws that commissioners make up.

 

Or 1/1 of the vote for laws that British politicians make up.

 

Hmmmmm

 

On that logic we should also quit our permament seat on the UN Security Council because we have to share power on that body too.

 

Hmmm ....

[Nolan]

On that logic we should also quit our permament seat on the UN Security Council because we share power on that body too.

 

Hmmm ....

UN security Council don't set our vat rates.

 

And vetoes actually count there

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

UN security Council don't set our vat rates.

 

And vetoes actually count there

 

YeP - there is no dispute that the UN does not set our VAT rates.

 

Great point.

[badgerx16]

So we get to be 1/28 of the vote for laws that commissioners make up.

 

 

The commissioners do not make up laws. They do make proposals, but these have to be debated, amended, voted on, and accepted by the EU Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and individual national Governments.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-brussels-bureaucrats/

 

"Crucially, the Commission has only a limited role in EU law-making. It can decide some less important rules, and in general it is the only institution that can propose new laws, but it doesn’t have the power to pass them on its own.

 

Professor Kassim says that many of the proposals that it brings forward have been requested by national political leaders. And there is no guarantee that a Commission proposal will become a law.

 

The authority to make law belongs to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

 

The Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens every five years. The Council of the European Union, sometimes called the Council of Ministers, is where representatives of all 28 member countries negotiate.

 

These two institutions debate, amend and pass EU law. Each one has a veto."

[Wes Tender]

Rest assured that there is no need to inform me that I am not your "pal".

 

With what I have come to recognise as a typical degree of duplicity, I see you are now implying that forecasts of economic turmoil and decline that may well lay ahead for the UK economy originate from politicians, when every man (and his dog) on here knows that virtualy every serious economist predicts this and they are supported in that assessment by the majority of our business leaders. This is beyond clear now. Your only reply to this key point is to endlessly parrot deeply unconvincing Vote Leave accusations of corruption and/or incompetence against all those who disagree with their view. How very convenient.

 

As for your blithe assumption that the UK can somehow quickly and easily form new trading arrangments with other nation states this attitude betrays your abysmally poor understanding of the complexity of the issue. More significantly, this also flies in the face of authoritative advice offered to the British people recently by the head of the World Trade Organisation :

 

https://next.ft.com/content/745d0ea2-222d-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

 

But if you can provide any reason at all why people should take your word for it ahead of the WTO's Roberto Azevêdo then by all means give it a go. Indeed, I can hardly wait ...

 

Is there an echo in here? I'm sure that my response about the "pal" thing was to Shylock. You really ought to pay more attention to the campaign if you're going to deny that politicians (you know, the likes of our Prime Minister and Chancellor) have originated tales of doom and gloom should we Brexit. Now, they might be quoting their favourite pet economists, but it is they who enunciate it and they who carry the greater influence because of their position.

 

Where have I stated that we can quickly and easily form new trading arrangements? Oh no, I haven't specified any time scale or claimed that it would be easy. Once again it is either your poor comprehension that lets you down, or else your propensity to believe that you can read my mind. Perhaps your poor comprehension of what I'm thinking is letting you down too.

[Nolan]

it is the only institution that can propose new laws,

 

There we go then.

 

And the veto is only for 'important' laws. Sadly there is no definition of important.

[buctootim]

On that logic we should also quit our permament seat on the UN Security Council because we have to share power on that body too.

 

Hmmm ....

 

and the WTO, NATO, Wold Bank, IMF, Commonwealth, Olympics, FIFA etc etc,

[buctootim]

There we go then.

 

And the veto is only for 'important' laws. Sadly there is no definition of important.

 

Wheres my vote for the Prime Minister? the Queen? House of Lords? Leader of the City Council?

 

If you live in the Cotswolds you vote the PM in but not if you dont. Is that democratic?

 

The EU organisation isnt perfect, but it is no more or less perfect than the British system.

Edited 20 June, 2016 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

There we go then.

 

And the veto is only for 'important' laws. Sadly there is no definition of important.

 

"The authority to make law belongs to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union."

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Is there an echo in here? I'm sure that my response about the "pal" thing was to Shylock. You really ought to pay more attention to the campaign if you're going to deny that politicians (you know, the likes of our Prime Minister and Chancellor) have originated tales of doom and gloom should we Brexit. Now, they might be quoting their favourite pet economists, but it is they who enunciate it and they who carry the greater influence because of their position....

 

So that's no reason at all to accept your opinion ahead of the WTO's then. How pleased I am that we have at least sorted that one out.

 

As for your claiming that the numerious national and international forecasts predicting trouble ahead for the UK economy - upon the event of Brexit - somehow originate from UK politicians, this is quite bizarre behaviour even by your standards. It is not a case of "pet" economists being selectivly quoted by disingenuous politicans, but rather virtually ALL serious economics reaching much the same conclusion re this matter. I'll repeat that for emphasis as you are quite hard of thinking - All ECONOMIC OPINION, apart from Patrick Minford and a couple of his squabbling mates that is.

