The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[beorhthelm]

That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a per cent of national income

so that more than covers the 0.2% reduction in GDP that PWC forecast in their worst case scenario.

 

[sir albion]

It's also nowhere near 53 million.

Mythbusting: Does the EU cost Britain £55m a day?
Many Eurosceptics rage against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU. Nigel Farage, leader of the pro-Brexit UK Independence party, has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — which adds up to more than £20bn a year.
But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims. A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 emphatically reduced the bill from the headline figure. London sent £13bn to Brussels last year. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget.
That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a per cent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.
Another often-quoted figure — the reported £33bn cost of regulation — comes from an impact assessment by Open Europe, a think-tank, of 100 EU rules. But it is based on only one side of the balance sheet. Even though he does not like many of these regulations, Raoul Ruparel, the think-tank’s co-director, says the benefits of the regulations are “much higher” than the costs and “clearly not all of [the costs] would disappear after Brexit”.

https://next.ft.com/content/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

Brussels is a glorified middle man that the EU doesn't actually need....bunch of cronies recieving billions for doing absolutely nothing but hand back a bit of money or bail out failing countries.

As we know before this hideous cooperation started the countries were signing deals and communicating with eachother very nicely.People need to start looking out the box and to realise that Europe doesn't need a middle man to run functionally.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Brussels is a glorified middle man that the EU doesn't actually need....bunch of cronies recieving billions for doing absolutely nothing but hand back a bit of money or bail out failing countries.

As we know before this hideous cooperation started the countries were signing deals and communicating with eachother very nicely.People need to start looking out the box and to realise that Europe doesn't need a middle man to run functionally.

Fine, that's your opinion, but the main point of the post you're replying to was that the £53m a day claim is spectacularly misleading. I understand that you probably think that 10 bob a year would be too much, but do you agree that talking about £53m a day amounts to an old-fashioned fib?

 

[Two Professors]

I'm very sorry.I didn't realise it ONLY cost me £260 per annum for the EU.If I give up my winter fuel allowance they could take twice as much!
Actually,I'm being a bit sarcastic and would much rather vote out and the £260 go to the NHS

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I'm very sorry.I didn't realise it ONLY cost me £260 per annum for the EU.If I give up my winter fuel allowance they could take twice as much!
Actually,I'm being a bit sarcastic and would much rather vote out and the £260 go to the NHS

But of course we're not simply giving the £260 pa away. We're investing it.

The return we get on the money - the equivalent of one small Mars Bar a day - is at the heart of the debate. Some people think it's a lot, some think it's not much, all agree that it is something. But how much? No one seems to be certain. The CBI suggests between £62 and £78bn pa. Taking the lower figure and dividing it by 4 would give us, roughly, a break-even on our Mars Bars.

 

[Two Professors]

I admire your mastery of English as a second language,but I would still rather have a better NHS than a Euro Mars bar

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I admire your mastery of English as a second language,but I would still rather have a better NHS than a Euro Mars bar

My English can't be that good because I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[melias shoes]

But of course we're not simply giving the £260 pa away. We're investing it.

The return we get on the money - the equivalent of one small Mars Bar a day - is at the heart of the debate. Some people think it's a lot, some think it's not much, all agree that it is something. But how much? No one seems to be certain. The CBI suggests between £62 and £78bn pa. Taking the lower figure and dividing it by 4 would give us, roughly, a break-even on our Mars Bars.

Anybody?

 

[Buzzer]

What has the EU ever done for us?......
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
.

Specifically on those two claims, the truth is a little more prosaic. Here's a fascinating article from a Harvard professor entitled How the EU starves Africa into submission that rather blows a hole in claims that we're the force for good in Africa as claimed. There's some eye-opening statistics, for example:

African leaders would like to escape the colonial trap of being viewed simply as raw material exporters. But their efforts to add value to the materials continue to be frustrated by existing EU policies. Take the example of coffee. In 2014 Africa —the home of coffee— earned nearly $2.4 billion from the crop. Germany, a leading processor, earned about $3.8 billion from coffee re-exports. The concern is not that Germany benefits from processing coffee. It is that Africa is punished by EU tariff barriers for doing so. Non-decaffeinated green coffee is exempt from the charges. However, a 7.5 per cent charge is imposed on roasted coffee. As a result, the bulk of Africa’s export to the EU is unroasted green coffee.

