New Poll. Europe: In or Out

[sten_super]

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

I don't buy it either.

Which is why I said 'for example'. It's one example, it's a pretty trivial one, but it's one amongst many (and it doesn't rely on tariffs and quotas, which are the biggest trade barriers but also those that a post-Brexit UK would do the most to avoid facing). There is huge amounts of evidence that trade barriers are bad for trade, and bad for economic growth, and moving from a free market to anything less than that will involve more barriers to trade.

My view on this is rather like the Scottish referendum - that 'Out' would be much more convincing if they established a clear and honest position (e.g. "We don't want a Norway-style relationship, we want complete sovereignty, and we accept that will mean barriers to trade with the EU, and some short-term pain, but the long-term economic gains are stronger domestic industries, the removal of red tape and freedom to set our own rules, all of which should bolster productivity and competitiveness") rather than trying to be all things to all men ("There is no economic downside", "We will have a Norway-style relationship", "We will regain control of our own immigration policy") without any coherence.

 

[cunning fergus]

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.

I can accept there may be some strings, however there has to be proportionality because the UK is a massive market in its own right. Given the current economic malaise in the EU, and the likely difficulty it will have resolving it, a dynamic market offshore of the EU will be important for the EU. A post Brexit negotiation will not seek to clog the wheels of trade up.

To think that the EU would impose the same terms on an independent UK as they do in would be insane, albeit given the EU's disregard of democracy you may have a point.

But then, they would loose to..........so I don't think they are that insane.

 

[pastafarian]

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.

Well here is a different viewpoint from the USA

Rethinking U.S. Support for British Membership

Here are 10 reasons for the U.S. to rethink its support for British membership of the European Union:

The EU detracts from national sovereignty. The EU takes powers away from the nation-states of Europe and transferred them to Brussels. In so doing, it has reduced the control that the parliaments of Europe, including the House of Commons in Britain, have over their national policies, thus reducing the democratic accountability of those governments. The U.S. vigorously defends its own sovereignty. It should not support institutions that diminish the sovereignty of other democracies. The U.S. should want for them what it wants for itself. Brexit would be a victory for democratic sovereignty.

The EU damages the transatlantic security alliance. Since 1949, the chosen American instrument for promoting transatlantic security has been the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Through its Common Security and Defense Policy, the EU is seeking to develop its own military capabilities, but every pound or euro that European nations spend on the EU is one not spent on capabilities on which NATO can draw. At best, the EU is duplicating NATO; at worst, it is distracting and weakening it. Brexit would eliminate the EU as a competitor to NATO for U.K. defense spending.

The EU damages the broader transatlantic political alliance. To advance its broader interests in Europe and around the world, the U.S. has long worked bilaterally with the nations of Europe. By increasingly forcing those nations into an agreed, lowest-common-denominator policy, the EU makes it harder for the U.S. to work with Europe. The EU tendency to focus on its own internal development, not broader issues, is a further problem, as is the desire of some EU leaders to make it into a political union that will exist in part to oppose the United States. Brexit would restore bilateralism as the guiding U.S. principle in Europe.

The EU promotes political extremism. One of the fondest EU claims is that it has promoted democracy and political moderation in Europe. But the many far-right and far-left political movements that have sprung up across Europe demonstrate that the EU’s policies, by suppressing democracy, have provoked a response. The policies espoused by many of these movements are illiberal and anti-capitalist, but the U.S. should not ignore the fact that, if not for the EU, these movements would have remained on the fringes of European politics. Brexit would vindicate the principle that the people, not the bureaucrats, control the destiny of Europe’s nations.

The EU is bad for transatlantic finance. One of the most important transatlantic connections is the financial link between the City of London and Wall Street, but the EU is seeking to use eurozone rules to discriminate against the City. The British government describes the future of the City as “perhaps the single most important issue” in the renegotiations.[2] Brexit would keep the City free as a center of world finance to invest in the United States.

