[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

Project fear failing ... shirley it must be time for Project Armageddon?

Brexit could spell the end of western civilisation, says Donald Tusk

 

[pb21]

Another snippet from the times...

It is inconceivable that Britain, along with only Belarus, would be denied access to the free-trade zone…

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is suggesting we would be denied access if we leave the EU, just that we would have to conform to EU standards and quite likely accept free movement of people from within the EU; i.e. exactly the same as if we remain?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I don't think anyone is suggesting we would be denied access if we leave the EU, just that we would have to conform to EU standards and quite likely accept free movement of people from within the EU; i.e. exactly the same as if we remain?

Only if, like Norway, we agree to STILL pay in to the EU (but get nothing back in grants).

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Project fear failing ... shirley it must be time for Project Armageddon?

Brexit could spell the end of western civilisation, says Donald Tusk

Well Cameron, if you wanted to avoid the end of western civilisation, you could have just NOT had a referendum, you know!!

Hyperbole on both sides is ridiculous

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't think anyone is suggesting we would be denied access if we leave the EU, just that we would have to conform to EU standards and quite likely accept free movement of people from within the EU; i.e. exactly the same as if we remain?

Only if, like Norway, we agree to STILL pay in to the EU (but get nothing back in grants).

The Elephant in the Leave Room.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I am worried, this is such a big decision for people to make and who really knows what would be right or wrong, are we being told the whole truth or just being fed the things we want to hear from both sides of the campaign whichever side of the debate you fall on?

I agree completely. Neither side has made a compelling case, and both have fuelled the misinformation and sought to harness prejudices.

I honestly don't think that a big enough proportion of the British population is SURE what is the right thing to do. Many will vote Remain because they THINK it is probably / hopefully right on balance, many will vote Leave because they think it is probably / hopefully right. That's a pretty poor basis for making a massive decision.

The bottom line on that is that if we stay now, we have the enshrined right to choose to leave at any future juncture. If we vote out, we can only go back with the approval of EVERY other member state -and they'll have us over a barrel on the terms of that re-admission - they'll be much worse than our current special terms.

Anyone not 100% CERTAIN that OUT is correct, should vote IN for now.

 

[Steve in Japan]

I agree completely. Neither side has made a compelling case, and both have fuelled the misinformation and sought to harness prejudices.

I honestly don't think that a big enough proportion of the British population is SURE what is the right thing to do. Many will vote Remain because they THINK it is probably / hopefully right on balance, many will vote Leave because they think it is probably / hopefully right. That's a pretty poor basis for making a massive decision.

The bottom line on that is that if we stay now, we have the enshrined right to choose to leave at any future juncture. If we vote out, we can only go back with the approval of EVERY other member state -and they'll have us over a barrel on the terms of that re-admission - they'll be much worse than our current special terms.

Anyone not 100% CERTAIN that OUT is correct, should vote IN for now.

To which I would say it has taken 40 years to get this referendum. I would not imagine another one will come along quickly if we vote Remain.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

yes I agree with you about the Leave campaign. Just as dishonest. I stopped watching the politicians on both sides a while back. My point was about Remain so I didn't mention this. I do think that the EU project is designed to deliver prosperity to the owners of capital by driving down wages and driving up asset prices. It is a distortion of the true relative cost of labour and yet it is sold as some kind of nirvana of togetherness. To this extent I think there is duping going on although most people on both sides have the best of intentions. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the immigration system and I believe that the current debate will achieve this. It is no longer acceptable for New Labour and Tory governments to have open borders to drive down wage costs for their rich friends. The leave camp have not articulated it properly because it is dominated by tories. If we want to make it happen we vote leave then vote in a government that allows labour to share properly in the rewards of business ie controls immigration.

I have sympathy with this view. Everything is run by big capital, and they like the EU for the large supply of cheap, relatively non-unionised labour, and preferential trade agreements. However they are disliking the EU regulations on things like the environment, labour laws, health & safety and so on. I wonder if they see a window here to leave the EU and free themselves of these regulations (which Johnson, Gove, IDS will surely deliver) whilst at the same time keeping the workforce (all 3 million EU migrants currently in the country can stay, and immigration won't be stopped, just 'controlled', which will effectively mean little change) and taking a chance on trade?

 

[Prince Monolulu]

I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it - Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Blueprint for a better future.