Cocoa has a 30% charge on processing!

He goes on....

To achieve its technological objectives, Africa needs to partner with countries such as the United Kingdom that have historical knowledge of the continent. But collective EU policies make it difficult for Africa to engage productively with the UK in areas such as agricultural biotechnology. One of the impacts of the policies has been to nudge Africa towards new partnerships with countries such China and Brazil that have pioneered the adoption of new agricultural technologies. This, in turn, has the long-term potential of eroding trade relations between the UK and Africa. The time has come for the EU to rethink the impact of its policies on African agriculture in general and technological transformation in particular.

It does rather hint that if Britain made trade deals with African nations by ourselves outside of the EU then it might actually benefit the African nations and it certainly won't put them in a worse position. It's food for thought.

 

[Buzzer]

Anybody?

It reminds me of the wheeler-dealer character Milo Mindbender out of Catch-22.

"Milo chortled proudly. "I don't buy eggs from Malta," he confessed... "I buy them in Sicily at one cent apiece and transfer them to Malta secretly at four and a half cents apiece in order to get the price of eggs up to seven cents when people come to Malta looking for them." ...

"Then you do make a profit for yourself," Yossarian declared. "Of course I do. But it all goes to the syndicate. And everybody has a share. Don't you understand? It's exactly what happens with those plum tomatoes I sell to Colonel Cathcart." "Buy," Yossarian corrected him. "You don't sell plum tomatoes to Colonel Cathcart and Colonel Korn. You buy plum tomatoes from them." "No, sell," Milo corrected Yossarian. "I distribute my plum tomatoes in markets all over Pianosa under an assumed name so that Colonel Cathcart and Colonel Korn can buy them up from me under their assumed names at four cents apiece and sell them back to me the next day at five cents apiece. They make a profit of one cent apiece, I make a profit of three and a half cents apiece, and everybody comes out ahead."

 

[5ways]

Specifically on those two claims, the truth is a little more prosaic. Here's a fascinating article from a Harvard professor entitled How the EU starves Africa into submission that rather blows a hole in claims that we're the force for good in Africa as claimed. There's some eye-opening statistics, for example:

African leaders would like to escape the colonial trap of being viewed simply as raw material exporters. But their efforts to add value to the materials continue to be frustrated by existing EU policies. Take the example of coffee. In 2014 Africa —the home of coffee— earned nearly $2.4 billion from the crop. Germany, a leading processor, earned about $3.8 billion from coffee re-exports. The concern is not that Germany benefits from processing coffee. It is that Africa is punished by EU tariff barriers for doing so. Non-decaffeinated green coffee is exempt from the charges. However, a 7.5 per cent charge is imposed on roasted coffee. As a result, the bulk of Africa’s export to the EU is unroasted green coffee.

Cocoa has a 30% charge on processing!

He goes on....

To achieve its technological objectives, Africa needs to partner with countries such as the United Kingdom that have historical knowledge of the continent. But collective EU policies make it difficult for Africa to engage productively with the UK in areas such as agricultural biotechnology. One of the impacts of the policies has been to nudge Africa towards new partnerships with countries such China and Brazil that have pioneered the adoption of new agricultural technologies. This, in turn, has the long-term potential of eroding trade relations between the UK and Africa. The time has come for the EU to rethink the impact of its policies on African agriculture in general and technological transformation in particular.

It does rather hint that if Britain made trade deals with African nations by ourselves outside of the EU then it might actually benefit the African nations and it certainly won't put them in a worse position. It's food for thought.

I'm grateful for unhindered access to the EU internal market, something these African nations would benefit from greatly. I wonder what they would think of us scrambling to give it up. Interesting article - shocking figures, esp that they import 83% of their food(!)

 

[Buzzer]

I'm grateful for unhindered access to the EU internal market, something these African nations would benefit from greatly. I wonder what they would think of us scrambling to give it up. Interesting article - shocking figures, esp that they import 83% of their food(!)

I'd rather we traded fairly with African nations than keep giving them loans and handouts then taking it all back and then some more in one-sided trade deals. I think that's one of the main thrusts of the article too. But you're right, the figures are shocking. I'll just leave this here: Germany make 50% more money from coffee than Africa does. That's not what the EU should be about.

