Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Countdown to the Referendum: What We Should All Know About the EU vs. UK Independence Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    I doubt you are stupid enough to believe all that drivel you've just wrote.
    The EU has been doing far more outrageous stuff before, and that's only consolidated its power, not destroyed it. If you want to stay in the E U, then fine, but don't try to persuade others by lying and denying perfectly legitimate facts. People like you were saying "Nothing can possibly go wrong if we join the euro. We won't survive without joining it." You were wrong back then, and are wrong today.
    The level of hypocrisy is mind-boggling. The person you quoted actually laid out a coherent, logical argument. All you have done is make random, generic claims (e.g. "far more outrageous stuff before") and insult the other poster. You even called his post "drivel", which is exactly what yours is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 10001)
    Every day there is a new scare story. Obama says Britain will be at back of the queue for a trade deal, then it is suggested WWIII will break out and just recently I heard the Remain campaign claim it will take longer to find a cure for cancer if we leave the EU. It is just ridiculous. The world is not going to end if we leave the EU! It will be a fresh start and a chance for Britain to make something of itself again.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And what are you going to do if that fresh start totally fails?

    Oh and the fact that you call the claim that cancer cures will take longer ridiculous, shows how little thought you put into your arguments. It takes money, resources, cooperation to find a cure. All of which will suffer upon Brexit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Emissions weren't the only reason for stopping production of the Defender
    The manufacturers cited an inability to adapt the model as the primary reason for the discontinuation, according to a number of news outlets

    It was also very inefficient to produce
    Oh aye - are you suggesting that it was no longer financially viable anyway?

    there is no mention of arbitrary in the BBC article cited
    Are you suggesting that because the BBC do not use the term, I am somehow prohibited from drawing attention to the fact that the EU emissions regulators failing to adequately accommodate larger vehicles that need more horsepower to deliver performance in their class/roles is somewhat 'arbitrary'? The references are entered as supplementary, there is no suggestion that my commentary/analysis mirrors them word-for-word, nor is this a reasonable expectation

    presumably you want to go back to these good old days?
    Nope. When was the last time an army of Defenders caused a great cloud of smog? False dichotomy

    As a tax payer I want to know that our public bodies are sourcing the best value assets
    1) Consider how we define 'value'; 2) Consider value to the economy at large, rather than narrow considerations of the particular procuring party

    Britain has a history of producing sh1t cars .. Triumph
    Spoiler:
    Show

    buying British for sentimental reasons
    No idea how you inferred this from my criticism

    So what if we can't reduce VAT. Neither can anyone else in the EU
    Oh well, that's ok then. Who needs fiscal levers when you're all in it together

    Spoiler:
    Show

    if we leave, but want to continue to be members of the common market, we will still have to abide by the same rules
    Not impossible to envisage negotiating near enough free-trade without having to be a(n ordinary, subordinate) member of the common market

    I can only guess you made it up
    You know what they say about assumptions, right? :erm:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    I can't find the £10 billion number in it anywhere
    The upper-band figure that BIS produced in 2010 was £9.4bn

    Spoiler:
    Show
    FYR: a small c. before a number means ‘circa’ i.e. ‘around’

    this report spells out the advantages the common market offers
    I don’t see how that’s ironic really – the common market is a wonderful concept and has brought the UK, and other trading nations, a plethora of economic benefits over the years. If the EU were merely a free-trade area, with no more red tape than was strictly requisite, you can be sure I’d be squarely behind it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I love how you pretended to be pro Europe and how you are so well travelled and all. In the end you are nothing more than an anti-Europe bigot.

    You say you like Europe and yet of campaigning to improve the things you don't like, you say leave. You want to enjoy all the benefits but not the drawbacks. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Sad.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    the common market is a wonderful concept and has brought the UK, and other trading nations, a plethora of economic benefits over the years. If the EU were merely a free-trade area, with no more red tape than was strictly requisite, you can be sure I’d be squarely behind it
    But do you not need rules and regulations to keep a level playing field across an area of free trade? For example, let us suppose that all 'red tape' were burned tonight. Would you be happy with me building cars that belched out high emissions and had no safety standards, or produced chocolate marketed as chocolate be that had no cocoa in it, or employed staff on terms that gave me an advantage over other companies?

