|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 31, 2016 21:07:45 GMT 1
Too true. If we vote to stay, everything will stay unchanged? You bet yer boots it won't. You will do what yer told by the Germans and their lap dogs the French.
You'll just be told what to do by the Chinese, USA, and the multi-nationals. Don't forget though the UK vetoed the tariff on Chinese steel entering the European zone. Look how well that turned out for South Wales.
I'm not a great Juan for polls, but this made me loff. Look out Dave and Gideon!
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/31/uk-voters-leaning-towards-brexit-guardian-poll-reveals
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 31, 2016 21:28:41 GMT 1
Same polling company predicted Scottish Independence by 6% three weeks before the poll and a hung parliament at the last election so don't read too much into that one. They have small sample sizes so jump all over the place ComRes are the most accurate and think their next one is out on Thursday and will be the best guide and when I'll be putting my bets on. Leave are gaining a bit of ground at the bookies now at 22% Chance and Remain 78% chance a fall of 4% in the last week. A lot of people have already voted due to postal voting too.
|
|
|
Post by blue and ambar on May 31, 2016 22:04:57 GMT 1
I wonder if these polls are only based on British residents or all those who can vote. I suspect many British citizens who are living and working abroad would vote to remain, especially those in other EU members. It would be slightly hypocritical not to do so imo. It will no doubt be very close overall though.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 31, 2016 23:02:53 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 6:57:45 GMT 1
If we do leave I just hope future UK governments are able to find the money to regenerate deprived areas and to retrain the workforce.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jun 1, 2016 7:11:59 GMT 1
Fishing quotas have been very successful in protecting fish stocks and protecting the long term viability of a fishing industry. If we lose that and return to a free for all how long until our fishing fleet completely disappears ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 7:47:56 GMT 1
Fishing quotas have been very successful in protecting fish stocks and protecting the long term viability of a fishing industry. If we lose that and return to a free for all how long until our fishing fleet completely disappears ? However thousands of dead fish are thrown back into the sea because of the quota which have been trawled in the nets anyway.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jun 1, 2016 20:59:48 GMT 1
Quite simply, laws for this country should be made in this country. #VoteLeave
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jun 1, 2016 22:13:41 GMT 1
Quite simply, laws for this country should be made in this country. #VoteLeave A fair point but if we leave laws made in the EU will still affect us, but with no influence to affect them. For example one of my old Uni mates runs a haulage company which operates across Europe. While the EU does make rules over emissions from the vehicles his company is able to have a say on those through his MEP and haulage unions. Should we leave he's fearful that EU regulations will be implemented with no UK input into how they are developed. This will directly impact on his business I'm very much on the fence over how to vote but don't feel enough is being discussed about the continued impact the EU will have on trade, immigration and social policy and how we as a nation will go about influencing it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 6:59:54 GMT 1
Laws for this country are made in this country. This is were the debate is dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jun 2, 2016 7:26:28 GMT 1
Laws for this country are made in this country. This is were the debate is dishonest. Not true - we are compelled by the treaty to adopt EU directives.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jun 2, 2016 7:34:06 GMT 1
Laws for this country are made in this country. This is were the debate is dishonest. Not true - we are compelled by the treaty to adopt EU directives. But don't we automatically adopt about 90%of EU directives as they match existing or developing UK law anyway? And if we leave the EU our businesses trading in Europe will still have to adhere to those directives so over time EU law and UK law may differ. Not necessarily a bad thing but something that will bring change for companies that work in the UK and Europe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 7:39:46 GMT 1
Laws for this country are made in this country. This is were the debate is dishonest. Not true - we are compelled by the treaty to adopt EU directives. That's different. The narrative is about our law making abilities being curtailed by the EU, that's not true. As for the directives, as I said on the other thread the UK has objected to just 2% of the directives from the EU. I can't do links on the device I'm using, but there are plenty of useful websites that explain the percentage of laws and directives from the EU that effect t He UK. It's not that many when you consider the amount of legislation produced by government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 7:42:58 GMT 1
We also need to remember that there's a difference between legislation and regulation.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 2, 2016 8:30:08 GMT 1
This is worth a look if you are looking to understand how Brussels determines laws within the EU... Paxman in Brussels
That section on the monthly migration to Strasbourg speaks absolute volumes to me.
