EU referendum/Brexit 2016

Lol! Half the population says we will be better off in the EU when the annual trade deficit with the EU is about £70 billion. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bop/balance-of-payments/q3-2014/stb-bop-q3-2014.html#tab-Current-account-with-EU-and-non-EU-countries--Table-C- - (the Balance of Payments deficit is £100bn pa)

Um, here's a clue: we'd still have to buy all those goods and services we get from the EU, probably from the EU. The chances are, that without the legal framework for trade that exists, these imports would cost even more, and other members of the EU would be less likely to buy from us (if we left the EU) - so the deficit would be even greater.

I think it says "Let's not fight, we can all sit down together and talk".

Typical pro-EU reaction - deny that any bad news is actually happening!

Your comment also takes no account of the fact that the EU has concluded Free Trade Agreements and Trade Partnerships with half the world.

Interestingly the UK trades far more successfully with the rest of the world than with the EU:

This may suggest something systemically disadvantageous in our economic relations, especially given that the USA, Canada etc. all have more success exporting to the EU than the UK.

Which rather demonstrates my point, pro-EU supporters think they have the moral high ground when they see images like these:

They don't even know they are doing it.

Please expand your argument, I have no understanding of what point you are trying to make.

Great extrapolation. I don't think anyone denies that a balance of payments deficit if a bad thing - although ultimately having a balance of payments deficit in one area and a surplus in another may be acceptable (ie importing raw materials from one area and exporting finished goods to another).
But your argument fails to recognise that leaving the EU is not a cure for a trade deficit.

Er, yes, and the UK is part of the EU, and thus benefits from those agreements.

Are you putting forward a serious argument that the UK would be better off having no trade with the EU, because of our (alleged) surplus with the rest of the world? If you take that to its logical conclusion you would also cut out China and many other countries, where we have trade deficits?
You haven't presented any evidence to that end.

Most of the undergrads I talk to seem to believe that if everyone was like them and believed the same things there would be peace and harmony in the world. Postgrads are better educated.

Staying IN the EU is even less of a cure. The EU is not good for the UK economy. Economic arguments for staying IN are false.

In the 2 years it takes to leave the EU it will be possible to tweak a Free Trade Agreement to reduce the deficit. (Though not make it disappear entirely).

The EU has sovereignty over international trade agreements. Had the UK such sovereignty it would have concluded similar agreements over the past 40 years.
On exit it is likely that, if beneficial, the FTAs can be amended with "for EU read UK".

Obviously not, see my point about an FTA with the EU above.

The point I am making is that there is no economic advantage to being IN the EU. The point you seem to be making is that whilst you recognise the figures and seem to recognise that there is no advantage, you still want to lose sovereignty by remaining IN.

That video also only reinforces the often self-absorbed, inward-looking nature of the European establishment that rejects the rest of the world. Africa, the Middle East & Asia should not be seen as threats to us, but opportunities for further prosperity.

So your argument is that the EU is trying to make everyone "white"? I think that it is clear that the "other" is often seen as a threat, and that the definition of "other" can be anything - but I don't think there's anything wrong with neutralising the threat by sitting down and talking.

No, I don't accept that at all. The economic benefits to being in the EU are no barriers to trade. As soon as you leave the EU you introduce barriers, these have a tendency to increase costs, and thus reduce competitiveness. The barriers may be purely mental, but they do arise - no free trade agreement is going to put the UK on an equal footing with EU member states.

If you're one of those people who object to the EU on the basis of regulation, I've got news for you: if the UK left the EU its government would not be eliminating all the law that the EU has had an influence over. Just not going to happen.

Additionally, in order to export to the EU we would have to comply with the same regulations as member states - UK industry would revolt at the idea of different UK and EU regulation, and the EU would not tolerate imports that didn't comply with its regulation.

Your dream of a free trade agreement would soon melt away, as what we effectively got was a slightly trimmed-down version of the Lisbon treaty (all the obligations), without full access to the EU market (sans the benefits).

Engage your brain, think about what a free trade agreement with the EU would actually require.

Ita talking about expansion. I'd vote to leave immediately if it expanded into Africa or a Muslim country.

No! At the national level working class racists want everyone to be the same and object to different people being in their neighborhood. On the International scale pro-EU supporters want the entire continent to be the same and object to people being different. It is about culture.