    My understanding of trade deals is that they are rather specific. The common market by contrast is total. I can set up any business and sell anywhere in Europe but that product or service. By contrast a trade deal might only allow me to sell a certain type of product or service and no doubt with many strings attached.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Nope. When was the last time an army of Defenders caused a great cloud of smog? False dichotomy
    Never. But cars which produce high emissions contribute to the terrible air quality seen in many areas of the UK.

    That's why the EU's efforts to reduce emissions is so important. If high polluting vehicles like the Defender have to go to clean up the air, then so be it.

    Also on the topic of police car procurement. There hasn't really been any big change in the type of cars used by police forces for years. Police forces in the UK have been heavily reliant on Fords and Vauxhalls.

    The Met spent a few years buying Hyundais for a while, but has recently got rid of them and gone over to Ford. This is a good shift because a number of Ford parts are made in the UK.

    Anyway - the point being that I don't think EU rules have really had the impact some people think it has. It hasn't been the case that British police were all driving around in Minis and Jags before the big nasty EU told us we couldn't.

    A reason for this is that vehicles produced in the UK aren't as appealing, or the manufacturer didn't put a bid in. As far as I'm aware, the EU's procurement rules merely say that a range of suppliers should be considered. So British firms could bid - and police could consider British made vehicles.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Foo.mp3


    Could you tell me more about your fourth way pluralism? Your summary eerily reminded me of Corbyn's 'A new, kinder politics' isn't it essentially mass decentralisation with a good dose of cultural relativism ?


    On your wider point

    Oh noes they banned enviromentally damaging cars, they might go for fracking next!

    Actually there's quite a lot of misleading stuff in your text

    Regarding TTIP: they still haven't passed it and there is mass opposition to it. Even though I'm something of a leftie I'm sceptical its that bad. If TTIP lead to the nhs being sold off or the French getting bought out by the U.S. the EU wouldn't last a week,

    Turkey isn't going to join. The Eastern Europeans will not allow it. Simple as.

    You're going to need a decent source for saying the EU is fraudulent. it isn't https://fullfact.org/europe/has-eu-b...past-18-years/

    A recent LSE study showed that EU migration doesn't drive down wages. The EU is leading the way against bankers bonuses

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ses-defeat-ecj

    I personally don't trust migration watch to be objective at all...

    HMRC took taxes from companies illegally, where some of that monies would have gone into pension funds. I know it's popular to **** off big business, but that doesn't give government remit to unlawfully steal from them.

    The majority of businesses big and small, want to stay in the EU from M&S to Innocent Smoothie: http://www.eusmallbusiness.com

    I'm glad there's taxes on fossil fuels- no wonder all the climate change sceptics like Lord Lawson are anti EU !

    (There's probably more)
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I find it amusing how the OP describes the remain campaign as 'project fear' given that its been the leave campaign who've been warning of us that the EU is Hitler's reincarnations and that the whole of Turkey is pretty much going to move here within minutes.

    I also find it amusing how the OP speaks about Pro-EU propaganda when almost every newspaper is anti-eu.

    Such a victim mentality on the Leave side.
    Yet you do nothing to refute his points...

    because you don't even know your reason to remain with which to articulate yourself.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Yet you do nothing to refute his points...

    because you don't even know your reason to remain with which to articulate yourself.
    I wish to remain because the leave campaign have not provided a viable alternative and I quite like the EU.

    Yet he accuses the remain camp of being project fear despite how much the Brexit camp has fearmongered.

    Cannot wait for the UKIP and right wing Tory nutters to lose.