|
|
|
Post by R6ix on Jun 2, 2016 23:47:54 GMT 1
the eu is an anti democratic dictatorship,if we vote leave, and things go bad at least we are free to do what it takes to go again, vote stay and thats your lot,do as we say when we say as long as we say,anyone wanting to sign away everything we fought for is insane,people need to see the bigger picture,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 5:37:23 GMT 1
vote leave and your guess is as good as mine, vote stay and...........weve been a member of the eu for a long time and, well we're one of the strongest most successful countries on earth, respected and admired by most (despite the governments best efforts), so why would we want to change.
oh yes, sovereignty.......oh and our borders.......and those nasty people from other places that don't speak our language and look a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 3, 2016 7:16:04 GMT 1
oh yes, sovereignty.......oh and our borders.......and those nasty people from other places that don't speak our language and look a bit different. I thought we'd move on from that by now but there you go. Page 5 and here it is again. How many times do we see it come down to this for those who want to remain. Like I said before, I understand why. It makes things easier to argue the case for those want to remain but what surprises me is that those who want to leave have moved on from this, a long time past. They see it for what it is. Yet the leave folk keep banging on about it. My gut feeling is that the UK would be better off out. Could be wrong of course. Only time will tell if it does come to that. And it's a big if, could go either way by the looks. But from what I understand, that is my thinking. And is has nothing to do with people who look a bit different and speak a different language. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Because I'm surrounded by them. I really don't think the remain folk do themselves any favours trying to argue the case in such a way and I really do think the remain campaign is suffering as a result. People are so used to folk spouting such stuff now that it has really lost all meaning. So much so that the remain camp is losing an awful lot of credibility. I think many people who support remain should try and give others a little bit more credit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 7:48:10 GMT 1
oh yes, sovereignty.......oh and our borders.......and those nasty people from other places that don't speak our language and look a bit different. I thought we'd move on from that by now but there you go. Page 5 and here it is again. How many times do we see it come down to this for those who want to remain. Like I said before, I understand why. It makes things easier to argue the case for those want to remain but what surprises me is that those who want to leave have moved on from this, a long time past. They see it for what it is. Yet the leave folk keep banging on about it. My gut feeling is that the UK would be better off out. Could be wrong of course. Only time will tell if it does come to that. And it's a big if, could go either way by the looks. But from what I understand, that is my thinking. And is has nothing to do with people who look a bit different and speak a different language. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Because I'm surrounded by them. I really don't think the remain folk do themselves any favours trying to argue the case in such a way and I really do think the remain campaign is suffering as a result. People are so used to folk spouting such stuff now that it has really lost all meaning. So much so that the remain camp is losing an awful lot of credibility. I think many people who support remain should try and give others a little bit more credit. Only seen brief highlights of Cameron's appearance last night but it doesn't seem that ordinary Joe Public outers have moved on from the immigration argument.
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Jun 3, 2016 7:50:49 GMT 1
I was shocked at the amount of pro leavers (and young ones at that) grilling Cameron on the debate last night. Hoping my postal vote comes through soon so I can help save the country from the abyss that is an EU exit.
If we leave Cameron will go down as one of our worst ever PMs for leading the UK into this. I was about to write us, but if leave happens there may be no us. No idea what will happen to Brit expats living in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Jun 3, 2016 7:53:48 GMT 1
To add on immigration, there were plenty on Sky fearing the hoardes of Turk terrorists marauding across the borders. Not as if there's been Turkish immigration in the past or in Germany. How will we cope?