If you won't listen to what the economists and business leaders are telling you then just take a look at the Stock Market and Sterling exchange rate instead. The fact is that when it looks like your side is winning then everything crashes, whenever Remain is ahead then eveything is either stable or recovering. That is money talking so very plainly even you should be able to hear it.

 

Perhaps you find yourself looking forward to a oh-so-comfortable retirement free of any real concerns about job security, money, or the health of our economy. Lucky you. Millions of your fellow citizens however really can't afford the indulgance of voting themselves (and their children) poorer this coming Thursday. I know that because I'm one of them.

 

Not that I really expect that you are capable of comprehending this simple truth of course.

 

.

Edited 21 June, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[John B]

So that's no reason at all to accept your opinion ahead of the WTO's then. How pleased I am that we have at least sorted that one out.

 

As for your claiming that the numerious national and international forecasts predicting trouble ahead for the UK economy - upon the event of Brexit - somehow originate from UK politicians, this is quite bizarre behaviour even by your standards. It is not a case of "pet" economists being selectivly quoted by disingenuous politicans, but rather virtually ALL serious economic forcasts reaching much the same conclusion re this matter. I'll repeat that for emphasis as you are quite hard of thinking - all economic opinion apart from Patrick Minford and a couple of his squabbling mates that is.

If you won't listen to what the economists are telling you then just take a look at the Stock Market and Sterling exchange rate instead - i.e. when it looks like your side is winning then everything crashes, whenever Remain is ahead then eveything is either stable or recovering. That is money talking so very plainly even you should be able to hear it.

 

Perhaps you find yourself looking forward to a oh-so-comfortable retirement free of any real concerns about job security, money, or the health of our economy. Lucky you. Millions of your fellow citizens however really can't afford the endulgance of voting themselves (and their children) poorer this coming Thursday. I know that because I'm one of them.

 

Not that I really expect that you are capable of comprehending this simple truth of course.

 

I agree with you Charlie but it is not surprising that many of the electorate do not believe the government with regard to the economy as they have constantly been lied to since 2010 when VAT was raised after saying they would not - VAT is a regressive tax hitting the poorest hardest

 

They then introduced an austerity program backed by low wages and zero hours contracts which has led to more poverty and the lowering of the standard of living for most whilst raising the standard of living many of the wealthiest if inflation and oil prices were not low things would be even worse.

 

How they got back in GE15 beggars belief but was probably due to scaremongering lies about the Labour Party and a willing Press.

 

This time during the referendum scaremongering does not go down well and the Press is not willing and they need the Labour Party and if Brexit takes place they will probably blame the Labour Party for their own incompetence.

 

I think the scaremongering of the In campaign has a great deal of truth but has not been articulated in a sensible way but the Out scaremongering does not have that much truth.

 

The balance of evidence is that Brexit would be a major macroeconomic disaster starting on Friday morning leading to more poverty unemployment and a lower standard of living in the UK and elsewhere in the world

 

This will fall hardest on the poorer of this country like the Tory austerity has done here and the Eurozone austerity has done in Greece.

 

George Soros the speculator involved in Black Wednesday in 1992 agrees and the following has been written by him.

 

My 60 years of experience tells me the pound will plummet, along with your living standards after Brexit. The only winners will be speculators

 

Brexiters seem to recognise that a sharp devaluation would be almost inevitable after Brexit, but argue that this would be healthy, despite the big losses of purchasing power for British households. In 1992 the devaluation actually proved very helpful to the British economy, and subsequently I was even praised for my role in helping to bring it about.

 

But I don’t think the 1992 experience would be repeated. That devaluation was healthy because the government was relieved of its obligation to “defend” an overvalued pound with damagingly high interest rates after the breakdown of the exchange rate mechanism. This time, a large devaluation would be much less benign than in 1992, for at least three reasons.

 

First, the Bank of England would not cut interest rates after a Brexit devaluation (as it did in 1992 and also after the large devaluation of 2008) because interest rates are already at the lowest level compatible with the stability of British banks. That, incidentally, is another reason to worry about Brexit. For if a fall in house prices and loss of jobs causes a recession after Brexit, as is likely, there will be very little that monetary policy can do to stimulate the economy and counteract the consequent loss of demand.

 

Second, the UK now has a very large current account deficit – much larger, relatively, than in 1992 or 2008. In fact Britain is more dependent than at any time in history on inflows of foreign capital. As the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said, Britain “depends on the kindness of strangers”. The devaluations of 1992 and 2008 encouraged greater capital inflows, especially into residential and commercial property, but also into manufacturing investments. But after Brexit, the capital flows would almost certainly move the other way, especially during the two-year period of uncertainty while Britain negotiates its terms of divorce with a region that has always been – and presumably will remain – its biggest trading and investment partner.