    The victim mentality you guys have is astonishing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Could you tell me more about your fourth way pluralism?
    See my political philosophy page FYR

    Oh noes they banned enviromentally damaging cars, they might go for fracking next!
    Climate change and fracking are interrelated, if not directly comparable, topics. One we have a choice in, the other we cannot stop

    Regarding TTIP: they still haven't passed it and there is mass opposition to it
    True, but neither have their quashed it, and there are plenty of indications that it'll go through eventually, in some form or other - the disgraceful secrecy protocols speak volumes (see the ZH link FYR)

    If TTIP lead to the nhs being sold off or the French getting bought out by the U.S. the EU wouldn't last a week
    Agreed, but then we're both grown up enough to know that the neoliberal erosion of such institutions involves insidious 'death by a thousands cuts'/'slow strangulation'

    Turkey isn't going to join. The Eastern Europeans will not allow it. Simple as
    I really hope you're right, and on balance of probability it does seem unlikely any time soon, but we can't rule it out entirely and, in the meantime, VISA-free travel is a deeply unsettling prospect that the EU Commission have just signed off on

    You're going to need a decent source for saying the EU is fraudulent. it isn't https://fullfact.org/europe/has-eu-b...past-18-years/
    The source you cited illustrates that it is as per the corruption/fraud contained within the material accounting 'errors' :yy:

    A recent LSE study showed that EU migration doesn't drive down wages. The EU is leading the way against bankers bonuses
    You appear to be confusing median wages with lower decile earnings - my comments pertain to the bottom of the income distribution: studies conducted at my uni (Reading) and replicated elsewhere revealed that migration drives down wages among the working classes

    I personally don't trust migration watch to be objective at all
    Fair enough. Previously I've seen £2bn benefits associated with EEA migrants ~ take the higher performing non-EU members of EEA out of the equation and it's easy to see a zero sum game or slight cost, as per the MW figures

    HMRC took taxes from companies illegally
    "Illegally" = not at the same rate as other European nations were charging at that juncture? We should be able to levy taxes independently

    The majority of businesses big and small, want to stay in the EU from M&S to Innocent Smoothie: http://www.eusmallbusiness.com
    You do realise that neither of those are small businesses, and that Innocent are owned by murderous Crony Capitalists, Coca Cola, right?

    I'm glad there's taxes on fossil fuels
    How glad do you think rural/poor people are when our global emissions contribution is <2% and rapidly declining (vs. developing world rapidly increasing, with zero controls)?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    The level of hypocrisy is mind-boggling. The person you quoted actually laid out a coherent, logical argument. All you have done is make random, generic claims (e.g. "far more outrageous stuff before" and insult the other poster. You even called his post "drivel", which is exactly what yours is.

    No, you're wrong and have no idea about the real issues.
    He said the EU wouldn't survive if TTIP allowed companies to sue the NHS, I'll give you an example of something more outrageous: allowing anyone from Poland or Romania to leave their much much poorer economies and take low wage jobs in Britain. It's bad for them and it's bad for us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    No, you're wrong and have no idea about the real issues.
    He said the EU wouldn't survive if TTIP allowed companies to sue the NHS, I'll give you an example of something more outrageous: allowing anyone from Poland or Romania to leave their much much poorer economies and take low wage jobs in Britain. It's bad for them and it's bad for us.
    Yea, that is so totally outrageous. I am most certainly very outraged at this. How dare they do something so outrageously bad for them? Simply outrageous this situation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I find it funny that you're standing up for the original post I quoted; if you actually read it and do a bit of research you will see why.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    let's ignore the fact that the UK has a massive role in building parts for some of those cars
    I embrace our role in supporting domestic enterprise, excellence, and productivity through whatever ways and means, and wouldn’t ignore this (you will surely appreciate that the OP presentation is as concise as possible, a la bullet points), but it would be nice for public institutions to be able to buy British if they so chose (within reason). Part of the problem with centralisation (in any system) is that it tends toward lowest-common-denominator type (i.e. globalising) forces e.g. price-centricity (to the exclusion of other considerations). Procurement within the public sector, particularly in the age of austerity, has, unfortunately (if somewhat understandably), increasingly been pitched towards price and away from value, and within that quality, and logistical concerns e.g. potentially less stable/sustainable, both in terms of the macroeconomy as well as the narrower interests of the particular parties involved