Leave is also still quoting the Dalai Lama as being pro leave due to immigration. Not as if they've moved on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 8:01:14 GMT 1
I was shocked at the amount of pro leavers (and young ones at that) grilling Cameron on the debate last night. Hoping my postal vote comes through soon so I can help save the country from the abyss that is an EU exit. If we leave Cameron will go down as one of our worst ever PMs for leading the UK into this. I was about to write us, but if leave happens there may be no us. No idea what will happen to Brit expats living in the EU. You will be banished back to the uk lol! Cameron already is our worst PM, and part of the reason we have this poll is his worry of losing seats by Tory voters switching to ukip at the last election and the failure by uk to negotiate for the better interests of uk at Eu summits.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jun 3, 2016 8:39:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Matster on Jun 3, 2016 8:45:52 GMT 1
1.26m UK people living in Europe, if we leave Europe will they have to have visas to continue living there?
|
|
|
Post by salop999 on Jun 3, 2016 9:31:26 GMT 1
Quite simply, laws for this country should be made in this country. #VoteLeave Can you give several examples of a law that the EU imposed onto the UK that you're not happy with?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 3, 2016 9:34:20 GMT 1
I thought we'd move on from that by now but there you go. Page 5 and here it is again. How many times do we see it come down to this for those who want to remain. Like I said before, I understand why. It makes things easier to argue the case for those want to remain but what surprises me is that those who want to leave have moved on from this, a long time past. They see it for what it is. Yet the leave folk keep banging on about it. My gut feeling is that the UK would be better off out. Could be wrong of course. Only time will tell if it does come to that. And it's a big if, could go either way by the looks. But from what I understand, that is my thinking. And is has nothing to do with people who look a bit different and speak a different language. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Because I'm surrounded by them. I really don't think the remain folk do themselves any favours trying to argue the case in such a way and I really do think the remain campaign is suffering as a result. People are so used to folk spouting such stuff now that it has really lost all meaning. So much so that the remain camp is losing an awful lot of credibility. I think many people who support remain should try and give others a little bit more credit. Only seen brief highlights of Cameron's appearance last night but it doesn't seem that ordinary Joe Public outers have moved on from the immigration argument. No one said that immigration is not a priority for people. But that doesn't mean it is because of nasty people from other places that don't speak our language and look a bit different. Are people really going to level that against near on half the population (or whatever it is of those who want to leave the EU). From my own experiences, I simply can not accept that. Is immigration and the freedom of movement a benefit to one and all? I am enjoying the benefits of it. For me it has worked out brilliant. But I am not naive to think that it has been a success and a benefit to all. Clearly there are many people concerned about immigration and would like to see it managed better. That does not, for me, equate to people in the UK wanting to stop immigration because people who look different and speak different are turning up on their doorstep. Some, sure. The vast majority, no way. Indeed, the impression I get is that no one actually wants or thinks immigration can be stopped per se. Just that it needs to curbed and better managed. The UK population are now competing against ever increasing numbers for jobs, housing, services, infrastructure etc etc. When more and more confront such issues then it is hardly surprising they would like the numbers controlled. Like I say, I don't have these issues. Life is pretty good for me. But when others speak differently then I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not automatically call them out as racist this, racist that etc etc blah blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jun 3, 2016 10:38:18 GMT 1
That's different. The narrative is about our law making abilities being curtailed by the EU, that's not true. As for the directives, as I said on the other thread the UK has objected to just 2% of the directives from the EU. I can't do links on the device I'm using, but there are plenty of useful websites that explain the percentage of laws and directives from the EU that effect t He UK. It's not that many when you consider the amount of legislation produced by government. Jun 2, 2016 8:34:06 GMT 2 mattmw said: But don't we automatically adopt about 90%of EU directives as they match existing or developing UK law anyway? And if we leave the EU our businesses trading in Europe will still have to adhere to those directives so over time EU law and UK law may differ. Not necessarily a bad thing but something that will bring change for companies that work in the UK and Europe
I watched Cameron last night and note these comments - the reality is somewhat different.
I have been peripherally involved in the UK financial services "input" into 3 directives and the principal representative in a further directive. In all 4 cases we already had an equivalent UK regulation and in all 4 EU directives as a UK financial industry we had fundamental objections to the final published directive. All were a good example of committee decision making where everyone was unhappy with the end result. Officially these fall into the no objection category as they were "negotiated" - all 4 have done nothing good for the industry, the protection of employees, customers and shareholders, or indeed the UK economy - they do present a significant cost burden which puts us at a disadvantage to the Swiss and Americans who participate on level terms with "equivalent" regimes.