 

Third, a post-Brexit devaluation is unlikely to produce the improvement in manufacturing exports seen after 1992, because trading conditions would be too uncertain for British businesses to undertake new investments, hire more workers or otherwise add to export capacity.

 

For all these reasons I believe the devaluation this time would be more like the one in 1967, when Harold Wilson famously declared that “the pound in your pocket has not been devalued”, but the British people disagreed with him, quickly noticing that the cost of imports and foreign holidays were rising sharply and that their true living standards were going down. Meanwhile financial speculators, back then called the Gnomes of Zurich, were making large profits at Britain’s expense.

 

Today, there are speculative forces in the markets much bigger and more powerful. And they will be eager to exploit any miscalculations by the British government or British voters. A vote for Brexit would make some people very rich – but most voters considerably poorer.

 

I want people to know what the consequences of leaving the EU would be before they cast their votes, rather than after. A vote to leave could see the week end with a Black Friday, and serious consequences for ordinary people.

 

I think the Government also could have done more to sort out the concerns of the electorate affected by large numbers of new EU citizens.

 

The recent concessions obtained from the EU on Benefits should have been implemented earlier .

 

More houses schools and general infrastructure should have been funded in areas of high migration

 

Attention should have been paid to checking that Employers were paying the going rate and not undercutting UK workers.

 

Recruiting for worker only in the EU should have been banned.

 

They were only interested in reducing the deficit caused by the Global Banking Crash and getting re-elected I think the electorate can see them as a shallow government which had many of the leading Brexiteers in leading positions piling on the misery

[John B]

So we get to be 1/28 of the vote for laws that commissioners make up.

 

Or 1/1 of the vote for laws that British politicians make up.

 

Hmmmmm

 

You raise an interesting point because as one of the larger countries the UK have more votes in the 352 available in the Council but Norway and Switzerland have none but have to live with the outcome of any vote.

 

 

The 352 votes are distributed as follows:

 

France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom: 29 votes each

Spain, Poland: 27 votes each

Romania: 14 votes

Netherlands: 13 votes

Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal: 12 votes each

Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden: 10 votes each

Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Finland: 7 votes each

Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia: 4 votes each

Malta: 3 votes

 

A qualified majority is reached in the Council if the following conditions are met:

 

a majority of member states - 15 member states - vote in favour

 

a minimum of 260 votes out of the total 352 votes are cast in favour

 

I have found information relating to the UK and voting outcome

 

The UK government was on the losing side a far higher proportion of times than any other EU government in the 2009-15 period when the Tories were in government jumping from being on the minority (losing) side only 2.6% of the time in 2004-09 to being on the minority (losing) side 12.3% of the time in the 2009-15 period. Also, the next most frequent “losing” governments, Germany and Austria, were only on the minority side 5.4% of the time in this period.

 

So we win a really high level of votes but not all and is dependent on the Government in power at the time the Tories always want less regulation sometimes with regard to workers rights

 

Most of the votes are for regulations so that the single market runs smoothly so no country gets an unfair advantage

 

The EU does not set our VAT rates in any way it just stipulates the minimum which cannot be less than 15% .The Tories have raised it from 15% to 17.5% in 1991 and from 17.5% in 2011 despite saying they would not.

 

Fuel on VAT cannot be lower than 5% The introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and power went ahead in April 1994, but the increase from 8% to 17.5% in April 1995 was scuppered in December 1994, after the government lost the vote in parliament

 

In its 1997 general election manifesto, the Labour Party pledged to reduce VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5% After gaining power, the new Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown announced in June 1997 that the lower rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power would be reduced from 8% to 5% with effect from 1 September 1997 In November 1997, Brown announced that the VAT on installation of energy saving materials would be reduced from 17.5% to 5% from 1 July 1998. Brown subsequently reduced VAT from 17.5% to 5% on sanitary protection products (from 1 January 2001); children's car seats (from 1 April 2001); conversion and renovation of certain residential properties (from 12 May 2001); contraceptives (from 1 July 2006); and smoking cessation products (from 1 July 2007).

 

So we really have control on VAT which is a just a tax raising exercise

 

Of course if VAT was reduced to zero the government would have to raise some other tax if it wanted the same amount of tax to be raised.

 

Thanks to Gordon Brown OAPs get a £200 lump sum each year which covers their VAT.

 

I don’t believe the EU comes up with that many laws which are not acceptable as I doubt the countries would agree to them.

 

The Commission is composed of the College of Commissioners of 28 members, including the President and Vice-Presidents. The Commissioners, one from each EU country, are the Commission's political leadership during a 5-year term. Each Commissioner is assigned responsibility for specific policy areas by the President

 

The European Parliament has the power at any time to force the entire Commission to resign through a vote of no confidence which is similar to our parliament This requires a vote that makes up at least two-thirds of those voting and a majority of the total membership of the Parliament. While it has never used this power, it threatened to use it against the Commission headed by Jacques Santer in 1999 over allegations of corruption. In response, the Santer Commission resigned en masse of its own accord, the only time a Commission has done so.