    What did happen is that MEPs voted on a motion entitled: "on the role of the EU within the UN - how to better achieve EU foreign policy goals."
    Thanks for the additional info – I’ll take your word for it and have adapted my commentary accordingly

    there is some debate as to whether Brexit could weaken the UK's standing in the UN
    I’m sure there’s some debate as to whether #Brexit could weaken the UK’s standing in virtually every domain. Unfortunately it’s conjecture, and largely tantamount to puerile #ProjectFear (i.e. overzealous use of worst-case-scenarios, at best). We have in both soft, hard, and economic relative terms, arguably more clout now than we did when the UN was formed. If you understand political realism/international political economy (IPE), within contemporary schools of international relations and economics, then you’ll know that such detractions amount to little other than disingenuous distractions

    The EU deal Cameron sorted made the UK exempt from the principle of ever closer union
    1) The deal he made is not wholly binding under EU law

    2) There is no clear mechanism for enforcement

    3) Look at the history of Denmark, with respect to the EU’s failure to respect directly Democratically mandated opt-outs (Cameron’s weren't even directly mandated, but instead just whatever he was able to get - hence even less likely to be afforded due respect)

    the phrase isn't so scary
    It may seem relatively innocuous now but those prescient souls who follow European affairs closely and have a keen understanding of PPE themes/trends know that the only way the EU will survive, going forward, is if it unites far more tightly behind (highly politically incendiary) common economic/political policies of centralisation/collective socialisation of private debt (just wait till French and Italian banks start to fail in the global recession in prospect), and exercises increasingly muscular security powers to counter mounting anti-austerity/elitist/immigrant discontent

    the figure for what percentage of our law comes from the EU changes depending on the definition you use
    Indeed so, but the point/reference still stand – to seek to give the impression that somehow EU institutions are not a major determinant of/do not have supreme power over, our legislation/legislative bodies (and what are politicians if not legislators/what is political power if not the power to legislate), would be very silly indeed, agreed?

    some of the stuff coming over from the EU just doesn't really matter because a) it has no affect on us or b) UK laws have already covered the area
    Europhile Labour cretins of the establishment said the same about the Charter of Fundamental Rights e.g. "no more power than the Beano", yet today we see this charter – along with a myriad of other 'ineffectual' instruments – being used to hinder efforts to block entry of/deport criminals/terrorists, and to force security services to reveal delicate intel’ that could endanger national security in such cases

    some EU laws are good things which benefit us
    A great many of them, agreed, and we must be very careful, in the event of a Brexit, to ensure that related pro-social/environmental/security safeguards are maintained. We, the people, would prefer to have the power to pick and chose those laws which are congruent with our interests, norms, values, and way of life, however

    This is a bit of a "so what?" point. In the vast majority of cases (like 75%), every country votes for the proposal. The action comes before the vote - in negotiations, where voting share really doesn't count for much
    Indeed, but, as above, we’d prefer to be able to determine our own fate and the VoteLeave line on this is pretty hard to argue with: "UK has voted against 72 laws in the Council of Ministers. It has been outvoted every single time. These laws have cost British taxpayers £2.4 billion"

    The Brexit folk seem to suggest that the UK is marginalised in the EU
    You only have to see the headline EU meetings to see that the likes of Cameron are somewhat ostracised at the European level (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the Euroscepticism of our nation/Tories)

    sources suggest that the UK Diplomatic Service is very skilled in negotiations in the EU
    Must have been on holiday/left it up to Downing St. around the time of Cameron’s deal brokering eh

    the UK is very much at the top table and in the centre of EU decision making
    If you truly believe that, having read and digested all of the information provided in this thread, then really there’s nothing I can do for you. I’m not even convinced many on the remain side truly believe that, instead you frequently find that they're fundamentally held hostage by fear of uncertainty/offending our Europe/somehow sparking WWIII by daring to exercise their Democratic rights and make their voices heard in Brussels

    migration has not resulted in a disproportionate allocation
    T'was not my contention that their impact is disproportionate, so you'll concede that the point remains: it impacts (significantly) on demand, and anyone worth their salt will tell you that the supply side of the UK housing market has (unfortunately) remained pretty rigid for the past several generations. Only one possible outcome: impacted availability/affordability

    lack of supply of affordable homes of all types of tenure
    Fully agree, but this transformation can’t happen overnight (even with a massive fiscal injection), and we have already had to pave over 'an area the size of Devon' to accommodate growth in housing demand over the past generation (despite the constant claims of ‘a declining population’)