The EU is bad for transatlantic trade. The common belief that the EU is a free trade area is untrue. The EU is a managed market. As such and thanks in particular to its tenacious support for its Common Agricultural Policy, the EU is skeptical of free trade unless it can write the terms of such trade in a way that favors the heavily managed, bureaucratic model that it promotes within Europe. Brexit would liberate Britain to negotiate a genuinely free trade area with the United States.

The EU is bad for the European economy. The euro has gravely distorted the eurozone economy and delivered none of its promised benefits. More subtly, the EU, by pressing EU member states to adopt similar policies, reduces the competitive drive between them. Finally, because those policies rely on high taxation and high benefits, they further suppress growth. A core U.S. aim in Europe since 1945 has been promoting economic growth. Brexit would keep Britain forever out of the euro and allow it to continue adopting policies that provide a competitive spur to Europe, thus benefitting its economies and American trade and investment.

The EU distorts immigration policy. The freedom of movement and employment that the EU promotes is understandably popular with tourists and in Eastern Europe. Yet in practice, the EU requires EU member nations to discriminate in their employment markets against foreigners, including Americans. Brexit would enable Britain to design its own immigration and employment policies and to end a system that requires it to discriminate against talent from the 93 percent of the world’s population that lives outside the EU, including in the United States.

The EU wastes a lot of money. Both directly because of its spending and, in particular, indirectly through the rules it imposes, the EU is a wasteful organization. Open Europe, a European think tank, estimates that just the top 100 EU rules alone cost the U.K. 33.3 billion pounds a year.[3] That is money that Britain cannot spend on other things, including American goods and services—money that would be liberated by Brexit.

The EU is based on a false assumption. At the heart of the EU is the assertion that the continent of Europe is—or should become—a demos, a single political entity. That is incorrect. The European continent self-evidently has a long history of cultural, social, linguistic, and political diversity. The effort to force it into an artificial unity is being made, and must be made, through undemocratic meas. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the EU’s Lisbon Treaty was never approved by the people. The best basis for friendship and cooperation within Europe is accepting its diversity, not seeking to suppress and deny it. Brexit would make it clear that Britain, like the U.S., rejects political union at the expense of the will of the people.


What the U.S. Should Do
The U.S. should recognize that the Anglo–American relationship will continue no matter what the outcome of the referendum. Because of this fact and because the referendum will pose a question that only the British people have the right to decide, the U.S. at the official level should adopt a policy of expressing no preference on the outcome of the referendum. Instead, the U.S. should state the truth: The U.S. and the United Kingdom will continue to work productively together no matter how the vote goes.

At the same time, the U.S. should recognize that its policy of supporting the EU represents the triumph of political inertia and intellectual laziness. Promoting greater unity in Western Europe made sense during the Cold War as a way to resist the Soviet Union, but that policy has become increasingly out of date since 1989. The time is at hand for a full and thorough U.S. reevaluation of its policies in and toward Europe, based not on hand-me-down dogmas, but on a serious assessment of the ways to advance U.S. and European interests alike by promoting the restoration of democratic sovereignty and the free market in Europe.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-for-british-membership-of-the-european-union

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Well here is a different viewpoint from the USA

Rethinking U.S. Support for British Membership

Here are 10 reasons for the U.S. to rethink its support for British membership of the European Union:

The EU detracts from national sovereignty. The EU takes powers away from the nation-states of Europe and transferred them to Brussels. In so doing, it has reduced the control that the parliaments of Europe, including the House of Commons in Britain, have over their national policies, thus reducing the democratic accountability of those governments. The U.S. vigorously defends its own sovereignty. It should not support institutions that diminish the sovereignty of other democracies. The U.S. should want for them what it wants for itself. Brexit would be a victory for democratic sovereignty.

