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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Stupidity, stupidity everywhere.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pelaitsc45)
    Ha

    Haha, let me see a source for these '9/10 professional economists'. This literally tells me nothing and that you have no idea why you have your opinion in the first place. In fact, you reinforce this by saying the vast number of businesses are against brexit.

    Let me explain something to you, the EU has thousands upon thousands of regulations on anything you can name, your car, your carpet, your keyboard you're typing on. These regulations make it very, very difficult for new companies to start up and compete with well established corporations. So, of course the bloody huge companies will support the regulations that the EU puts on everything because it reduces competition making it so they never have to innovate. You're so misinformed it's hilarious. The EU has awful effects on economies, in fact, countries in the EU are going through a stage of huge unemployment and economic difficulty due to the WTO (World, Trade Organisation) finally eradicating the crazy tariffs the EU put on foreign goods.

    Don't even argue with your stupid phrases like 'all the economists agree!' just because you took a glance at a newspaper with self-interested bias.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-boost-cameron

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referend...growth-1562596

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bri...-idUKKCN0YK06V


    I suppose now you can either accept that your delusional and unpopular viewpoint is wrong, or carry on being a perpetual half-whit and think your expertise surpasses all those economists. What will you do? 🤔
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pelaitsc45)

    Let me explain something to you, the EU has thousands upon thousands of regulations on anything you can name, your car, your carpet, your keyboard you're typing on.
    And if we Brexit, our cars, our carpets and our keyboards still will be.

    There is a big lie at the heart of Leave (as opposed to the myriad small lies at the heart of Remain). The big lie is that whatever a Leave voter doesn't like, whatever he is angry about, whatever golden age he wants to return to, will change if we leave. Most of the things Leave voters are unhappy about will still happen because the EU is not what is making them happen.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RasputinReborn)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-boost-cameron

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referend...growth-1562596

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bri...-idUKKCN0YK06V


    I suppose now you can either accept that your delusional and unpopular viewpoint is wrong, or carry on being a perpetual half-whit and think your expertise surpasses all those economists. What will you do? 🤔
    First of all, the research was for over the next five years. Yes it may take some time to get Britain on its feet, but in the long term it will be much better. In fact, the article even says it itself that the long term change is 'yet to be researched' or whatever which is speak for 'it will be better' I mean, the company is most likely self interested anyway:

    “We know that the economy along with immigration is one of the two key issues driving voters’ decisions in the referendum. At the same time, though, the public is conflicted over the potential long-term economic impact of Brexit – while half do think it would be negative for Britain’s economy in the short term, in the long term the argument is yet to be won, and when it comes to their own personal standard of living, just under half think it would make no difference. At the same time, people are looking for information to help them make up their minds, and groups such as academics, along with friends and family and small businesses, are among the most trusted – especially for remain supporters.”

    Look at Switzerland, Norway, or Iceland. In Switzerland, they have the richest city in the world with the highest quality of living and they are not in the EU. They also own some of the EU's most well known companies such as Rolex or Nestlè

    Secondly, you fail to refute any of my points anyway so I suppose you really can't prove me wrong.

    Thirdly, this doesn't even matter if you give any kind of **** about democracy in your own country, which everybody really should. We, the people, should be able to decide what happens to our country. Look at Switzerland again, for example, all of their laws are decided by the citizens and not by rich bureaucrats in some luxury building in Brussels.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pelaitsc45)
    First of all, the research was for over the next five years. Yes it may take some time to get Britain on its feet, but in the long term it will be much better. In fact, the article even says it itself that the long term change is 'yet to be researched' or whatever which is speak for 'it will be better' I mean, the company is most likely self interested anyway:

    “We know that the economy along with immigration is one of the two key issues driving voters’ decisions in the referendum. At the same time, though, the public is conflicted over the potential long-term economic impact of Brexit – while half do think it would be negative for Britain’s economy in the short term, in the long term the argument is yet to be won, and when it comes to their own personal standard of living, just under half think it would make no difference. At the same time, people are looking for information to help them make up their minds, and groups such as academics, along with friends and family and small businesses, are among the most trusted – especially for remain supporters.”

    Look at Switzerland, Norway, or Iceland. In Switzerland, they have the richest city in the world with the highest quality of living and they are not in the EU. They also own some of the EU's most well known companies such as Rolex or Nestlè

    Secondly, you fail to refute any of my points anyway so I suppose you really can't prove me wrong.