[Wes Tender]

So that's no reason at all to accept your opinion ahead of the WTO's then. How pleased I am that we have at least sorted that one out.

 

As for your claiming that the numerious national and international forecasts predicting trouble ahead for the UK economy - upon the event of Brexit - somehow originate from UK politicians, this is quite bizarre behaviour even by your standards. It is not a case of "pet" economists being selectivly quoted by disingenuous politicans, but rather virtually ALL serious economics reaching much the same conclusion re this matter. I'll repeat that for emphasis as you are quite hard of thinking - All ECONOMIC OPINION, apart from Patrick Minford and a couple of his squabbling mates that is.

 

If you won't listen to what the economists and business leaders are telling you then just take a look at the Stock Market and Sterling exchange rate instead. The fact is that when it looks like your side is winning then everything crashes, whenever Remain is ahead then eveything is either stable or recovering. That is money talking so very plainly even you should be able to hear it.

 

Perhaps you find yourself looking forward to a oh-so-comfortable retirement free of any real concerns about job security, money, or the health of our economy. Lucky you. Millions of your fellow citizens however really can't afford the indulgance of voting themselves (and their children) poorer this coming Thursday. I know that because I'm one of them.

 

Not that I really expect that you are capable of comprehending this simple truth of course.

 

.

 

Look, I've constantly repeated the message but it doesn't penetrate your skull. I've listened to all of the economic arguments, weighed up all of the other factors like immigration, sovereignty, the subjugation of our legal system, etc and on that basis, I will be voting OUT. You can vent your spleen all you like, although I worry about your blood pressure, but your time would be better spent posting in reply to those who give a damn.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've listened to all of the economic arguments ...

 

[aintforever]

The fact is that when it looks like your side is winning then everything crashes, whenever Remain is ahead then eveything is either stable or recovering. That is money talking so very plainly even you should be able to hear it.

 

.

 

Is that even happening or is just more made up ******?

 

From what I can see remain were favourites at the start and are still favourites. Meanwhile the stock market has gone up and down, exchange rates have gone up and down, just like normal.

[shurlock]

Look, I've constantly repeated the message but it doesn't penetrate your skull. I've listened to all of the economic arguments, weighed up all of the other factors like immigration, sovereignty, the subjugation of our legal system, etc and on that basis, I will be voting OUT. You can vent your spleen all you like, although I worry about your blood pressure, but your time would be better spent posting in reply to those who give a damn.

 

Les, you've constantly repeated the message while listening to all of the arguments, how does that work, pal?

[shurlock]

Is that even happening or is just more made up ******?

 

From what I can see remain were favourites at the start and are still favourites. Meanwhile the stock market has gone up and down, exchange rates have gone up and down, just like normal.

 

The FTSE fell by 400 points from around June 9/10, coinciding with a slew of polls putting leave ahead, planting uncertainty in investors minds. Even the notoriously insular Federal Reserve mentioned brexit uncertainty as a factor in not putting up US interest rates which in other circumstances would be a good thing for markets.

 

Yesterday's rebound and rise in the sterling -the biggest one-day gain in 7 years- has been widely attributed to the belief over the weekend that notwithstanding leave's recent momentum remain will pip it.

 

So yes pal it has had an effect. Of course, were leave to actually win it, the effects would make recent volatility look like a few ripples on a summer's lake. Even brexiters don't deny otherwise.

Edited 21 June, 2016 by shurlock

[moonraker]

You raise an interesting point because as one of the larger countries the UK have more votes in the 352 available in the Council but Norway and Switzerland have none but have to live with the outcome of any vote.

 

 

The 352 votes are distributed as follows:

 

France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom: 29 votes each

Spain, Poland: 27 votes each

Romania: 14 votes

Netherlands: 13 votes

Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal: 12 votes each

Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden: 10 votes each

Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Finland: 7 votes each

Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia: 4 votes each

Malta: 3 votes

 

A qualified majority is reached in the Council if the following conditions are met:

 

a majority of member states - 15 member states - vote in favour

 

a minimum of 260 votes out of the total 352 votes are cast in favour

 

I have found information relating to the UK and voting outcome

 

The UK government was on the losing side a far higher proportion of times than any other EU government in the 2009-15 period when the Tories were in government jumping from being on the minority (losing) side only 2.6% of the time in 2004-09 to being on the minority (losing) side 12.3% of the time in the 2009-15 period. Also, the next most frequent “losing” governments, Germany and Austria, were only on the minority side 5.4% of the time in this period.

 

So we win a really high level of votes but not all and is dependent on the Government in power at the time the Tories always want less regulation sometimes with regard to workers rights

 

Most of the votes are for regulations so that the single market runs smoothly so no country gets an unfair advantage

 

The EU does not set our VAT rates in any way it just stipulates the minimum which cannot be less than 15% .The Tories have raised it from 15% to 17.5% in 1991 and from 17.5% in 2011 despite saying they would not.