    We never lost our place on the WTO
    Reworded to be clearer: ‘seat’ (individual, stand-alone)

    We are free to foster a healthy new cooperative, free trade relationship with our European partners
    Apparently not, or Cameron would have come back with something substantive

    ..and meritocratic immigration
    Completely at odds with the by-now central tenet of free-movement, sorry

    Understanding that we'll have to play by their rules
    The rules of the WTO, yes, and the EEA should we remain within it, the former of which includes ‘most favoured nation’ rule which, if I’m not mistaken, would mean that it would be illegal for other EEA members not to offer us the same (free trade) terms as other EEA members

    Goods we send them will have to meet their standards... meaning we are in no better position than if we'd just stayed in the EU
    Simply untrue, and you insult the intelligence of some of the finest/most developed trading nations in the world (Switz/Norway) by disingenously asserting this – if it were merely about sensible trade harmonisation then the vast majority on the leave side would be for remaining

    What would be nice would be to see the Brexit camp set out their view for the future
    1) We’re a mixed bunch, with different ideas – surely diversity of thought and a wide range of choice should be viewed as positive?

    2) For someone to come out and tell everyone else (including those who wish to remain) how it’s going to be, would be utterly arrogant

    3) As the establishment won’t countenance the prospect of UK independence and has banned ministers/civil servants from exercising full freedom of speech/making meaningful plans ahead of a Brexit, it’s a little difficult to get an authoritative stance from those (leaders/departments) in a position to effect/implement the necessary changes

    4) There are a heck of a lot of variables to consider, which would need to be thrashed out, as is proper e.g. at (all party) committee level, and – beyond the point that it is a little premature to do so – the leadership of the main parties has demonstrably limited the capacity of all parties to get together to make meaningful progress in this area

    I want facts - what trade deals are we going to negotiate?
    Hopefully not TTIP! More generally, we will negotiate on the same basis as we have historically, successfully, post-mercantilism – as the pre-eminent (maritime/financial) trading nation in all history, to suppose otherwise is both ignorant of/offensive to the historic record/achievements of this great nation and to relevant bodies, including the UK Diplomatic Service you gushed over yourself

    How long will they take?
    The seriously weighty ones can, and I would expect will, be concluded within the 2 year ‘business-as-usual’ provision of Article 50 (the economic vitality of ourselves and our major trading partners depends on it). With regard to lesser concerns, it could take years and years to reach settled agreements but when it comes to modern commerce ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way’ and trade will largely continue one way or another, regardless. The notion that trade is simply conducted between/pervasively marshalled by nation states, rather than private individuals and firms, as well as public bodies, is about as dated as the notion that UK-linked international trade would disappear in the absence of gun-boat diplomacy

    What sorts of terms would we be looking at?
    Terms consistent with English common law, international law, and the most reasonable/practicable elements of EU law, as well as those compliant with related bilateral standards

    What affect will brevet have on trade with the EU?
    It will create some uncertainty and instability in the couple of years up to the end of the minimum term of continued trading relationships provided for under Article 50, no question. At that point, in all likelihood, if terms have not been agreed to the satisfaction of both parties then an extension will be agreed by mutual consent. More likely, (provisional) terms will have been agreed and the net impact on trade will amount to little more than the dent that the uncertainty will have placed on confidence and planning

    How are my holidays going to be affected?
    I’m sorry, I don’t have a crystal ball, but see: extant conditions faced by those holidaying inside the UK/outside of the EU, FYR

    What will happen to current UK laws which have been influenced by the EU?
    Relatively important ones will of course need to be reviewed, as above, by our Democratically elected legislators, acting in tandem with legal experts and expert witnesses within the relevant domains
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I just find it laughable how right wing Tories go on about 'democracy' as a reason to leave the EU when they won't even contemplate the idea of a more democratic, representative voting system in the UK.