 

[5ways]

I'd rather we traded fairly with African nations than keep giving them loans and handouts then taking it all back and then some more in one-sided trade deals. I think that's one of the main thrusts of the article too. But you're right, the figures are shocking. I'll just leave this here: Germany make 50% more money from coffee than Africa does. That's not what the EU should be about.

That is what every country is about. Adding value wherever possible and turning a profit. It is self-interest and for me remaining is about self-interest.

Poor governance, environmental, and social factors also play in to undeveloped economies in Africa. So much of Western aid is focuses on these factors. Why is it that Africa is still largely a primary resource economy? Yes there are deep structural impediments, but there are also governance problems which prevent economic development.

There is nothing wrong with Germany or anyone else finding a way to add value to a product.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

That is what every country is about. Adding value wherever possible and turning a profit. It is self-interest and for me remaining is about self-interest.

Poor governance, environmental, and social factors also play in to undeveloped economies in Africa. So much of Western aid is focuses on these factors. Why is it that Africa is still largely a primary resource economy? Yes there are deep structural impediments, but there are also governance problems which prevent economic development.

There is nothing wrong with Germany or anyone else finding a way to add value to a product.

It's about quality of life for me, one could argue that the only way to get quality of life is from raising living standards, creating jobs, but the all the EU has done has created open borders which has driven wages down in this country. I was speaking to some Eastern Europeans who where working for £50 a day building, I got nothing against them, but £50.00 a day puts local builders out of business. I know when I was working on a building site the hod carriers where getting £80 a day, and that was in the year 2000, how can you have a healthy economy this way?

It's not just this either, it's all the extra pressure more and more people are putting on our services, if people are not earning enough then there is not enough going back in to the system to pay for our schools, doctors, hospitals at the same time we seem to have a government void of putting any investment in, this is not quality of life, it's a race to the bottom and creating over population.

This is why before the Labour government opened up our borders, and before the EU started meddling in this countries affairs, this country was working just fine. We might have had recessions, but we survived, and we didn't have the extra layer of EU bullshit to contend costing us £53,000,000 a day.

You might not remember it, but lots of people do and they know it can be a million times better than the crap we are being served up with now, and this is why lots us will marking the box Leave on June 23rd.

 

[5ways]

It's about quality of life for me, one could argue that the only way to get quality of life is from raising living standards, creating jobs, but the all the EU has done has created open borders which has driven wages down in this country. I was speaking to some Eastern Europeans who where working for £50 a day building, I got nothing against them, but £50.00 a day puts local builders out of business. I know when I was working on a building site the hod carriers where getting £80 a day, and that was in the year 2000, how can you have a healthy economy this way?

It's not just this either, it's all the extra pressure more and more people are putting on our services, if people are not earning enough then there is not enough going back in to the system to pay for our schools, doctors, hospitals at the same time we seem to have a government void of putting any investment in, this is not quality of life, it's a race to the bottom and creating over population.

This is why before the Labour government opened up our borders, and before the EU started meddling in this countries affairs, this country was working just fine. We might have had recessions, but we survived, and we didn't have the extra layer of EU bullshit to contend costing us £53,000,000 a day.

You might not remember it, but lots of people do and they know it can be a million times better than the crap we are being served up with now, and this is why lots us will marking the box Leave on June 23rd.

I appreciate what you're saying but the fact is that prior to joining the EU the UK was the sick man of Europe. 3 day weeks, strikes etc. The country wasn't working. The EU forced us to compete and up our game - we're now the second richest country in Europe and have all the fundamentals needed to embrace a 21st century global economy. Living standards have risen consistently inside the EU. When you talk about wages being undercut I understand what you're saying but by having a more flexible work force we also have a more resilient one, not reliant on state contracts or kick-backs. We're in a global race and pulling up the draw bridge will in the long term make us poorer not richer, living standards will decline if our economy also declines. Brexit, as numerous studies have suggested from the private and public sector, will weaken our economy, weaken standards of living in the UK.

I think more training, specialisation and apprenticeships are very important to craft a niche in such an economy. This forces people to raise their game and their productivity. In the long run this is much healthier for the country. Also who is actually building things that construction workers work on? If you look at London there is construction practically on every street - employing thousands, why? Foreign investment setting up headquarters and businesses here because we're such a great place to do business. I'm sure German workers will be happy for the extra work the next time a multinational is looking for a European HQ.