The EU damages the transatlantic security alliance. Since 1949, the chosen American instrument for promoting transatlantic security has been the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Through its Common Security and Defense Policy, the EU is seeking to develop its own military capabilities, but every pound or euro that European nations spend on the EU is one not spent on capabilities on which NATO can draw. At best, the EU is duplicating NATO; at worst, it is distracting and weakening it. Brexit would eliminate the EU as a competitor to NATO for U.K. defense spending.

The EU damages the broader transatlantic political alliance. To advance its broader interests in Europe and around the world, the U.S. has long worked bilaterally with the nations of Europe. By increasingly forcing those nations into an agreed, lowest-common-denominator policy, the EU makes it harder for the U.S. to work with Europe. The EU tendency to focus on its own internal development, not broader issues, is a further problem, as is the desire of some EU leaders to make it into a political union that will exist in part to oppose the United States. Brexit would restore bilateralism as the guiding U.S. principle in Europe.

The EU promotes political extremism. One of the fondest EU claims is that it has promoted democracy and political moderation in Europe. But the many far-right and far-left political movements that have sprung up across Europe demonstrate that the EU’s policies, by suppressing democracy, have provoked a response. The policies espoused by many of these movements are illiberal and anti-capitalist, but the U.S. should not ignore the fact that, if not for the EU, these movements would have remained on the fringes of European politics. Brexit would vindicate the principle that the people, not the bureaucrats, control the destiny of Europe’s nations.

The EU is bad for transatlantic finance. One of the most important transatlantic connections is the financial link between the City of London and Wall Street, but the EU is seeking to use eurozone rules to discriminate against the City. The British government describes the future of the City as “perhaps the single most important issue” in the renegotiations.[2] Brexit would keep the City free as a center of world finance to invest in the United States.

The EU is bad for transatlantic trade. The common belief that the EU is a free trade area is untrue. The EU is a managed market. As such and thanks in particular to its tenacious support for its Common Agricultural Policy, the EU is skeptical of free trade unless it can write the terms of such trade in a way that favors the heavily managed, bureaucratic model that it promotes within Europe. Brexit would liberate Britain to negotiate a genuinely free trade area with the United States.

The EU is bad for the European economy. The euro has gravely distorted the eurozone economy and delivered none of its promised benefits. More subtly, the EU, by pressing EU member states to adopt similar policies, reduces the competitive drive between them. Finally, because those policies rely on high taxation and high benefits, they further suppress growth. A core U.S. aim in Europe since 1945 has been promoting economic growth. Brexit would keep Britain forever out of the euro and allow it to continue adopting policies that provide a competitive spur to Europe, thus benefitting its economies and American trade and investment.

The EU distorts immigration policy. The freedom of movement and employment that the EU promotes is understandably popular with tourists and in Eastern Europe. Yet in practice, the EU requires EU member nations to discriminate in their employment markets against foreigners, including Americans. Brexit would enable Britain to design its own immigration and employment policies and to end a system that requires it to discriminate against talent from the 93 percent of the world’s population that lives outside the EU, including in the United States.

The EU wastes a lot of money. Both directly because of its spending and, in particular, indirectly through the rules it imposes, the EU is a wasteful organization. Open Europe, a European think tank, estimates that just the top 100 EU rules alone cost the U.K. 33.3 billion pounds a year.[3] That is money that Britain cannot spend on other things, including American goods and services—money that would be liberated by Brexit.

The EU is based on a false assumption. At the heart of the EU is the assertion that the continent of Europe is—or should become—a demos, a single political entity. That is incorrect. The European continent self-evidently has a long history of cultural, social, linguistic, and political diversity. The effort to force it into an artificial unity is being made, and must be made, through undemocratic meas. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the EU’s Lisbon Treaty was never approved by the people. The best basis for friendship and cooperation within Europe is accepting its diversity, not seeking to suppress and deny it. Brexit would make it clear that Britain, like the U.S., rejects political union at the expense of the will of the people.


