The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[heathgate]

Of course people know. For example I have a very good understanding of how the European Medicines Agency works, how it dove-tails with local legislation and local agencies etc etc etc. Unless you know what they do you cannot simply dismiss them as waste or surplus. And if you don't know what their roll is, which is what you've stated, how on earth can you say there's overlaps?

Stop playing with it HT,. you know quite well that my response was about not knowing what ALL of them do.. I would have some knowledge of some of the entities of course.... just no in depth about all of them.

Anyway, you are the first to bleat your anti-everything head off about unelected govt quangos. ...

 

[Triggaaar]

For me it's an economic question. The facts and stats back up that remaining is in the economic benefit of the U.K. I have never heard a credible argument to the contrary.

I haven't heard a credible argument that shows it benefits us to remain. We'd still get the trade deals if we left, and we'd be less at risk of the inevitable problems caused by failing Eurozone economies.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Stop playing with it HT,. you know quite well that my response was about not knowing what ALL of them do.. I would have some knowledge of some of the entities of course.... just no in depth about all of them.

Anyway, you are the first to bleat your anti-everything head off about unelected govt quangos. ...

Do you actually even know what one of these agencies does? If so please enlighten me. Until then I'll just presume you're making grand and sweeping judgements.

 

[5ways]

I haven't heard a credible argument that shows it benefits us to remain. We'd still get the trade deals if we left, and we'd be less at risk of the inevitable problems caused by failing Eurozone economies.

?! All those trade deals go up in smoke and have to be re-written. And the terms will be less favourable (http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/03/brexit-debate). We also do not contribute to Eurozone bailouts but we do reap benefits when our neighbours are doing well.

 

[heathgate]

Do you actually even know what one of these agencies does? If so please enlighten me. Until then I'll just presume you're making grand and sweeping judgements.

I can google like the rest of us, plus the titles of some are fairly obvious.... but I have had contact with only one,.... Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market .... in my personal capacity for helping a mate get a small business registration for some specialists speed controllers he made and supplied for the model aircraft and boat industry.

So there,.. about as much personal contact as the next person I suspect,..... so stop being all prescious about your wonderful EU bureaucratic system and just accept contributions to the thread.

 

[Triggaaar]

?! All those trade deals go up in smoke and have to be re-written.

We would obviously need to negotiate a deal for access to the market, so what?

And the terms will be less favourable

That's simply not true. There's no evidence to suggest we wouldn't get good terms. The EU needs us.

We also do not contribute to Eurozone bailouts

That's not true. The EU can use central EU cash funds (like the EFSM) to help bail out countries, and that's funded by us. And Greece is just the start of the problems, there will be much larger problems in the next couple of decades, and if we're part of the EU it will cost us billions.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

?! All those trade deals go up in smoke and have to be re-written. And the terms will be less favourable (http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/03/brexit-debate). We also do not contribute to Eurozone bailouts but we do reap benefits when our neighbours are doing well.

Have you heard of the phrase transitional arrangements? Still peddling your opinions as facts I see and using the same old bias sources which have a rather patchy history when it comes to economic predictions.

 

[heathgate]

A point of order Mr Carney..... Britain suffered the deepest and longest recession in its history whilst being a member of the EU....... you can't tell us about the the booms without also accepting the busts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35751919

 

[Soulman]

We would obviously need to negotiate a deal for access to the market, so what?
That's simply not true. There's no evidence to suggest we wouldn't get good terms. The EU needs us.

That's not true. The EU can use central EU cash funds (like the EFSM) to help bail out countries, and that's funded by us. And Greece is just the start of the problems, there will be much larger problems in the next couple of decades, and if we're part of the EU it will cost us billions.

Good post

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I can google like the rest of us, plus the titles of some are fairly obvious.... but I have had contact with only one,.... Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market .... in my personal capacity for helping a mate get a small business registration for some specialists speed controllers he made and supplied for the model aircraft and boat industry.

So there,.. about as much personal contact as the next person I suspect,..... so stop being all prescious about your wonderful EU bureaucratic system and just accept contributions to the thread.