European Union Law (Emergency Provisions) Bill. This would be introduced in the current session of Parliament. It would immediately end the rogue European Court of Justice’s control over national security, allow the Government to remove EU citizens whose presence is not conducive to the public good (including terrorists and serious criminals), end the growing use of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights to overrule UK law, and end payouts under EU law to big businesses, saving between £7 billion and £43 billion for public services by 2021. This will amend the European Communities Act 1972 but not repeal it. This action is limited to areas that will not form part of the final UK-EU settlement.

Legislation to be introduced in subsequent sessions will include:

A special Finance Bill. This would abolish the 5% rate of VAT on household energy bills by the date of the next general election by amending the Value Added Tax Act 1994, and will be a major benefit for low income households. This will be paid for by savings from the UK’s contributions to the EU budget.

National Health Service (Funding Target) Bill. This would require that by the next general election, the NHS receives a £100 million per week real-terms cash transfusion over and above current plans. This will be paid for by savings from the UK’s contributions to the EU budget and other savings from leaving (e.g. we will not pay the billions that the ECJ is ordering us to pay to multinational companies trying to avoid UK taxes).

Asylum and Immigration Control Bill. This would end the automatic right of all EU citizens to enter the UK by the next election. We will be able to carry out proper security checks on those entering and refuse entry to known criminals. EU citizens will be subject to UK law rather than EU immigration legislation. The Bill would end the discrimination against non-EU citizens and create a genuine points-based immigration system in which the possession of suitable skills is a key element. The Bill will also end the European Court’s control of the UK’s asylum policy by the next general election. Immediately after the referendum, a process should be established to consider the details of this new system.

Free Trade Bill. This would require that by the next election, the UK leaves the EU’s ‘common commercial policy’. That would restore the UK Government’s power to control its own trade policy. That would create jobs. The UK would take back its seat on the World Trade Organization, becoming a more influential force for free trade and friendly cooperation. After we Vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.

European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill. This would ensure that by the next general election, the European Communities Act 1972, the legal basis for the supremacy of EU law in the UK, is repealed. The EU Treaties will cease to form part of UK law and the European Court’s jurisdiction over the UK will come to a permanent end. The UK would cease to make contributions to the EU budget. EU law would be transferred into domestic law so there is no abrupt change and Parliament would be able to debate and choose which provisions to keep, which to remove, and which to amend.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/news

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I have sympathy with this view. Everything is run by big capital, and they like the EU for the large supply of cheap, relatively non-unionised labour, and preferential trade agreements. However they are disliking the EU regulations on things like the environment, labour laws, health & safety and so on. I wonder if they see a window here to leave the EU and free themselves of these regulations (which Johnson, Gove, IDS will surely deliver) whilst at the same time keeping the workforce (all 3 million EU migrants currently in the country can stay, and immigration won't be stopped, just 'controlled', which will effectively mean little change) and taking a chance on trade?

It is entirely possible that this is the motivation of the people you mention. However my vote at the next election will not go to a party that wants to roll back regulations. The nature of the debate will move on to the kind of country we wish to live in rather than how we can fit in with a pan European project.

 

[sten_super]

I don't really want to get into a debate about the relative merits of the two main representative groups (who are all a shower of shit, quite frankly), but I feel duty-bound to point out there is one completely false number in this press release. I'll happily do the same for any Remain nonsense as well - for example George Osbourne's announcement that an 'emergency budget' would contain tax rises and spending cuts is complete and total crap; in the short term the only thing that he is likely to (credibly) commit to is removing the target of balancing the budget, thereby allowing him to borrow more to fund counter-cyclical government spending.

end payouts under EU law to big businesses, saving between £7 billion and £43 billion for public services by 2021.

This number has been completely debunked here.

 

[5ways]

Farage leads flotilla against capital. They are coming for the Polish builders, French bankers and Croatian bicycle couriers! Turn them back!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I don't really want to get into a debate about the relative merits of the two main representative groups (who are all a shower of shit, quite frankly), but I feel duty-bound to point out there is one completely false number in this press release. I'll happily do the same for any Remain nonsense as well - for example George Osbourne's announcement that an 'emergency budget' would contain tax rises and spending cuts is complete and total crap; in the short term the only thing that he is likely to (credibly) commit to is removing the target of balancing the budget, thereby allowing him to borrow more to fund counter-cyclical government spending.