 

Fuel on VAT cannot be lower than 5% The introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and power went ahead in April 1994, but the increase from 8% to 17.5% in April 1995 was scuppered in December 1994, after the government lost the vote in parliament

 

In its 1997 general election manifesto, the Labour Party pledged to reduce VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5% After gaining power, the new Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown announced in June 1997 that the lower rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power would be reduced from 8% to 5% with effect from 1 September 1997 In November 1997, Brown announced that the VAT on installation of energy saving materials would be reduced from 17.5% to 5% from 1 July 1998. Brown subsequently reduced VAT from 17.5% to 5% on sanitary protection products (from 1 January 2001); children's car seats (from 1 April 2001); conversion and renovation of certain residential properties (from 12 May 2001); contraceptives (from 1 July 2006); and smoking cessation products (from 1 July 2007).

 

So we really have control on VAT which is a just a tax raising exercise

 

Of course if VAT was reduced to zero the government would have to raise some other tax if it wanted the same amount of tax to be raised.

 

Thanks to Gordon Brown OAPs get a £200 lump sum each year which covers their VAT.

 

I don’t believe the EU comes up with that many laws which are not acceptable as I doubt the countries would agree to them.

 

The Commission is composed of the College of Commissioners of 28 members, including the President and Vice-Presidents. The Commissioners, one from each EU country, are the Commission's political leadership during a 5-year term. Each Commissioner is assigned responsibility for specific policy areas by the President

 

The European Parliament has the power at any time to force the entire Commission to resign through a vote of no confidence which is similar to our parliament This requires a vote that makes up at least two-thirds of those voting and a majority of the total membership of the Parliament. While it has never used this power, it threatened to use it against the Commission headed by Jacques Santer in 1999 over allegations of corruption. In response, the Santer Commission resigned en masse of its own accord, the only time a Commission has done so.

Stop all this reality, it has nothing to do with the Brexit World. Brexit behaves like a medieval religious cult where reality is suspended and replaced by a quasi religious belief that everything will be provided for once we leave the shackles of the EU and the devils and demons that populate the hell that is the EU Commission.

[Nolan]

Have we got a reason why the EU want us all to have an EU tax number?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Have we got a reason why the EU want us all to have an EU tax number?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Because its a devious, terrible plot?

[moonraker]

Have we got a reason why the EU want us all to have an EU tax number?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

They dont, not easy to find out, what they are doing is sharing National Tax Identifcation Numbers (TINS) to prevent tax avoidance, all TIN's will still come under the jurisdiction of individual member states and it is still permissable not to have TINS and there is NO requiremnt on countries who do not use TIN's to introduce a TIN's system. So another Brexit myth methinks.

[Nolan]

Have we got a idea how the five presidents report wanting to remove member states conflicts of interest on things like the IMF and wto will pan out?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[moonraker]

Have we got a idea how the five presidents report wanting to remove member states conflicts of interest on things like the IMF and wto will pan out?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

You are aware that the 5 Presidents Reports refers to the Eurozone, and that the UK are not part of the Eurozone. The report is aimed at strengthening the eurozone and while I acknowledge that the UK is not totally imune from Eurozone developments and changes this is also true of the US Dollar and FED RES.

[buctootim]

Have we got a idea how the five presidents report wanting to remove member states conflicts of interest on things like the IMF and wto will pan out?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Is this your plan? To keep posting up myths in the hope one of them wont be debunked and someone might actually vote leave because of that? Tip. All it does is make the Brexit case seem even weaker and more random, ill informed.

 

There are lots of positive things Brexit could have said and done but haven't. Why is that?

[Nolan]

I quote, from the report

 

However, in the international financial institutions, the EU and the euro area are still not represented as one.

This fragmented voice means the EU is punching below its political and economic weight...

 

Notice mention of both the EU and euro area.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[moonraker]

I quote, from the report

 

However, in the international financial institutions, the EU and the euro area are still not represented as one.

This fragmented voice means the EU is punching below its political and economic weight...

 

Notice mention of both the EU and euro area.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

It is a statement of fact, please post the quote that states the EU and Eurozone will be integrated, merged or whatver it is you are concerned about.

[TwoPints]

So Baroness Warsi who has been invisible during the campaign decided to swap sides. Meanwhile, Switzerland decides to withdraw its interest in joining the EU. They obviously don't realise the damage that this will do their economy, which will nosedive into decline right away.

Their application has been dormant for years. It's not as though they have been proceeding and pulled the plug on it. It's really just a bit of housework to tidy it up and formally end it.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[John B]

 

Ten of the world’s leading economists have issued a warning about the consequences of the UK leaving the EU as the City prepares for the pound to plunge and shares to fall in the event of a Brexit vote in Thursday’s referendum.

 

This is a tough choice...do I listen to the rantings of Nigel Boris and Wes, or do I listen to 10 of the world's leading economists...........