What the U.S. Should Do
The U.S. should recognize that the Anglo–American relationship will continue no matter what the outcome of the referendum. Because of this fact and because the referendum will pose a question that only the British people have the right to decide, the U.S. at the official level should adopt a policy of expressing no preference on the outcome of the referendum. Instead, the U.S. should state the truth: The U.S. and the United Kingdom will continue to work productively together no matter how the vote goes.

At the same time, the U.S. should recognize that its policy of supporting the EU represents the triumph of political inertia and intellectual laziness. Promoting greater unity in Western Europe made sense during the Cold War as a way to resist the Soviet Union, but that policy has become increasingly out of date since 1989. The time is at hand for a full and thorough U.S. reevaluation of its policies in and toward Europe, based not on hand-me-down dogmas, but on a serious assessment of the ways to advance U.S. and European interests alike by promoting the restoration of democratic sovereignty and the free market in Europe.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-for-british-membership-of-the-european-union

Well if we left then England would be free to become the 51st State of the USA.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's worth factoring in what the USA thinks about Brexit.

The first thing you need to do before factoring in what the US 'thinks', is understand what they want. It makes complete sense for them to prefer us in the EU. Unlike us, they suffer none of the disadvantages of losing your sovereignty or right to control laws, and they get to keep a cooperative English speaking nation inside the EU.

It's only once they've worked out what's best for them that they'll say what they 'think' is best for us.

 

[London Irish]

Interesting this new poll has shifted top OUT - momentum clearly with the exiteers

 

[Lincoln Imp]

That polemic was written by far right fruitcake Ted Bromund, rootin' tootin' gun lobby supporter and Fellow of the only slightly interesting Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Well here is a different viewpoint from the USA

Rethinking U.S. Support for British Membership

Here are 10 reasons for the U.S. to rethink its support for British membership of the European Union:

The EU detracts from national sovereignty. The EU takes powers away from the nation-states of Europe and transferred them to Brussels. In so doing, it has reduced the control that the parliaments of Europe, including the House of Commons in Britain, have over their national policies, thus reducing the democratic accountability of those governments. The U.S. vigorously defends its own sovereignty. It should not support institutions that diminish the sovereignty of other democracies. The U.S. should want for them what it wants for itself. Brexit would be a victory for democratic sovereignty.

The EU damages the transatlantic security alliance. Since 1949, the chosen American instrument for promoting transatlantic security has been the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Through its Common Security and Defense Policy, the EU is seeking to develop its own military capabilities, but every pound or euro that European nations spend on the EU is one not spent on capabilities on which NATO can draw. At best, the EU is duplicating NATO; at worst, it is distracting and weakening it. Brexit would eliminate the EU as a competitor to NATO for U.K. defense spending.

The EU damages the broader transatlantic political alliance. To advance its broader interests in Europe and around the world, the U.S. has long worked bilaterally with the nations of Europe. By increasingly forcing those nations into an agreed, lowest-common-denominator policy, the EU makes it harder for the U.S. to work with Europe. The EU tendency to focus on its own internal development, not broader issues, is a further problem, as is the desire of some EU leaders to make it into a political union that will exist in part to oppose the United States. Brexit would restore bilateralism as the guiding U.S. principle in Europe.

The EU promotes political extremism. One of the fondest EU claims is that it has promoted democracy and political moderation in Europe. But the many far-right and far-left political movements that have sprung up across Europe demonstrate that the EU’s policies, by suppressing democracy, have provoked a response. The policies espoused by many of these movements are illiberal and anti-capitalist, but the U.S. should not ignore the fact that, if not for the EU, these movements would have remained on the fringes of European politics. Brexit would vindicate the principle that the people, not the bureaucrats, control the destiny of Europe’s nations.

The EU is bad for transatlantic finance. One of the most important transatlantic connections is the financial link between the City of London and Wall Street, but the EU is seeking to use eurozone rules to discriminate against the City. The British government describes the future of the City as “perhaps the single most important issue” in the renegotiations.[2] Brexit would keep the City free as a center of world finance to invest in the United States.