You and your friends are into model aircraft? Uh oh. Alarm bells are ringing now

 

[brighton fella]

ii thought this referendum was meant to be fair.
Mark Carney governor of the Bank of England had recently announced that it would be a domestic risk if Britain were to leave the EU...not suspended
John Longworth Chief of British Chambers and Commerce had recently expressed his views on the benefit's of leaving the EU.... for this he was suspended.

seems the double standards of this went unnoticed on the BBC.

 

[heathgate]

You and your friends are into model aircraft? Uh oh. Alarm bells are ringing now

hmmmmm.... my mate is yes,.... sadly between rugby, footy, gigging and remotely running teams of Indian developers in Bangalore,..... I have little time for Fokkers......

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

hmmmmm.... my mate is yes,.... sadly between rugby, footy, gigging and remotely running teams of Indian developers in Bangalore,..... I have little time for Fokkers......

When you lose the referendum I hope you don't claim it was a (Air)fix.

 

[cunning fergus]

Do you actually know what any of these agencies do? Why they were set up? What their mission is? And what benefit they deliver? And also I'll ask you what inefficiencies they cause?

I'm reminded of one of [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] posts where he was rambling on about the red-tape of some rule which required business to collect X pieces of data instead of Y. He had absolutely no idea what this ruling was about, why it came into effect and if this increase was beneficial or not. And if it was beneficial (or not) who it affected. And knowing something about data I'd actually suggest the impact was minimal anyway. It's all very well making these statements but you need to provide some back ground and context. In my view some are very well worth having.

It's not my fault you cannot understand relatively simple analysis and conclusions, however I will convey the point again, however this time its on a dumkopf level just for you.

The new EU Data Protection Regulations (remember Regulations are the laws that are NOT approved by our democratically elected Govt before they become law) are very complex, and will require firms to do a lot of work.

http://www.information-age.com/tech...-costs-will-run-billions#sthash.7eCuOqUc.dpuf

The penalties for firms making mistakes are really harsh.

The EU are also making other separate laws (via Regulations) that require firms that (say) provide share dealing services to gather more data on their clients in order to report it to member states Govts when they trade. This is data that firms have not needed to collect in the past in order to undertake such business.

http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/mkt/london/MiFIDII_New_Transparency_Regime.pdf

This requirement to collect extra client data not needed for normal business reasons is inconsistent with Data Protection law principles which ordinarily require firms only to collect data when they need to carry out its business.

This is an example therefore where excessive EU law has been imposed on UK firms which have not been passed by the UK Govt. These laws will cost firms huge amounts of money to implement, which will be passed onto their customers.

This will be fine for global multi national financial firms which can rely on their global resources and institutional clients (like Goldman Sachs) to manage this kind of change.

It will be dreadful for smaller medium companies and smaller, by imposing crushing costs they may not be able to pass on as easily.

There..........how's that for an ramble.

 

[heathgate]

When you lose the referendum I hope you don't claim it was a (Air)fix.

60% OUT vote.... especially if this so called return to Turkey deal gets sideswiped by the lefty civil liberties and human rights groups, as is already starting to be mooted in the media.

HT, we are far removed in these islands from the spell that Merkel seems to have over the fatherland at the moment, we don't buy it,.... the voters here, in the main, will vote not on economics, not on nuanced political chicanery,.... it will be decided on the mood around migration and perceived democratic impotence in the face of the EU juggernaut.

 

[Hampster Gull]

That's a very fair point, on both sides. However the prevailing in camp, run by the government, is portraying staying in the EU as a risk free Goldilocks proposition, all the goodness with no negatives while lieing on the prospect of future integration and pretending staying in will mean no change. On the other hand there is a consistent message from those leading the out camp that this is the major issue to leave, the fact that remaining in will lead to losing more power, more sovereignty.

Indeed, never believe what you are told on issues like these

 

[Soulman]

60% OUT vote.... especially if this so called return to Turkey deal gets sideswiped by the lefty civil liberties and human rights groups, as is already starting to be mooted in the media.