    I also note how they never seem to care about underfunding, cutting and privatising the NHS and other public services unless immigrants are involved...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I just find it laughable how right wing Tories go on about 'democracy' as a reason to leave the EU when they won't even contemplate the idea of a more democratic, representative voting system in the UK.

    I also note how they never seem to care about underfunding, cutting and privatising the NHS and other public services unless immigrants are involved...

    You're right, there needs to be serious electoral reform, and abolish an appointed House of Lords (make it elected by PR, and reduce the cost). But the EU can't even pretend to be democratic - it's on a whole new level. The EU parliament has no real power (can't even propose laws) and instead unelected bureaucrats who no one has heard of governs all of the EU members. The worrying thing is, it's becoming a superstate and the member nations are not in control (unlike NATO etc.).

    And you say right wing tories, did labour change the voting system in government?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    You're right, there needs to be serious electoral reform, and abolish an appointed House of Lords (make it elected by PR, and reduce the cost). But the EU can't even pretend to be democratic - it's on a whole new level. The EU parliament has no real power (can't even propose laws) and instead unelected bureaucrats who no one has heard of governs all of the EU members. The worrying thing is, it's becoming a superstate and the member nations are not in control (unlike NATO etc.).

    And you say right wing tories, did labour change the voting system in government?
    Disagree. EU is no more undemocratic than UK. At least they have proportional voting.

    No labour didn't and I criticise them for that but what's your point? It's the right wing Tories criticising it for being undemocratic right now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    I embrace our role in supporting domestic enterprise, excellence, and productivity through whatever ways and means, and wouldn’t ignore this (you will surely appreciate that the OP presentation is as concise as possible, a la bullet points), but it would be nice for public institutions to be able to buy British if they so chose (within reason). Part of the problem with centralisation (in any system) is that it tends toward lowest-common-denominator type (i.e. globalising) forces e.g. price-centricity (to the exclusion of other considerations). Procurement within the public sector, particularly in the age of austerity, has, unfortunately (if somewhat understandably), increasingly been pitched towards price and away from value, and within that quality, and logistical concerns e.g. potentially less stable/sustainable, both in terms of the macroeconomy as well as the narrower interests of the particular parties involved
    As I have said before, the EU's rules do not stop British police forces from buying British made kit. The rules just mean that other suppliers must be able to bid for certain contracts. If police don't buy British made cars, it means that either the manufacturer didn't put in a bid, or the bid was crap.

    Tory cuts to policing mean that money is tight. Most people want to see money going towards making sure we have enough coppers. When I call the police, I want an officer to be available to turn up. I don't really care what they turn up in.

    Thanks for the additional info – I’ll take your word for it and have adapted my commentary accordingly
    It is still completely wrong. The EU has not voted to diminish our influence at all.

    Indeed, but, as above, we’d prefer to be able to determine our own fate and the VoteLeave line on this is pretty hard to argue with: "UK has voted against 72 laws in the Council of Ministers. It has been outvoted every single time. These laws have cost British taxpayers £2.4 billion"
    Additionally, in the period 2004-9, the UK was on the winning side 94% of the time. 2009-15, 86% of the time.

    Must have been on holiday/left it up to Downing St. around the time of Cameron’s deal brokering eh
    Completely different situation - but yes I think a lot of it was left up to Cameron.

    A Prime Minister marching of to the EU to tell them to change all their rules for the benefit of one member state is a different thing to the co-operation going on every day.

    Reworded to be clearer: ‘seat’ (individual, stand-alone)
    We still have our seat.

    The rules of the WTO, yes, and the EEA should we remain within it, the former of which includes ‘most favoured nation’ rule which, if I’m not mistaken, would mean that it would be illegal for other EEA members not to offer us the same (free trade) terms as other EEA members

    Simply untrue, and you insult the intelligence of some of the finest/most developed trading nations in the world (Switz/Norway) by disingenously asserting this – if it were merely about sensible trade harmonisation then the vast majority on the leave side would be for remaining
    UK Businesses wanted to sell goods to the EU would have to meet EU product standards. That's a fact.