 

 

In other news former and current supermarket bosses say Brexit would be 'catastrophic for millions of families'

 

Some of the most senior figures in British retailing have signed an open letter today saying that Brexit would be “catastrophic for millions of ordinary families” because it would lead to prices going up. The letter has been publicised by Britain Stronger in Europe.

 

Their claims are supported by a report from USDAW, the shopworkers union, saying that workers would worse off if Britain leaves the EU because of the fall in the value of the pound and the impact of tariffs on imported goods.

 

Johnson condemns UKIPs ‘Breaking Point’ poster, saying it implied refugees were 'bad people' which is a good thing

 

In an open letter to The Independent, vice chancellors from almost every major higher education institution in Britain say they are 'gravely concerned' about a vote to leave

 

The pound has hit its highest level since the start of the year, in a fresh signal that Brexit fears are easing.

 

But the only way to ease Brexit fears is to vote remain

[View From The Top]

The outers are really a bunch of dumb cu_nts on this thread. Shown up again and again. Perhaps it is true that those with a limited education are more likely to vote Leave.

[Wes Tender]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/watch-andrew-neil-grills-ed-vaizey-second-time-george-osbornes-eu-spin/

 

Who to believe, eh? Vaisey couldn't name a single economist who would support a budget which raised taxes and cut spending in the face of us heading into a forecast recession. Furthermore the Treasury forecast was for a dip of just 0.4%. Even if we voted to Remain, Osborne's political career is finished as his credibility and trustworthiness are through the floor.

[ashnats]

The outers are really a bunch of dumb cu_nts on this thread. Shown up again and again. Perhaps it is true that those with a limited education are more likely to vote Leave.

 

no diggity.

 

Even more so as we reach this late stage, it is clear that the Leave campaign has no arguments that are not emotional ones. Anyone with a hint of common sense who looks at the facts and figures will vote remain. I don't really fathom how it can even be close, are we as a nation really that stupid?

 

Just look at the high profile leave campaigners, and ask yourself, do you fit in with that crowd? the Goves and Farages? The group of w*Ekrs on the leave campaign should be enough of a signal that perhaps it isn't the best group of individuals to be associated with.

 

I'm keeping faith that when it comes down to it, the people of Britain will show a collective common sense and turn out in their numbers to vote the right way and it will be a landslide. The silent majority needs to raise it's voice...

[Goatboy]

[Johnny Bognor]

Perhaps it is true that those with a limited education are more likely to vote Leave.

 

Hmmm. i notice this education thing being peddled alot.

 

In the good old days, only the top 10% went to university, in the days when universities were 'real' universities and you had to be super intelligent to get in, let alone do well.

 

Nowadays it seems any man and his dog can go to a 'uni' and get a 2:2 in media studies.

 

So on the surface, the young who are more likely to vote remain, are better educated (on paper). Whereas the old who are more likely to vote out, are less educated.

 

That doesnt make them more intelligent or worldly wise... it merely means that they had more opportunity to get a piece of paper, for an irrelevant subject that landed them a job serving burgers.

 

So serious question: is the opinion of of a mcdonalds worker, with a 2.2 in media studies, more valid than someone who has worked in industry and commerce for 30 years???

[shurlock]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/watch-andrew-neil-grills-ed-vaizey-second-time-george-osbornes-eu-spin/

 

Who to believe, eh? Vaisey couldn't name a single economist who would support a budget which raised taxes and cut spending in the face of us heading into a forecast recession. Furthermore the Treasury forecast was for a dip of just 0.4%. Even if we voted to Remain, Osborne's political career is finished as his credibility and trustworthiness are through the floor.

 

Les: the IFS predicts a hit to the public finances of between £20 billion and £40 billion in 2019–20 due to Brexit. Even if measures to address that hole might not be taken if the country entered a recession, they would still have to be taken at some point. That hole isn't going to magically disappear. The question thus remains: would you prefer Brexit-induced spending cuts or tax increases. Pick your poison.

 

Indeed there is something tragically ironic about you giddily citing Andrew Neil, though the irony is doubtless lost on you. After all it's precisely the swivel-eyed loons -perhaps you included- that were calling for austerity and living within our means when the economy was spluttering back in 2010 and 2011. Now all of a sudden austerity is bad and no 'single economist would support it.

 

Can't make this **** it up pal.

[moonraker]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/watch-andrew-neil-grills-ed-vaizey-second-time-george-osbornes-eu-spin/

 

Who to believe, eh? Vaisey couldn't name a single economist who would support a budget which raised taxes and cut spending in the face of us heading into a forecast recession. Furthermore the Treasury forecast was for a dip of just 0.4%. Even if we voted to Remain, Osborne's political career is finished as his credibility and trustworthiness are through the floor.