 

[5ways]

John Major in the Mail today puts it all very succinctly. Common-sense conservatism

Project Fear? No, saying that Brexit would leave us poorer, weaker and less safe is simply... Project Reality, writes JOHN MAJOR

During the past few days in Hong Kong I have been asked repeatedly if the UK will leave the European Union.
Almost without exception the questioners, often investors in Britain, think it is a bad idea.
I will not quote their warnings, given in private, but let the public remarks of Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, a large investor in the UK, speak for many: ‘If Brexit really happens,’ he told Bloomberg, ‘we will surely decrease our investments.’

Mr Li is not alone. As we move towards the referendum in June, the UK has been warned against exit by, among others, China, Japan, America, New Zealand and Australia; by the G20; the Governor of the Bank of England; our military leaders; our leading academics and scientists; and a majority of large and small businesses.
In response, advocates of Brexit accuse these sources of ‘interfering’ if they are foreign or ‘scaremongering’ if they are British.


The Out campaign labels such warnings as Project Fear. I disagree. In truth, it is Project Reality, and the public has a right to be told what is likely to happen if the UK leaves.
Let me set out my own position. As Prime Minister I refused to join the euro currency. I believed it to be premature and risky.
I opted out of the Social Chapter since, at the time, it seemed to give rights to those in work at the expense of denying work to the millions who were not.
And, when it was introduced, I refused to enter the Schengen agreement on open borders.
I am no starry-eyed Europe enthusiast. Yet I have not a shred of doubt that the UK should remain in the EU. The case for remaining is not just economic.


The outcome of the referendum will decide what sort of country we are and what our contribution to the world will be.
When the UK joined the then Common Market our economy was the ‘sick man’ of Europe. Today, thanks to our domestic reforms, together with membership of the single market, we have the best performing economy in Europe.
Within 20 years the UK is likely – not certain, but likely – to be the biggest economy in Europe: bigger than Germany.
I am not a Cold War warrior, but we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril. A united Europe can help penalise and deter her: a disunited, shrivelled Europe cannot.
John Major
On issues such as climate change, internet costs and consumer protection, the UK can best progress with our fellow Europeans.
The underlying mantra of the Out campaign is – and I use their words – ‘I want my country back’. It is an emotional appeal, but a bogus one.
If emotion triumphs over reality, we will lose power, prestige, security and some of our future economic wellbeing.
At present, our world is very disturbed. Uncertain. The scales have fallen from our eyes over President Putin.
I am not a Cold War warrior, but we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril. A united Europe can help penalise and deter her: a disunited, shrivelled Europe cannot.
The faults and frustrations of the EU are widely publicised in the UK: its achievements, less so. But they should be. Across Europe, ancient enemies of many years now work alongside each other.
The EU was the magnet that helped Spain, Portugal and Greece free themselves from fascist dictatorships. It helped the political climate that brought about the Northern Ireland peace process.

It helped rebuild and heal the Balkans after a terrible conflict. And enlargement of the EU has brought a new future to nations once imprisoned within the Soviet Empire.
If the UK leaves the EU, the impact will be felt widely and negatively – not only here but across the EU.
If the UK departs, the EU will lose its fastest growing economy, one of only two nuclear powers, and the country with the deepest foreign policy reach.
As a result, the EU would be gravely weakened, especially when set against the power of the US and China. Europe – the cradle of modern civilisation – would bow out of superpower influence.
Does the UK really wish for that? Does she really wish to abdicate her role in European and global influence? I truly think not.
There are hard questions for the UK too. Would external investors – China, Japan, America – be more or less likely to invest if the UK shrank to a domestic market of under 65 million, rather than remaining in a Europe-wide market of more than 500 million?
The answer is clear: the UK would lose investment and jobs.
British exports to Europe are 40-45 per cent of our exports: 14 per cent of our wealth. Across the EU, the other 27 member states send only 7 per cent of their total exports to us: 2.5 per cent of their wealth.
In the game of who needs who the most, the answer is clear. If the UK exits the EU, our partners will not be the supplicant in any negotiations on our future access to the single market – the UK will be.
Moreover, it is blithe optimism on a Panglossian scale for the Out campaign to assume our partners – having been rebuffed, deserted and weakened – will feel so well disposed towards the UK that they will be eager to accede to our demands.
I fear the reverse will be true. A divorce at the behest of one partner is rarely harmonious – or cheap.
By leaving the UK will have gravely weakened the whole EU. Some countries will see 50 years of ambition imperilled – and will hardly wish to reward us for that.
And if we wished such a deal to include services, or the removal of hidden non-tariff barriers, it may be a long time coming, not least as it would need the approval of 27 member states – many of them angry and disappointed at our departure.