HT, we are far removed in these islands from the spell that Merkel seems to have over the fatherland at the moment, we don't buy it,.... the voters here, in the main, will vote not on economics, not on nuanced political chicanery,.... it will be decided on the mood around migration and perceived democratic impotence in the face of the EU juggernaut.

He does not live here, so if we lose out on either decision, In or Out, it will not have the affect for those living in this green and still fairly pleasant land.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's not my fault you cannot understand relatively simple analysis and conclusions, however I will convey the point again, however this time its on a dumkopf level just for you.

The new EU Data Protection Regulations (remember Regulations are the laws that are NOT approved by our democratically elected Govt before they become law) are very complex, and will require firms to do a lot of work.

http://www.information-age.com/tech...-costs-will-run-billions#sthash.7eCuOqUc.dpuf

The penalties for firms making mistakes are really harsh.

The EU are also making other separate laws (via Regulations) that require firms that (say) provide share dealing services to gather more data on their clients in order to report it to member states Govts when they trade. This is data that firms have not needed to collect in the past in order to undertake such business.

http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/mkt/london/MiFIDII_New_Transparency_Regime.pdf

This requirement to collect extra client data not needed for normal business reasons is inconsistent with Data Protection law principles which ordinarily require firms only to collect data when they need to carry out its business.

This is an example therefore where excessive EU law has been imposed on UK firms which have not been passed by the UK Govt. These laws will cost firms huge amounts of money to implement, which will be passed onto their customers.

This will be fine for global multi national financial firms which can rely on their global resources and institutional clients (like Goldman Sachs) to manage this kind of change.

It will be dreadful for smaller medium companies and smaller, by imposing crushing costs they may not be able to pass on as easily.

There..........how's that for an ramble.

This post is the a perfect example of the bunkum you read and spout. The first link is in a word amateur, you get better from HB&B. Did the total lack of attributable quotes and zero references not make you think or question? And the whole thing is underpinned by initial supposition, in short it's nonsense. A quick search for the author's journalistic resume shows zilch as well.

"For example, current content of the draft GDPR may be interpreted as outlawing the processing of aggregated customer data" - may? Or may not?

"One responder to the survey predicted that GDPR would cost their company £5 million to become compliant, and £1 million a year to maintain it. A sizeable minority said there are no financial implications of any kind in preparing for GDPR." - A responder to a survey........very scientific. Who was it? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck? Or a CEO? Hopefully you get my point. And if you do want to believe the poll the article seems to totally overlook the point that a sizeable minority said it will have no affect. What's it to be?

"However, 87% of the 506 companies surveyed said they are unable to calculate the amount compliance preparation will cost, with 82% unaware of their current spending on existing compliance rules." - This is my favourite bit. So, the vast majority of the people they surveyed have absolutely no idea how much it will cost, or how much it has cost. Genius! Let's recap: An article based on supposition with a survey where most of the participants do not have a clue either way. Seriously, can you not see what utter tosh this article is?

I'll say one thing. Whilst I am in the 'in' camp I quite enjoy reading some of the 'out' articles posted on here, as they are often interesting and present well researched points. I do not want to blow smoke up anyone's arses but the Bruegel link and the subsequent discussion made me think.... and it made various points which were properly researched and where analytical rigour had been applied. Your stuff seems like it comes from Viz.... or a straw poll in Farage's pub.

So, here we are once again. I now expect the usual trite joke Google translated into German, and then you will disappear for a few days.

Tschuss, see you on Friday then I guess.

 

[sten_super]

We would obviously need to negotiate a deal for access to the market, so what?
That's simply not true. There's no evidence to suggest we wouldn't get good terms. The EU needs us.

I think that you are right that a non-EU member UK could get a decent trade deal (including membership of the single market), but the question is at what trade off? I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the EU would not demand freedom of movement (and of course it's very difficult to be part of a single market without the freedom of movement of the factors of production, including people). Historically the EU has also demanded payment (see Switzerland, Norway), and of course those countries wishing to export to the EU would have to meet all of the regulations and standards that are imposed upon Member States.

ii thought this referendum was meant to be fair.
Mark Carney governor of the Bank of England had recently announced that it would be a domestic risk if Britain were to leave the EU...not suspended
John Longworth Chief of British Chambers and Commerce had recently expressed his views on the benefit's of leaving the EU.... for this he was suspended.

seems the double standards of this went unnoticed on the BBC.