At last a resonable view, dosnt make the case for Brexit tough as the the tresury is one of many forecasts and true to form you only site the one that tends to your view, whilst not really supporting it. Andrew Neil is paid to make politicians lives uncomfortable, he is a master at it, he does not care which side they all get the same treatment. Farage in 2 interviews with AN dosnt seem to know whether he wants net imigration at 30k or 50k either way he accepsts net immigration, do all Brexiters realise this.

[shurlock]

At last a resonable view, dosnt make the case for Brexit tough as the the tresury is one of many forecasts and true to form you only site the one that tends to your view, whilst not really supporting it. Andrew Neil is paid to make politicians lives uncomfortable, he is a master at it, he does not care which side they all get the same treatment. Farage in 2 interviews with AN dosnt seem to know whether he wants net imigration at 30k or 50k either way he accepsts net immigration, do all Brexiters realise this.

 

No. Neil's question was horribly muddled and should have been swatted away with aplomb by Vaisey for the reasons I pointed out above.

[van Hanegem]

I guess you can say you're in a catch 22 situation in which you are screwed if you stay in the monstrous EU and f*cked when Brexit really happens (which I don't believe it will). But as a Dutchman I'm a bit jealous the British do get a chance to vote for the way they are going to be screwed, the Dutch government would never ever let this happen as they know the outcome... It strikes me though that all of you are just looking for "what's in it for us" (immigration, economics). I haven't read all 68 pages but it looks like not one of you has an opinion on the European ideal (a federal Europe which brings down the nation states in order to bring trade, safety and democracy to each corner of Europe enabling each citizen to prosper). Maybe it's because the remain camp and the leave camp like to compromise each other the whole time but if you look beyond that, does anyone feel he's part of the European ideal or that he is a European rather than British? Just wondering...

[Wes Tender]

 

:lol:

[Wes Tender]

Les: the IFS predicts a hit to the public finances of between £20 billion and £40 billion in 2019–20 due to Brexit. Even if measures to address that hole might not be taken if the country entered a recession, they would still have to be taken at some point. That hole isn't going to magically disappear. The question thus remains: would you prefer Brexit-induced spending cuts or tax increases. Pick your poison.

 

Indeed there is something tragically ironic about you giddily citing Andrew Neil, though the irony is doubtless lost on you. After all it's precisely the swivel-eyed loons -perhaps you included- that were calling for austerity and living within our means when the economy was spluttering back in 2010 and 2011. Now all of a sudden austerity is bad and no 'single economist would support it.

 

Can't make this **** it up pal.

 

I think that what will happen, is that post a Brexit, we will wait and see what actually happens, not what some economists predict will happen. They aren't infallible and some have been known even to exaggerate their forecasts. The Chancellor, (whoever it is at the time that the budget becomes due), will propose measures to stabilise the economy, which if they were along the lines that the current Chancellor is proposing, would not get past Parliament. What your cited report covered was for 2019-20, two or three years hence. What was threatened by Osborne was an emergency budget very soon after a Brexit, against a background of a Treasury forecast of a dip of just 0.4%. As I asked, who is right?

[hutch]

The outers are really a bunch of dumb cu_nts on this thread. Shown up again and again. Perhaps it is true that those with a limited education are more likely to vote Leave.

I knew there was a reason for Beckham to jump on the remain bus.

[buctootim]

Hmmm. i notice this education thing being peddled alot.

 

In the good old days, only the top 10% went to university, in the days when universities were 'real' universities and you had to be super intelligent to get in, let alone do well.

 

Nowadays it seems any man and his dog can go to a 'uni' and get a 2:2 in media studies.

 

So on the surface, the young who are more likely to vote remain, are better educated (on paper). Whereas the old who are more likely to vote out, are less educated.

 

That doesnt make them more intelligent or worldly wise... it merely means that they had more opportunity to get a piece of paper, for an irrelevant subject that landed them a job serving burgers.

 

So serious question: is the opinion of of a mcdonalds worker, with a 2.2 in media studies, more valid than someone who has worked in industry and commerce for 30 years???

 

 

Your point is valid as far as it goes - but it ignores the fact that more educated people of the same age group are more likely to vote remain. We discussed this same point and same table before Johnny. You remember deary. What grade was the CSE you got?

 

Edited 21 June, 2016 by buctootim

[buctootim]

It strikes me though that all of you are just looking for "what's in it for us" (immigration, economics). I haven't read all 68 pages but it looks like not one of you has an opinion on the European ideal (a federal Europe which brings down the nation states in order to bring trade, safety and democracy to each corner of Europe enabling each citizen to prosper)........ does anyone feel he's part of the European ideal or that he is a European rather than British? Just wondering...

 

A good point, one which to my knowledge hasn't come up here. I think relatively few people in Britain have ever bought into the post war ideal of a Europe so tightly intertwined that another war was impossible - generally we've always seen it as club with benefits. There are probably many reasons for that - an island mentality and no land borders; stronger ties with ex colonies because of shared language / media / history; being on the geographic periphery of Europe but also a sense of isolationism and pulling up the drawbridge.