This number has been completely debunked here.

Surprised/relieved you only found one glaring inaccuracy!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Farage leads flotilla against capital. They are coming for the Polish builders, French bankers and Croatian bicycle couriers! Turn them back!

Page 666, post no. 6660. You are the devil!

 

[sten_super]

Surprised/relieved you only found one glaring inaccuracy!

To be perfectly honest there are a couple of other inconsistencies but I wanted to stick to the clearly factual.

I think the public has been done a massive disservice by the 'official' bodies. Both have summarily failed to depict an optimistic view of the future, to acknowledge the weaknesses of their arguments (and the strengths of the other side) and to engage in any kind of sensible debate or discussion.

I firmly believe that we'd be better off remaining in the EU, but it's clear that large swathes of the public are pissed off with the political elite and the globalisation agenda that they represent (whether Leave or Remain). A substantial proportion of these people will vote to Leave, hoping to reverse the tide of globalisation (immigration, low wages, free movement of people and capital, etc.). I fear that, if Leave wins, they will then be done a massive disservice by the politicians that will claim to represent them (Boris, Gove, Patel, etc.). I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Jim in the West]

An excerpt from an illuminating article in today's FT (by Martin Wolf). I know the Leavers will want to argue against this, but it sounds a credible scenario to me. If we Vote Leave, it will be an almighty political mess. Regardless of all the arguments based on economic forecasts, the risks of something like this happening are huge. And we'd be relying on Boris to sort it out!

"After the referendum, the UK would cease to have a government in any meaningful sense. The Conservative party, with a tiny majority, would be deeply divided between its pro and anti-European wings. The opposition Labour party is already deeply divided on this and many other issues. Out of this morass would have to come a competent government with a view of what it wants to achieve in complex negotiations with the rest of the EU and the world. It would then have to undertake these negotiations with partners that have many other concerns and would regard the UK with a poisonous blend of hostility and contempt. It would have to decide whether to keep or modify the laws created by more than four decades of EU membership and, if the latter, how to do so. It would have to manage the impact of Brexit on the coherence of the UK and its relations with Ireland. While doing all this, it would have to manage the economy, the fiscal position and the minutiae of political life. Anybody who believes the leaders of the Brexit campaign could manage all this is surely taking illegal drugs."

 

[Jim in the West]

Why on earth do you people continue to insist on discriminating against non EU citizens? Is it something to do with the colour of their skin?are they simply too foreign for you?
I cant think what else it can be as plenty of non EU citizens wishing to come here legally have some great skills we could utilise.

You also rather handily completely ignore that the authorities are fighting a constant battle against those non EU citizens who enter the country legally but under false pretences,think sham colleges,sham marriages,abuse of the entrepreneur visa system by money lenders to name but a few.

Add on that those who just get in here illegally and work in the black market,dont pay any taxes but still use our roads and have to live somewhere.
Last estimates were 1.1 million of illegal non EU peoples here in the country.

Why if you believe in the concept of free movement are you still happy with controls on non EU citizens.
Why are you all so hypocritical on this subject?
Why are you all against the 75% of the population who want immigration brought down.
What figure coming in per year would finally persuade you to say,ok thats a bit to many now?How is it you all find this an impossible question to answer?

But most of all why isnt it you cant understand why the country thinks you simply have no credible answers to the problems of mass immigration.....especially when you come out with guff like lets stop ALL Non EU migrants entering now........what a daft proposal

Just to be clear, I'm NOT against non-EU immigration. I was merely suggesting an alternative, for those who think there are too many immigrants (ie, the Brexiteers). I'm not in that camp, so I wouldn't do that.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

that's an amusingly loaded question. Sounds a bit like something out of '1984'. If the supply of labour is reduced then incomes will rise not fall. For balance, perhaps people could also be asked how much of the percentage share of future rises in GDP would they be willing to lose in maintaining current levels of immigration.

 

[5ways]

that's an amusingly loaded question. Sounds a bit like something out of '1984'. If the supply of labour is reduced then incomes will rise not fall. For balance, perhaps people could also be asked how much of the percentage share of future rises in GDP would they be willing to lose in maintaining current levels of immigration.

If we leave and the economy tanks, as it is expected to do so, incomes will fall. There is no economic upside to Brexit. Shrinking the supply of labour damages the economy.