The EU is bad for transatlantic trade. The common belief that the EU is a free trade area is untrue. The EU is a managed market. As such and thanks in particular to its tenacious support for its Common Agricultural Policy, the EU is skeptical of free trade unless it can write the terms of such trade in a way that favors the heavily managed, bureaucratic model that it promotes within Europe. Brexit would liberate Britain to negotiate a genuinely free trade area with the United States.

The EU is bad for the European economy. The euro has gravely distorted the eurozone economy and delivered none of its promised benefits. More subtly, the EU, by pressing EU member states to adopt similar policies, reduces the competitive drive between them. Finally, because those policies rely on high taxation and high benefits, they further suppress growth. A core U.S. aim in Europe since 1945 has been promoting economic growth. Brexit would keep Britain forever out of the euro and allow it to continue adopting policies that provide a competitive spur to Europe, thus benefitting its economies and American trade and investment.

The EU distorts immigration policy. The freedom of movement and employment that the EU promotes is understandably popular with tourists and in Eastern Europe. Yet in practice, the EU requires EU member nations to discriminate in their employment markets against foreigners, including Americans. Brexit would enable Britain to design its own immigration and employment policies and to end a system that requires it to discriminate against talent from the 93 percent of the world’s population that lives outside the EU, including in the United States.

The EU wastes a lot of money. Both directly because of its spending and, in particular, indirectly through the rules it imposes, the EU is a wasteful organization. Open Europe, a European think tank, estimates that just the top 100 EU rules alone cost the U.K. 33.3 billion pounds a year.[3] That is money that Britain cannot spend on other things, including American goods and services—money that would be liberated by Brexit.

The EU is based on a false assumption. At the heart of the EU is the assertion that the continent of Europe is—or should become—a demos, a single political entity. That is incorrect. The European continent self-evidently has a long history of cultural, social, linguistic, and political diversity. The effort to force it into an artificial unity is being made, and must be made, through undemocratic meas. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the EU’s Lisbon Treaty was never approved by the people. The best basis for friendship and cooperation within Europe is accepting its diversity, not seeking to suppress and deny it. Brexit would make it clear that Britain, like the U.S., rejects political union at the expense of the will of the people.


What the U.S. Should Do
The U.S. should recognize that the Anglo–American relationship will continue no matter what the outcome of the referendum. Because of this fact and because the referendum will pose a question that only the British people have the right to decide, the U.S. at the official level should adopt a policy of expressing no preference on the outcome of the referendum. Instead, the U.S. should state the truth: The U.S. and the United Kingdom will continue to work productively together no matter how the vote goes.

At the same time, the U.S. should recognize that its policy of supporting the EU represents the triumph of political inertia and intellectual laziness. Promoting greater unity in Western Europe made sense during the Cold War as a way to resist the Soviet Union, but that policy has become increasingly out of date since 1989. The time is at hand for a full and thorough U.S. reevaluation of its policies in and toward Europe, based not on hand-me-down dogmas, but on a serious assessment of the ways to advance U.S. and European interests alike by promoting the restoration of democratic sovereignty and the free market in Europe.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-for-british-membership-of-the-european-union

I quoted an article featuring an interview with the man responsible for US international trade relations, you quoted an article with the personal views of some random professor who holds absolutely no power.

 

[pastafarian]

I quoted an article featuring an interview with the man responsible for US international trade relations, you quoted an article with the personal views of some random professor who holds absolutely no power.

The bottom line is they are both just viewpoints and neither has any power over the outcome of the referendum
just because one bloke is "important" it does not make his views more or less valid than some bloke you have never heard off

 

[Pavilionaire]

The first thing you need to do before factoring in what the US 'thinks', is understand what they want. It makes complete sense for them to prefer us in the EU. Unlike us, they suffer none of the disadvantages of losing your sovereignty or right to control laws, and they get to keep a cooperative English speaking nation inside the EU.

It's only once they've worked out what's best for them that they'll say what they 'think' is best for us.