I know I only talk about 4 specific directives related to financial services but to say that we would have had to adopt them anyway is absolutely 100% wrong. Our pre-existing rules would have been given "equivalence".
So in summary I state as known facts that get missed because the politicians do not seem to listen:
a) you cannot look at the objection stats as they do not show the real objections i.e. where the directives have been "negotiated".
b) we would not be forced to adopt the EU directives for financial services if we were outside the EU. The financial services directives represent some of the most expensive and damaging EU directives to the UK financial services industry so this is an important point as financial services is our most important industry whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 3, 2016 10:50:04 GMT 1
Not as if there's been Turkish immigration in the past or in Germany. How will we cope? But the circumstances were different or? The Turks (and others from elsewhere) who ventured over to Germany were greatly needed in order to help the recovery and rebuild the country and industry after the world war. Germany made great efforts to get guest workers in from elsewhere because there was a dire (and when we say dire, we mean dire) shortage of labour. Is that the case now for the UK? Are the circumstance the same now as it was then for Germany? Also, my understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that the UK has had a steady flow of immigration over a good few years. That there is no real labour shortage in the UK, or a demographic problem as is reported here in Germany. Germany might well be inviting the world along because their politicians see it as a means to add to a declining and aging population. I don't think the UK has that issue (or perhaps not to the same degree). So just because the Germans might be able to cope in the 60s and 70s doesn't mean the UK can now. The circumstances are not quite the same.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jun 3, 2016 11:31:57 GMT 1
That's different. The narrative is about our law making abilities being curtailed by the EU, that's not true. As for the directives, as I said on the other thread the UK has objected to just 2% of the directives from the EU. I can't do links on the device I'm using, but there are plenty of useful websites that explain the percentage of laws and directives from the EU that effect t He UK. It's not that many when you consider the amount of legislation produced by government. Jun 2, 2016 8:34:06 GMT 2 mattmw said: But don't we automatically adopt about 90%of EU directives as they match existing or developing UK law anyway? And if we leave the EU our businesses trading in Europe will still have to adhere to those directives so over time EU law and UK law may differ. Not necessarily a bad thing but something that will bring change for companies that work in the UK and Europe
I watched Cameron last night and note these comments - the reality is somewhat different.
I have been peripherally involved in the UK financial services "input" into 3 directives and the principal representative in a further directive. In all 4 cases we already had an equivalent UK regulation and in all 4 EU directives as a UK financial industry we had fundamental objections to the final published directive. All were a good example of committee decision making where everyone was unhappy with the end result. Officially these fall into the no objection category as they were "negotiated" - all 4 have done nothing good for the industry, the protection of employees, customers and shareholders, or indeed the UK economy - they do present a significant cost burden which puts us at a disadvantage to the Swiss and Americans who participate on level terms with "equivalent" regimes.
I know I only talk about 4 specific directives related to financial services but to say that we would have had to adopt them anyway is absolutely 100% wrong. Our pre-existing rules would have been given "equivalence".
So in summary I state as known facts that get missed because the politicians do not seem to listen:
a) you cannot look at the objection stats as they do not show the real objections i.e. where the directives have been "negotiated".
b) we would not be forced to adopt the EU directives for financial services if we were outside the EU. The financial services directives represent some of the most expensive and damaging EU directives to the UK financial services industry so this is an important point as financial services is our most important industry whether you like it or not.
Interesting stuff about the financial sector. Why do you think more isn't being made of this by the Leave campaign as they seem very clear benefits which could have costs listed alongside them, rather than the vague promises a lot of the campaign seems to rest on Fully accept that financial services are a big earner for the country, but other aspects of the economy like my mates haulage company will have to adhere to EU regulations should we leave if we want to continue operating within Europe I guess some sectors of the economy are better out of the EU, other have advantages of being in. Working out the balance between the too is where the benefits of staying or leaving will come and we're not really getting those figures in the debates
|
|
|
Post by shrewdshrewssupporter on Jun 3, 2016 11:52:30 GMT 1
I think if we operate as if we were in the EU like Switzerland do without paying the fees and making slight tweaks to things like immigration it could work out well
|
|