Of course, the UK would have to accept free movement of people. If we refused there would be no trade deal, as Germany, for one, has made clear.
By leaving, we would be withdrawing from EU free-trade agreements with 53 countries negotiated on behalf of all member states, covering 60 per cent of UK trade.
They will all need renegotiation: a tough and almost certainly lengthy process. It is self-deception to believe under 65 million Britons will get the same favourable terms as 500 million Europeans.
To brush aside such realities is to play Russian roulette with our economic future.
On one side we have the nostalgia of an Out campaign aching for a past that has long gone.
On the other, those who wish to remain are not European dreamers: we are realists who see an edgy, uncomfortable world and believe the UK is safer, more secure and better off staying with our partners.
The Out advocates, whether in enthusiasm or ignorance, lace their argument with false statistics and unlikely scenarios. They promise negotiating gains that cannot be delivered.
They hail the purported gains of leaving Europe, while ignoring even the most obvious obstacles and drawbacks. Nor can they tell us how they actually see the UK outside of Europe. This is simply astonishing.
I have no doubt an exit from the EU would harm our nation, now and in the future. We must not let an emotional spasm of faux-patriotism overcome the realities of the modern world and spin us out of Europe.
We would soon regret it, and our children and grandchildren would regret it even more.
I hope and believe that good sense will prevail on June 23 and we can finally lay this particular ghost to rest.
I have no doubt that, once it is, our international investors will breathe a large sigh of relief… as most definitely will I.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yes there will be mis-steps, and indeed there have been, but no I don't think that pure political considerations override economics in general (and in particular in the near future given the concerns over the fallout from Greece). If politics is the art of the possible then economics is the science of the possible, and in most situations you can't have the former without some backing from the latter. I feel that this is about Greece (forgive me if I misinterpreted) and will comment on that specifically where you call it out below.

"overrides the wishes of some of those people and circumvents democracy" is a very frustrating thing to read. In what way does democracy protect the wishes of every person? Last time I checked I lived in a democracy but it has done a pretty good job of not acceeding to my wishes.



This is probably where I feel most strongly that the pro- Vs anti-EU show up. In the same way you could say that UK-wide trade agreements take a long time because they require the consideration of four countries or tens of counties (on the UK side alone) but don't, I think that of it as a single EU bloc rather than 28 countries. It might take more time to work out the requirements for trade agreements in general given the EU's overall size but that has by and large already been done, and I doubt that each member state starts from scratch for each individual trade agreement. Once the EU has their list of requirements for a trade deal together it speaks with a single voice in negotiating that agreement. Also, looking at the map of current and proposed agreements[1] it seems that most of the work has already been done or is happening now (with China being the single notable exception, but then with the exception of ASEAN I'd say that China has 0 significant trade agreements in place anyway). If we left the EU we'd have to start again, and even if it was quicker this time around and the agreements provided similar benefits it would take a long time to return to where we are today.



"will this be the case in the future"? Who knows? If some future elected government chooses to alter the terms of the current deal with the EU then yes it could change but we equally we might end up with better terms as some of the new entrants to the EU become richer and are able to pay more in to the coffers.

As to the migrant crisis: there are two parts to it. One is finding a way of stabilising the region so that people don't need to migrate, and the other is handling those who have already migrated. On the former the UK already played enough of a part[2][3][4] in the destabilisation so (in my opinion), should be doing a lot more to try to fix things. On the latter there is a balance between Germany's position at one end and ours at the other, but as I said in another post to someone else the UK needs more young people to pay for the needs of an aging population.



The Lisbon Treaty only came in to force at the end of 2009 so it hasn't taken that long for us to reach the point at which we're considering triggering it. It's clear that the outcome of the referendum is going to be close so I don't see either side admitting defeat and slinking off to the sidelines (is it just me that gets really annoyed when a 55/45 vote is called a "resounding endorsement of our position" etc?), and if we stay in then I can see UKIP changing their tune to "elect us and we'll leave the EU (no referendum required)". If they do gain a majority then out we go.