    There's a whole host of reasons why falling back on our WTO seat is inferior to our position in the EU. The head of the WTO has said so and the CBI have said: "Relying on WTO rules alone would not work for the UK. Any limited advantages are easily outweighed by the significant costs to the economy as a whole'"
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Disagree. EU is no more undemocratic than UK. At least they have proportional voting.
    Didn't you read what I said? There is only PR for the European parliament, which doesn't run the EU. Don't take my word for it, research it and research how the European commission works.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No labour didn't and I criticise them for that but what's your point? It's the right wing Tories criticising it for being undemocratic right now.
    That's not true I'm afraid. Lots of Labour figures (including their leader) say there needs to be a lot more democratic accountability.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Forgive me if I remain unconvinced by sources from the Daily Mail and partisan bodies such as migration watch
    Perfectly forgivable. Ignoring the dozens of other facts/sources, however, and voting/encouraging others to vote contrary to the national interest and the concept of self-determination and Democracy, however, would be a lot less forgivable

    I could do what Vote Leave does and just close my eyes and scream fear lingering when confronted by opinions I don't like
    If you’re talking about the Vote Leave leadership, then I see no evidence of that in any of their public statements/appearances, but please feel free to direct me to related media. If you’re talking about the Vote Leave support-base, then you need look no further than the OP, and my responses in this thread, to see how your mud slinging is demonstrably a load of horse poop. You get intransigent partisans on both sides but most are free thinking and reasonably open to differing POVs. If repeat warnings of economic ‘shocks’, and the potential for non-specific security threats on the one hand and WWIII on the other, isn’t fear mongering then my name is Mary!

    Leaving the EU is a completely different kettle of Fish and there is no serious economist or economic I situation that says that we will be financially better off leaving
    There are two main reasons for this:

    1) It’s clear that short-run instability (a strong function of frenzied pre-emptive cultural/political catastrophising, I might add) is an inevitable biproduct of withdrawal from a union that, by now, has grown to control/influence our systems/lives in so many ways

    2) Economists are a lot more confident about (modelling) short to medium term impacts and cannot predict the future e.g. longer term conditions – ours is not an exact 'science' e.g. "If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion" ~ George Bernard Shaw
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Ignoring the dozens of other facts/sources,
    I haven't ignored them. I either don't think they're important or a small price worth paying, just as you do on your side of the debate.


    however, and voting/encouraging others to vote contrary to the national interest and the concept of self-determination and Democracy, however, would be a lot less forgivable
    And this is where your supposed ideology free pluralism comes to the fore- where political ideas different to yours are unforgivable. I don't care what is good for non existent entities, I care what is good for humanity.


    If you’re talking about the Vote Leave leadership, then I see no evidence of that in any of their public statements/appearances, but please feel free to direct me to related media.
    Behold
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...vid-Cameron-EU

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...rexit-campaign

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-politics-live


    You get intransigent partisans on both sides but most are free thinking and reasonably open to differing POVs. If repeat warnings of economic ‘shocks’, and the potential for non-specific security threats on the one hand and WWIII on the other, isn’t fear mongering then my name is Mary!
    You say in your post below that there will be 'short run instability' is that fear mo geeing too? Nobody on IN has said it will cause world war three- although it is a fact that no EU countries have declared war on each other,


    There are two main reasons for this:

    1) It’s clear that short-run instability (a strong function of frenzied pre-emptive cultural/political catastrophising, I might add) is an inevitable biproduct of withdrawal from a union that, by now, has grown to control/influence our systems/lives in so many ways

    2) Economists are a lot more confident about (modelling) short to medium term impacts and cannot predict the future e.g. longer term conditions – ours is not a ‘science’; as the saying goes: " If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion" ~ George Bernard Shaw
    1: That's just your spin on what the IN campaigners have been saying but with a pro brexit twist.

    2: Sure. But there will be at least a short term impact of some level. But I'm not basing my argument purely on economics.

    I don't really care what a debauched Irish stalinist said.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.