    Thirdly, this doesn't even matter if you give any kind of **** about democracy in your own country, which everybody really should. We, the people, should be able to decide what happens to our country. Look at Switzerland again, for example, all of their laws are decided by the citizens and not by rich bureaucrats in some luxury building in Brussels.
    "We the people" are going to stay in the EU, and I think you're aware of that too. Yes, it's admittedly difficult to start up companies, but at the end of the day, we're getting reduced prices as a result of the free trade with these big EU corporations, and if we were to move out, think of all the extra tax added to goods, and especially food. Many of the corporations have set up jobs here, because it's more convenient and cheaper, since we're in the EU. If we're not, jobs will be gone, resulting in more unemployed, and so an even higher welfare budget, which increases the deficit and increase tax rates too. You can argue about corporations not having to innovate, but at the end of the day, what's more important, providing thousands of jobs, or providing a dozen new products every year? This brexit campaign is a recipe for disaster, without a worthy trade off, at least we'll get a reformed EU, you'll seemingly get an isolated and an even more economically deprived Britain.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RasputinReborn)
    "We the people" are going to stay in the EU, and I think you're aware of that too. Yes, it's admittedly difficult to start up companies, but at the end of the day, we're getting reduced prices as a result of the free trade with these big EU corporations, and if we were to move out, think of all the extra tax added to goods, and especially food. Many of the corporations have set up jobs here, because it's more convenient and cheaper, since we're in the EU. If we're not, jobs will be gone, resulting in more unemployed, and so an even higher welfare budget, which increases the deficit and increase tax rates too. You can argue about corporations not having to innovate, but at the end of the day, what's more important, providing thousands of jobs, or providing a dozen new products every year? This brexit campaign is a recipe for disaster, without a worthy trade off, at least we'll get a reformed EU, you'll seemingly get an isolated and an even more economically deprived Britain.
    Is this free trade by any chance the free trade non EU states in Europe have without the protectionist external tariffs mandated by the single market, nor the regulations and directives that stifle innovation and smother potential competitors (the job creating SMEs) before they are allowed to get big enough to compete with big business interests.

    Nor do we get a reformed Europe, Cameron's renegotiation amounted to "I didn't have to give anything away, but didn't get a single thing that I wanted either". If that is how we are treated when there is a threat to leave how will we be treated if we remain, and in an EU that wants to go in the polar opposite direction to us?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Jammy Duel;65354879]Is this free trade by any chance the free trade non EU states in Europe have without the protectionist external tariffs mandated by the single market, nor the regulations and directives that stifle innovation and smother potential competitors (the job creating SMEs) before they are allowed to get big enough to compete with big business interests.

    Nor do we get a reformed Europe, Cameron's renegotiation amounted to "I didn't have to give anything away, but didn't get a single thing that I wanted either". If that is how we are treated when there is a threat to leave how will we be treated if we remain, and in an EU that wants to go in the polar opposite direction to us?

    It's late at night, I'm going to bed, I'm sure this will all carry on later today...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Some of the stuff here is actually offensive to me as a leave supporter, but I'm not going to say that to quell your voice.
    Likewise, this has been a very bitter debate. All the 'Leave' side saying we should be like Albania or Norway or Switzerland...that's insulting: I just want to be British
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    How is it that the leave side is grasping for straws in the past, in place of the remain side? Remember the arguments many remain people use; uncertainty from change, why fix what isn't broken (despite it being broken), benefit access to single market (reason we joined in 1973, despite things having now changed).
    The European Union was inspired after the Second World War in an attempt to restore peace and economic stability in mainland Europe. It still is the world's most successful peace process and far from being some outdated institution, it remains the modern progressive way forward for the European continent. As the rest of the world develops, becomes more globalised and becomes more interdependent, so too must the peoples of Europe unite in one big superpower if they are to retain international influence, power and leverage and to oppose the natural decline of Europe's ageing societies and economies.

    Interesting your point about 1973. I've seen numerous commentators arguing that in 1975, most voters voted under the knowledge that the Common Market would expand further. Multiple 'No' leaflets are available to see online which do show that, at the time, it was one of their key campaigning points that the EEC would expand further, dismantle the UK and take more sovereignty away from the UK. Even the 'Yes' leaflets reflected that - they rarely even mentioned "the Common Market" and implicitly focussed on the bigger picture of a United States of Europe. The EU of today is arguably much less powerful than the one these leaflets made them out to be.

    So don't listen to Farage who's rewriting history and telling us we never signed up to this EU: we signed up to one far worse than this one in 1975.