I'm surprised you're defending the "EU is undemocratic" side of the argument, and even more so with this example, but okay. In this specific case Greece elected a government that promised something that could not deliver. Alexis Tsipras inherited a country that was fundamentally broke and being propped up by borrowing from other countries. "Ending austerity" is not a phrase, it means having a government that has significantly higher net income. That money had to come from somewhere and it wasn't coming from Greece. Greece was (and still is) spending far more than it brought in, and with private confidence in Greece in the gutter it turned to the EU for (more) bailout funds.

The funds were given with conditions. You can argue that the conditions were too harsh but if the UK had any skin in the game I'm sure that the tune would be very different (Greece currently owes over €300bn, having already written off over €100bn of debt; if the UK had put money in proportionally to the other major financers it would be about €20bn down with another €30bn waiting to be repaid; would you be happy with that situation?). The conditions clashed with Tsipras' promise of an end to austerity, but that was an issue between what he promised the Greek people and what he could deliver.

And Greece wasn't in this situation because of the Euro. It was in this situation because of terrible financial mismanagement since the turn of the century. People often show the graph that highlights the jump in Greece's bond rates around the time of the financial crisis[5] but this ignores that fact that before it joined the Euro (more accurately before it headed towards joining the Euro) the rates were very high [6]. Joining the Euro gave Greece a chance to sort itself out with historically minimal bond rates and it didn't, and when the crisis came along it was massively unprepared.

Regardless of all this, what happened in your quoted example wasn't anything to do with democracy but the financial mess that Greece put itself in and the conditions under which a massive amount of money was loaned/given to it.



Again it depends on what "we" you are talking about. If "we" is "the electorate" then in both cases yes, yes we can (within given term limits that apply to both the UK and EU systems). But no, the people of the UK cannot change the EU's government in the same way that the people of Sussex cannot change the UK's government.



It's one-dimensional to not think that all law-making should happen in a single place, by the same people, regardless of the scope of the law?


[1]http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.jpg
[2]http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/18/us.syria/
[3]https://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-aided-british-intelligence-041638306.html
[4]http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-britain-idUKKBN0TK4QO20151203
[5]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Greece_gmnt_bonds.jpg
[6]https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/yields_on_10-year_government_bonds__germany_greece_chartbuilder.png

I started doing a line by line response but it is apparent our views are so different there would be little point. I'm sure neither of us are going to change our positions.

For me it is clear that staying in the EU is a one way street to a Superstate which inevitably undermines and diminishes the role of nation states and direct democratic accountability. Yes we might currently be in the slow lane with some opt outs but in the future it is highly likely a more EU friendly government (Lab/Lib) could and will remove them (See Blair example). I believe there will even come a point where joining the Euro will once again be presented as essential for our economic future with many of the same disingenuous misleading arguments we see presented now. To be fair I think many of the people committed to staying in (at any cost) think a similar outcome is likely but won't admit as much for obvious reasons , for them more European less UK governance is the goal.

If the EU was mainly focused on liberalising trade helping to increase prosperity for all Europeans I would happily vote to stay in but it is not. It is widely accepted on the continent this is mainly about a political union project, the trade element is purely secondary. The fledgling Superstates desire to have it's own currency as part of ever closer economic union is the biggest internal threat to European economic stability. The desire for free movement is one of the biggest threats to European security when combined with porous external borders. It is also one of the biggest factors in damaging societal cohesiveness and increasing pressures on infrastructure. Plus fuelling extremism. The one way drain of sovereignty and decision making to the centre after every treaty is signed is the biggest threat to UK democracy.

The risks involved in not taking this one and only chance to extricate ourselves and regain powers and control so we can better influence our future far outway any possible risk of short term economic turbulence after Brexit.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Got my booklet through the door today, on page two, one the bullet points reads that by staying in the EU we can control our borders
It's just the usual crap we have heard over and over again.

Apparently the falling pound will make our food more expensive, well it's been falling for the past 6 months but I don't see anyone complaining about the price of food at Lidl and Aldi.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

everyone still arguing on here? any minds been changed yet?

 

[5ways]

everyone still arguing on here? any minds been changed yet?

Curious to know this also. New poll?