Regardless of motive, it is right to consider the views of your major trading partners because that is part of the decision- making progress.

 

[cunning fergus]

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.

Once the US allows anyone from North, Central and South America to move into its country to settle and work without a by-your-leave then they can preach to the UK about our membership of the EU.

Till then they have nothing to add to the debate.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The bottom line is they are both just viewpoints and neither has any power over the outcome of the referendum
just because one bloke is "important" it does not make his views more or less valid than some bloke you have never heard off

Are you serious? Think about it. One man decides whether or not you have to pay tariffs on your exports. The other man spends his evenings marking student essays.

 

[Triggaaar]

Regardless of motive, it is right to consider the views of your major trading partners because that is part of the decision- making progress.

Sure, but take what they say with a pinch of salt. They don't want us to leave, so ignore that sabre-rattling and think about what they're really likely to do if we leave.

AFAIK, Norway have free trade with the US, due to their EEA status, so it would be weird if we couldn't negotiate the same.

 

[pastafarian]

Are you serious? Think about it. One man decides whether or not you have to pay tariffs on your exports. The other man spends his evenings marking student essays.

I am serious
You could strip apart both viewpoints and say which are valid points (or not)

or you could simply look at who has written them and base your outcome on that,this does seem to be the trait of many in the IN campaign recently,attacking the man and ignoring the substance.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I think the point is that for many the quality of the message is not always clear (one man's lost sovereignty is another man's shared sovereignty, etc etc) and in those circumstances the quality of the speaker is bound to have some relevance to the audience.

Obviously this doesn't apply to people who are 100 per cent crystal clear about everything.

 

[beorhthelm]

Are you serious? Think about it. One man decides whether or not you have to pay tariffs on your exports. The other man spends his evenings marking student essays.

rather embiggening the role of a diplomat working within a trade brief there. he'll do the bidding of the Departement of Trade, who'll be directed by the equivilent of a minister in Washington DC. lets be honest, the US have a political motive to have us in the EU project, trade wise doesnt change anything for them if/when we leave. if anyone wants to suggest we should stay in just to appease or assist the US, thats a carefree attitude to our own sovereignty.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

rather embiggening the role of a diplomat working within a trade brief there. he'll do the bidding of the Departement of Trade, who'll be directed by the equivilent of a minister in Washington DC. lets be honest, the US have a political motive to have us in the EU project, trade wise doesnt change anything for them if/when we leave. if anyone wants to suggest we should stay in just to appease or assist the US, thats a carefree attitude to our own sovereignty.

No one is suggesting that we should stay in just to appease the US. But for most of us it's reasonable to feel that the views of an old and powerful ally should have some relevance.

 

[cunning fergus]

No one is suggesting that we should stay in just to appease the US. But for most of us it's reasonable to feel that the views of an old and powerful ally should have some relevance.

Will most of you also feel that the views about immigration from the likely incumbent republican candidate for next President our old and powerful ally have some relevance in this debate too?

Arguably he will be even more relevant, he has a democratic mandate...........

 

[dangull]

For hundreds of years Britain's policy was to keep a balance of power in Europe, only intervening if 1 power became a threat to the status quo. This meant Britain could use its resources for global expansion and trade in the rest of the world. This policy was called splendid isolation.

Now that an originally trading block of a few nations seems to be changing into a 28 member united states of Europe, this seems the last chance that Britain can help to dismantle this super state, and return to friendly trading agreements with the rest of Europe, while also renewing closer ties with the commonwealth and separate trading deals with likes of China and the USA.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Will most of you also feel that the views about immigration from the likely incumbent republican candidate for next President our old and powerful ally have some relevance in this debate too?

Arguably he will be even more relevant, he has a democratic mandate...........

Of course not. Trump was talking about a US domestic matter with, at most, regional implications. For America, the Brexit debate concerns the future global role of what has historically been its closest ally so it seems reasonable for its leaders to comment. I'm surprised you asked the question to be honest.