Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

New Poll. Europe: In or Out

How would you vote now?

  • In

    Votes: 168 51.1%

  • Out

    Votes: 161 48.9%
  • Total voters
    329
  • Poll closed .


T

The Rivet

Well-known member
Aug 9, 2011
4,512
Boris Quote

"That is what we mean by loss of sovereignty – the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives. We are seeing an alienation of the people from the power they should hold, and I am sure this is contributing to the sense of disengagement, the apathy, the view that politicians are “all the same” and can change nothing, and to the rise of extremist parties. "

The vote is open for a while.
 




Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,566
cunning fergus said:
Given the fallout from the referendum in Scotland about the critical nature of North Sea oil to Scotland's independence I would argue confidently that if they voted last year they will know. Further those who work in the industry or are reliant on it will be feeling the consequences of the current market shock as some 20,000 Scottish jobs have gone or will go shortly as a consequence of the fall in oil prices.

In short, the primary economic argument that the SNP had then is now a busted flush.

That brings us to the second point about Scotland staying in the EU and having to join the euro. This was not an argument the SNP wanted to make last year because it was not a vote winner. If it was they would have argued for it.

They will have to now have to do a 180 degree turn and argue for it if the UK votes for a Brexit.

If you think there are hundreds of thousands of Scottish people who didn't vote or voted to stay in who will now vote out because they want to join the euro then you are frankly deluded. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Calling me deluded is bordering on the pompous. We each have our opinions, I respect yours and nobody knows how this will play out.

The pre-referendum polls in Scotland showed those favouring independence regarded the EU as an afterthought, it was not a factor in their decision to vote to leave. However, those voting to stay in the UK were also 54-34% in favour of staying in the EU as well, so maintaining the status quo clearly was important to many. If the UK changes the status quo and leaves the EU while Sturgeon pledges to remain in the EU then I can see some people going over to her side.

Sturgeon herself today is talking up a second referendum over the EU issue, and this at a time when the oil price is at rock bottom. If the oil issue has, as you assert, killed their chances then why is she talking up a referendum now? The SNP are in a great place and a second independence defeat would change that overnight. She must genuinely believe she'd have a chance of winning it.
 


C

cunning fergus

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2009
4,745
Pavilionaire said:
Calling me deluded is bordering on the pompous. We each have our opinions, I respect yours and nobody knows how this will play out.

The pre-referendum polls in Scotland showed those favouring independence regarded the EU as an afterthought, it was not a factor in their decision to vote to leave. However, those voting to stay in the UK were also 54-34% in favour of staying in the EU as well, so maintaining the status quo clearly was important to many. If the UK changes the status quo and leaves the EU while Sturgeon pledges to remain in the EU then I can see some people going over to her side.

Sturgeon herself today is talking up a second referendum over the EU issue, and this at a time when the oil price is at rock bottom. If the oil issue has, as you assert, killed their chances then why is she talking up a referendum now? The SNP are in a great place and a second independence defeat would change that overnight. She must genuinely believe she'd have a chance of winning it.
Click to expand...


Firstly, I agree with the premis that Brexit may be a trigger for a referendum, on that we are aligned, however from there we seem to diverge.

Sturgeon is the leader of a nationalist party, so she will do anything to force more independence referenda. Independence from the UK is their aim, and better a small chance than no chance at all. Accordingly any event that creates the slightest opportunity to have a referendum will attract Sturgeon like a moth is drawn to a flame. The event will be talked up and exaggerated to suit her agenda, no different than any other politician.
This time though, the SNP's is unable to make any credible economic argument for independence, so they will have to argue on a completely different agenda to the one used less than 24 months ago.

Economics won the referendum last time, and the Scots now know that the SNP was lying about its economic strength in the referendum campaign. It's fantasy to think that the Scots would swallow a worse argument this time round, especially given the backdrop of its prevailing economic weakness. If scots genuinely love the EU so much the SNP would have recommended the euro, they didn't because it was a vote loser.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4928a7e-b9ea-11e5-a7cc-280dfe875e28.html

Your point really is that people currently thinking of voting out shouldn't because it could cause the break up of the U.K. by pissed off scots who voted in.

My point is that the outers lost the last Scottish referendum comprehensively, and they would fare even worse now given the poor state of their economy and the lack of trust the SNP would have on any economic case. Therefore people can vote out largely secure in mind that the UK is safe if a referendum is triggered.
 




L

Lincoln Imp

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2009
5,964
brighton fella said:
the irish voted a clear no the the EU the first time around yet the second time around when they were made to vote again they voted yes, they were told to keep voting until the yes won it.. i suppose in your books that sort of thing is considered both fair and acceptable..
the dutch and the french just like the irish also voted a clear no but again that result never suited the EU so therefore the EU came up with the lisbon treaty. i suppose you think that is fair too.
no you are quite right this was not vote rigging but only because it didn't have to go that far. but all the same it was a filthy dirty rotten scam, that people like you find acceptable. .
.
maybe .
Click to expand...