You've missed out the massive distinctions between these two.
Mark Carney is partly responsible for the management of financial risks in the UK. He spoke yesterday to identify the likely implications of Brexit, in the short term, on the financial markets. His organisation has taken no position on the referendum, but it is his job to identify and reflect on the risks as he sees them.
John Longworth was the director general of a membership organisation, and he expressed (on a platform provided by his employer) a personal view that was substantially at odds with that organisation's adopted position (and the views of a majority of their members).

The comments around Carney's activity yesterday are ridiculous - he is an expert in his field, and was asked to comment on the specific impacts of Brexit on that field. He did so, while steering as far as he could from taking a clear position.

 

[5ways]

We would obviously need to negotiate a deal for access to the market, so what?
That's simply not true. There's no evidence to suggest we wouldn't get good terms. The EU needs us.

That's not true. The EU can use central EU cash funds (like the EFSM) to help bail out countries, and that's funded by us. And Greece is just the start of the problems, there will be much larger problems in the next couple of decades, and if we're part of the EU it will cost us billions.

So what? Firstly this would take a long time to negotiate leaving UK businesses in limbo for years. Secondly the terms we would secure to access this market would be inferior.

Here are the alternatives:

Norwegian deal (non-starter): this would involve full access to the European Economic Area (EEA) as enjoyed by Norway and others under the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). In return, EFTA members contribute to the EU budget and are bound by its ‘Four Freedoms,’ including free movement of people and regulations on working hours, banking and climate change. We cannot see a post-Brexit UK accepting these terms. Plus, EU members would likely veto the UK candidacy to avoid setting a secessionist precedent.

Swiss style (unacceptable): Switzerland has bilateral accords that grant it access to parts of the single market but exclude financial services. We see this an unacceptable option for both the UK and EU because of the financial services exclusion and the effort needed to negotiate complex bilateral agreements. The UK also would have to contribute to the EU budget.

Turkish trade (unattractive): this would be a customs union, where access to the EU internal market is allowed for goods on a tariff-free basis, but services and agriculture are excluded. We doubt the EU would be keen on including services, given the UK runs a large surplus in that area. We see this as an unattractive option.

UK-tailored deal (difficult): this would involve free trade agreements with the EU and others. Promoters of this solution point to the EU’s goods surplus with the UK as an incentive for it to grant UK financial services ‘equivalence’ (translation: have the same rights and duties as EU rivals). One problem: the UK already has trouble extracting concessions from the EU. So why would Europe yield to the UK if it were no longer contributing to the EU budget? Conclusion: none of these options are attractive, in our view, and all would entail years of negotiations and uncertainty

There is every reason to accept that we would not get terms as good. At the Open Europe war games this was the result. http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligen...ing-uk-negotiators-inside-and-outside-the-eu/

Bloomberg: The harshest words came from John Bruton, playing Ireland. Brexit, he said, would be a “devastating decision” for Ireland – “I would regard it as an unfriendly act… a huge, self-imposed, politically generated shock to our economy.” It would undo much of the work of the peace process, and create huge questions over borders and labour market access. Out of pure self-interest, Dublin would probably try to grab whatever financial services from London hadn’t been stolen by Frankfurt.

CapX:The think-tank Open Europe convened various members of the great and good to role-play two scenarios – in the morning, David Cameron’s attempts at getting a new EU deal, and in the afternoon, the negotiations that would follow the British public’s rejection of it. The first half was a debate. The second was a lynch mob.

The Economist: The starkest warning came from Leszek Balcerowicz, a former deputy prime minister representing Poland. He said the priority would be to deter populists in other countries who wanted to copy Brexit. For this reason Britain would be punished by its partners even if that seemed to be against their interests. Mr Cameron’s negotiations may be hard, but they are a picnic compared with what he would face were he to lose his referendum.

There is then plenty of evidence that we would get worse terms than we presently enjoy. There is zero evidence we would get better terms.