You talk of "neutralising the threat", cant you hear your own words? Pro-EU are International racists. It is middle class racism, the sort favoured by teachers and housewives. People who bury their prejudices under apparent "moral" justifications. Not respecting diversity but wanting to destroy it is simply racist, there is no moral justification.

This sort of racism is the worst because it is the tacit support that Internationist empire builders, Nazis and Communists have always exploited.

Its also talking about Internationalist Racism. The pro-EU lobby are the racist bully boys of the International scene and the BNP are the same on the national scene. The fact that the Establishment favours Internationalist racism means that it has not been properly exposed. Wanting to crush all diversity because you are afraid of people who are different is racist whether it is on the scale of countries or individuals.

That the Establishment has actually employed teachers and bent the media to support their racism should surprise no-one, these are the methods of the state.

This is utter nonsense. I only say "neutralising the threat" because the characters in the video you posted were obviously threatening. What's wrong with sitting down and resolving differences?

What real threats are there to the EU: there is obviously the influx of migrants from Africa and Asia, there are significant wars and border disputes close to the EU frontier (Syria and Ukraine) and there is the ongoing threat of Russia withdrawing energy supplies. I think it is clear enough that these require collective action on the part of EU members.

As to differences in culture, I think in general we are very tolerant. But, that's al we are required to be, tolerant - we're not required to actively support "diversity". The areas that we are intolerant in are those that clash with our fundamental values, principally equality and discrimination.. So where it is perceived that there is a lack of equality in some cultural practices the law will act to prevent that. I think that if you come to the EU it is only proper that you also accept the cultural norms here. That means that it is unacceptable to discriminate against women, for example - and we see many forms of that in "culture" from outside the EU.

If you have some specific examples, then please give them.

Please refer to what is actually happening. Canada has a free trade agreement with the EU:…

offer predictable conditions for investors and, last but not least, help prevent illegal copying of EU innovations and traditional products."

Almost all countries with FTAs with the EU have grown their trade with the EU faster than the UK: Where’s The Insider Advantage? Michael Burrage, 2012.

The facts are exactly the opposite of the claims that you are making about trade.

Please give explicit examples of this please. Otherwise it's just blather.

Watch the video, they made their enemies disappear.....

I don't see Africans, Indians and Chinese as enemies, do you?

The UN is the proper forum for resolving the Ukraine conflict. Ruthenia never included Eastern Ukraine or Crimea and Yeltsin's government were fools to include them in the devolved state.

We should not be tolerant of cultures in other countries, we should RESPECT them. This means that if they have behaviours that we find reprehensible we should make it known to them but definitely never send in the drones.

Internationalist extremists are indeed racist, they believe that they have all the answers and talk in terms of "tolerance" rather than respect.

The problem here is twofold, you are quoting headlines and ignoring the detail, and where there is a clue as to the detail you are ignoring it, or not recognising it.

Free trade agreements are two-way streets: we give you access to our markets, you agree to obey a set of rules we give to you. The clue to this is "…help prevent illegal copying of EU innovations and traditional products." A reasonable reading of this is that Canada has had to change some of its law to help protect the items highlighted. This is exactly what I wrote previously: where these agreements are signed with the EU they also require the signatories to change their laws and/or adopt EU regulations.

You are either deliberately ignoring these implications, or just do not understand the entire process. Canada is giving away some aspects of its sovereignty in order to gain access to EU markets - that is what always happens with international treaties. The problem you are facing is that you do not recognise this and you do not know the full scope of of the treaties.

This is by far the poorest of your analysis so far. Of course, after a trade agreement, trade between the signatories will grow - that's the whole point. And of course it will be greater growth than before, because some of the barriers to trade have been removed.

What I have written previously (have a look) is that if the UK left the EU and had a free trade agreement with the EU then two things would happen:

i) the UK would most likely need to adopt a whole raft of EU regulation in order to comply with that agreement

ii) it is most likely that our overall trade with the EU would fall, because there would still be barriers in place with the free trade agreement that were not present when we were a member of the EU (even if those barriers were purely psychological).

Right now we have the most comprehensive of free trade agreements possible with the EU - we are members. Your argument seems to be that if we leave we can negotiate a free trade agreement that betters this and magically increases our trade with the EU while simultaneously reducing the trade deficit.

If that is really your argument then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. There are no barriers to trade now (except not being in the Euro - and this is a real trade issue, even if you do not recognise it), how can a free trade agreement possibly improve upon that?