Don't you, even in the middle of your black rages, find it strange that you, as a Eurosceptic, can stereotype those with a different view ("people like you" - you haven't got a clue what sort of person I am) and suggest that we find filthy dirty rotten scams (your words) acceptable. That would be pretty much exactly the same as me calling you a typical Little Englander with a closed mind and a tendency towards phobic bigotry. Maybe. I wouldn't call you that because I have no idea who you are, I don't like insulting people and I understand that people disagree with each other. Your rants make a reasonable response difficult but I shall keep on trying.
 




Seagull on the wing

Seagull on the wing

New member
Sep 22, 2010
7,458
Hailsham
Meanwhile nobody has come out with what we gain from being a member of the EU...please,if you can think of a good reason what we gain from being a member,saying the benefits are there if you look for them is not an answer.For every reason you can give would be most welcome...over to the 'IN' campaign
 


GT49er

GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,716
Gloucester
Pavilionaire said:
Sturgeon herself today is talking up a second referendum over the EU issue, and this at a time when the oil price is at rock bottom. If the oil issue has, as you assert, killed their chances then why is she talking up a referendum now?
Click to expand...

VERY simple answer to that. As a politician, she wants her own way; the referendum (in her eyes) came up with the 'wrong' answer, so she will go on wanting referendums until finally the voters come to their senses and vote the 'right' way.
It will be exactly the same if we vote for a 'Brexit'. There will be another referendum before you can say 'fix' at which we, the electorate, will be expected to get it 'right' this time round (for precedents see Denmark, see Greece).
 


S

sten_super

Brain Surgeon
Jul 28, 2005
5,945
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
Seagull on the wing said:
Meanwhile nobody has come out with what we gain from being a member of the EU...please,if you can think of a good reason what we gain from being a member,saying the benefits are there if you look for them is not an answer.For every reason you can give would be most welcome...over to the 'IN' campaign
Click to expand...

In a couple of words; economic growth.

We have more trade with the EU than we'd have post-Brexit - trade means jobs. We have non-EU firms investing and creating jobs here because it gives them access to the EU and the Single Market. Brexit wouldn't end all of that; there would still be some trade, and some foreign investment - but it's very unlikely that it would be as much as before.

edit to add: This is not the only reason, but it's the most compelling (and the biggest, and the least political).
 




JCL666

JCL666

absurdism
Sep 23, 2011
2,190


jakarta

jakarta

Well-known member
May 25, 2007
15,623
Sullington
sten_super said:
In a couple of words; economic growth.

We have more trade with the EU than we'd have post-Brexit - trade means jobs. We have non-EU firms investing and creating jobs here because it gives them access to the EU and the Single Market. Brexit wouldn't end all of that; there would still be some trade, and some foreign investment - but it's very unlikely that it would be as much as before.

edit to add: This is not the only reason, but it's the most compelling (and the biggest, and the least political).
Click to expand...

Can you explain why EU countries would change the way we trade with them such to diminish it if we leave?

As the UK runs a deficit with the EU trade wise (goods and services) and yet a surplus with the rest of the World who would such a policy hurt the most?
 


R

rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,563
I thought I had heard Cameron say that if he couldn't negotiate a decent deal that he would campaign to leave the EU.

By any measure - particularly against the Conservative manifesto promises - he has failed miserably to get a half decent deal. So why is he still polishing the turd? It won't get shiny and will still be a turd.

Cameron tried and failed and now he just looks foolish trying to sell a non-deal to the British people.

I'm out.
 






S

sten_super

Brain Surgeon
Jul 28, 2005
5,945
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
Sure. The short answer is because barriers to trade reduce trade. And some barriers are inevitable. For example, currently a UK exporter can ship goods to elsewhere in the EU without any official export documentation. If we left the EU (assuming this means also leaving the single market), then exporters would have to seek documentation for every export. This is an additional cost, and (in some marginal cases) will cause exporting to become unprofitable. So the UK firm can't make money from exporting to the EU, and unless they can find another source of demand that ultimately means shedding jobs. There are a number of these types of 'barriers to trade' (common standards is another) which would increase the costs of exporting to the EU if we left the single market.

This is nothing about 'vindictive' trade agreements, or anything like that. It's simply costs affecting the bottom line.