 

The main problem though is the EU project has tried to be both wide and deep in too short a period of time. A smaller group of culturally and economically similar countries might have been able to do it - but 28 countries from Finland to Croatia in full union in only 50 years?

[Whitey Grandad]

I think that what will happen, is that post a Brexit, we will wait and see what actually happens, not what some economists predict will happen. They aren't infallible and some have been known even to exaggerate their forecasts. The Chancellor, (whoever it is at the time that the budget becomes due), will propose measures to stabilise the economy, which if they were along the lines that the current Chancellor is proposing, would not get past Parliament. What your cited report covered was for 2019-20, two or three years hence. What was threatened by Osborne was an emergency budget very soon after a Brexit, against a background of a Treasury forecast of a dip of just 0.4%. As I asked, who is right?

 

Wishful thinking, Wes. The whole point about Project Fear is that there really is something to be terrified about.

[Whitey Grandad]

The outers are really a bunch of dumb cu_nts on this thread. Shown up again and again. Perhaps it is true that those with a limited education are more likely to vote Leave.

 

Voting Leave is almost the perfect definition of ignorance and dumbness.

[OldNick]

Voting Leave is almost the perfect definition of ignorance and dumbness.

why call people dumb just because they want a different direction than yourself??? No doubt your position is swayed by self interest and people who wish to leave have their own interests.

Iam mostly in the remain camp but am not foolosh enough to see some of the plusses if we did leave. Staying in is not all a bed of roses, voting in and the powers that be have us by the short and curlies and can go forward with some odious laws if they so wish.

I am in the in the remain for economic reasons

[scotty]

The FTSE fell by 400 points from around June 9/10, coinciding with a slew of polls putting leave ahead, planting uncertainty in investors minds. Even the notoriously insular Federal Reserve mentioned brexit uncertainty as a factor in not putting up US interest rates which in other circumstances would be a good thing for markets.

 

Yesterday's rebound and rise in the sterling -the biggest one-day gain in 7 years- has been widely attributed to the belief over the weekend that notwithstanding leave's recent momentum remain will pip it.

 

So yes pal it has had an effect. Of course, were leave to actually win it, the effects would make recent volatility look like a few ripples on a summer's lake. Even brexiters don't deny otherwise.

 

That would be the same FTSE that dropped like a stone when we finally left the exchange rate mechanism.

[badgerx16]

?... but it looks like not one of you has an opinion on the European ideal (a federal Europe which brings down the nation states in order to bring trade, safety and democracy to each corner of Europe enabling each citizen to prosper). ?... does anyone feel he's part of the European ideal or that he is a European rather than British? Just wondering...

I wouldn't have an issue with that, but suspect I am certainly in the minority. I think there is still too much in the British psyche that views the pre WW2 global map as where we belong.

[Johnny Bognor]

Your point is valid as far as it goes - but it ignores the fact that more educated people of the same age group are more likely to vote remain. We discussed this same point and same table before Johnny. You remember deary. What grade was the CSE you got?

 

Im not sure I discussed it, but as you ask, I have a 'useless' degree from a 'new' 'university'. Not sure that qualifies me to weigh up the arguments for leaving or remaining, considering turning up would get you a 2:2

... but I also have 20+ years experience in building a successful multi-million pound business.

 

I'm not sure what I should rely on... that useless piece of paper or years of valuable experience. Maybe you could enlighten me???

 

Or maybe intelligence is not just defined by a piece of paper... maybe some people are fortunate enough to get one, whilst there are more intelligent people that aren't so lucky?

 

Why do intellectual lefties like to play the cum stained certificate card?

Edited 21 June, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[whelk]

If you like John Oliver. Mildly amusing and mentions our instinct is to tell Europe to fck off

 

[Whitey Grandad]

why call people dumb just because they want a different direction than yourself??? No doubt your position is swayed by self interest and people who wish to leave have their own interests.

Iam mostly in the remain camp but am not foolosh enough to see some of the plusses if we did leave. Staying in is not all a bed of roses, voting in and the powers that be have us by the short and curlies and can go forward with some odious laws if they so wish.

I am in the in the remain for economic reasons

 

That is most definitely not true and you have no reason for saying it. My view is based of a lifetime of experience and over 30 years of designing, manufacturing and exporting. My concern is for the next generations of Britain, some of whom do not have a vote at the moment. At my age I could no longer be described as very active in business terms but I remember what it used to be like in the bad old days before the Single Market arrived. As for leaving, I can see no pluses, just promises and predictions made by people who are in no position to understand what they are saying nor take any part in sorting out the mess that they would create. The creation of the Single Market was one of Thatcher's great achievements which swept away piles of red tape and bureaucracy and yet the Leavers want to bring it all back by re-introducing Customs controls and delays.

 

These 'powers that be' of which you speak are based in London, not Brussels, and that is where we should be concentrating our pressure for change.