Sorry, on phone didn't realise it wasn't quoting [MENTION=6741]jakarta[/MENTION]
 
Last edited:


C

cunning fergus

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2009
4,745
sten_super said:
Sure. The short answer is because barriers to trade reduce trade. And some barriers are inevitable. For example, currently a UK exporter can ship goods to elsewhere in the EU without any official export documentation. If we left the EU (assuming this means also leaving the single market), then exporters would have to seek documentation for every export. This is an additional cost, and (in some marginal cases) will cause exporting to become unprofitable. So the UK firm can't make money from exporting to the EU, and unless they can find another source of demand that ultimately means shedding jobs. There are a number of these types of 'barriers to trade' (common standards is another) which would increase the costs of exporting to the EU if we left the single market.

This is nothing about 'vindictive' trade agreements, or anything like that. It's simply costs affecting the bottom line.
Click to expand...


If it wasnt a free unrestricted trade deal with the EU like we have now, many of the EU countries that trade with us would suffer even worse.

Ireland's economy, for example, would suffer by the introduction of additional paperwork to trade with an independent UK. Accordingly, at a political level they would not support anything other than a free trade deal. Ireland's other major trading partner is the US, and there is a lot of debate in Ireland at the moment (it is election time) around the consequences of Brexit; and there is a view that if costs were put on imports/exports to the UK they would have to rethink membership of the euro as they would be trading significantly more with countries out than in. Its far more complex then you like to think and it is countries like Ireland than want to trade openly with the 5th largest economy in the world.

It will be a free trade deal................its not in their interests to be vindicative or otherwise.
 




S

sten_super

Brain Surgeon
Jul 28, 2005
5,945
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
cunning fergus said:
If it wasnt a free unrestricted trade deal with the EU like we have now, many of the EU countries that trade with us would suffer even worse.

Ireland's economy, for example, would suffer by the introduction of additional paperwork to trade with an independent UK. Accordingly, at a political level they would not support anything other than a free trade deal. Ireland's other major trading partner is the US, and there is a lot of debate in Ireland at the moment (it is election time) around the consequences of Brexit; and there is a view that if costs were put on imports/exports to the UK they would have to rethink membership of the euro as they would be trading significantly more with countries out than in. Its far more complex then you like to think and it is countries like Ireland than want to trade openly with the 5th largest economy in the world.

It will be a free trade deal................its not in their interests to be vindicative or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I can go with the idea of it being a free trade deal. But that doesn't mean there's no strings attached. All of the EU's free trade deals with near neighbours involve the free movement of goods, services, capital, finance and people. In which case we have no control over EU immigration, financial services legislation, etc along with free trade. And we'd probably be expected to continue to pay in to the European project. And we'd lose any voting rights. From my perspective I'm struggling to see how that's better than where we are at the moment.
 


Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,566
It's worth factoring in what the USA thinks about Brexit. The Guardian published an article about that on 28 Oct 15:

The United States is not keen on pursuing a separate free trade deal with Britain if it leaves the European Union, the US trade representative, Michael Froman, said – the first public comments from a senior US official on the matter.

Froman’s comments on Wednesday undermine a key economic argument deployed by proponents of exit, who say Britain would prosper on its own and be able to secure bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) with trading partners.

The US is Britain’s biggest export market after the EU, buying more than $54bn (£35bn) in goods from the UK in 2014.

“I think it’s absolutely clear that Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU, being part of a larger economic entity,” Froman told Reuters, adding that EU membership gives Britain more leverage in negotiations.

“We’re not particularly in the market for FTAs with individual countries. We’re building platforms … that other countries can join over time.”

If Britain left the EU, Froman said, it would face the same tariffs and trade barriers as other countries outside the US free trade network.

“We have no FTA with the UK so they would be subject to the same tariffs – and other trade-related measures – as China, or Brazil or India,” he said.
 


L

London Irish

Well-known member
Nov 25, 2003
21,867
Trapped inside the Project for the New American Ce
A very reluctant IN
 


jakarta

jakarta

Well-known member
May 25, 2007
15,623
Sullington
sten_super said:
Sure. The short answer is because barriers to trade reduce trade. And some barriers are inevitable. For example, currently a UK exporter can ship goods to elsewhere in the EU without any official export documentation. If we left the EU (assuming this means also leaving the single market), then exporters would have to seek documentation for every export. This is an additional cost, and (in some marginal cases) will cause exporting to become unprofitable. So the UK firm can't make money from exporting to the EU, and unless they can find another source of demand that ultimately means shedding jobs. There are a number of these types of 'barriers to trade' (common standards is another) which would increase the costs of exporting to the EU if we left the single market.

This is nothing about 'vindictive' trade agreements, or anything like that. It's simply costs affecting the bottom line.

Sorry, on phone didn't realise it wasn't quoting [MENTION=6741]jakarta[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

So the cost of filling in a few forms will destroy the EU as an export market? Sorry I don't buy that.
 








You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here