    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    The EU is undemocratic because in the EU there are the European Parliament and the European Commission.In the European Parliament there are UK representatives working in our interest.In the European Commission there is an UK representative bound by oath to work in the EU's interest.In the European Parliament representatives can vote for or against legislation; they cannot propose legislation, they have no legislative initiative. They can't propose, amend or repeal legislation.Only the European Commission can propose, amend or repeal legislation. But remember also, that our representative works in the EU's interest, not ours.
    Yep, don't worry, I know the structure of the EU

    And don't worry: I also believe that the democratic deficit in the EU makes a diseased mockery of the electorate of the peoples of Europe. This is precisely why my sentence actually talked about building a fully-democratic United States of Europe: I don't classify myself as "pro-EU" and I'd like to see the Commission abolished with more democratic power returned to the peoples of Europe and moved away from national governments and their appointed commissioners.

    Reform of the EU to build this kind of more democratic 'United States of Europe', which works on a federal and maximum-devolved model (the two are not mutually-exclusive), is not impossible: Cameron had a chance to ask for a meaningful reform and bottled it. Additionally, there is hunger for such a democratic model to build a United States of Europe both across Europe and in Brussels, if you listen to MEPs like Verhofstadt and his Alliance for Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

    Still, we complain that the change needs to come from Brussels: in fact, the change needs to come from us. The European Union cannot be democratised for as long as there is no European 'demos', and the demos has to be built through increasing turnout to its elections and for making the MEPs accountable to their constituents. Last election, the few of us who actually bothered turning up to vote voted for 24 UKIP MEPs alongside multiple other Eurosceptic Tory MEPs: these MEPs have the worst attendance ratings in the European Parliament and rarely serve their constituents. Rather than asking for meaningful reforms, they deliver meaningless diatribes in the few occasions that they're in the European Parliament. Clearly, the low turnout and voting for such awful MEPs who don't do their jobs result in absolutely no hope of ever democratising the EU.

    So if we do want to democratise the EU, firstly we have to bother to turn up to vote so that we build a European 'demos' demonstrating our capability to vote, and we secondly need to vote for parties interested in democratic reform and not in just lazing around on an overblown salary without serving their constituents.

    I am not saying that the EU doesn't have a democratic deficit. In fact, I hate the EU because of it. I want to build a fully-democratic United States of Europe instead, and this requires a democratisation of the European Union - but this does not need to come from Brussels, but from the peoples of Europe themselves. I want a Europe that doesn't determine the amount of water we flush in our toilets, but a Europe that rivals the great superpowers of the world and sets the international agenda worldwide.

    In any case, this over-fixation with the democratic deficit of the European Union is somewhat bizarre. We are part of so many other international agreements, like the WTO, NATO the Council of Europe and the UN, and we do not choose our representatives there. At least in the EU we have elected representatives that, even though they cannot propose laws, do actually make them. This isn't to say that the democratic deficit isn't a disgrace, but it is to question whether the democratic deficit in itself is sufficient a reason to leave the European Union without leaving all these other organisations. After all, Farage wants us to leave the EU and take up a seat at the WTO - going from one partially-accountable organisation to a totally-unaccountable organisation!

    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    I expanded upon them, and there are more reasons, regarding fisheries usw. usf. (etc. etc.)
    Most of these are quite debatable. The European Union's environmental regulations actually make our country safer and if you look at many leave campaigners' economic studies of Brexit, almost all of them include taking away necessary safety precautions to save money - such as removing the requirement for buses to be fitted with devices recording how many hours a driver has worked (tachographs). Many of the businesses also arguing for Brexit are even doing so because the EU has sued them in the past because their products were dangerous for public use, so they have unresolved beef with the institution. Take Sir James Dyson, for example, who wants to leave the European Union because it said 'no' to one of his hoovers as it would have been dangerous for public use.

    If the EU is protecting ordinary people through its regulations, I'm not sure talk about CO2 emissions and environmental regulations is convincing to voters. These regulations aren't excessive either: the UK has one of the freest markets in Europe, if not the West.

    The membership fee is not £55m a day; this doesn't take the rebate into account alongside various other subsidies. It's more like 27p per person per day, which is about two freddos. Coupled with the indirect benefits of the European Union - like better facilitated trade - this 27p per person per day disappears too.

    Now, this has been said multiple times already, but the 'Leave' campaign would do best to stop talking economics: there is absolutely no evidence to support that 'Leave' would have any overall positive economic impacts on the UK, even though money could be made from removing the CFP and various other regulations that we know have been detrimental to the UK. The 'Leave' campaign needs to stop talking about economics and start talking about arguments where it might actually have a point.

    There is widespread economic consensus - at least 8 in 10 of the country's top 600 economists - that Brexit would have at least a short-term negative impact to the UK's finances. Yes, there was a similar consensus of the euro - but there was also a similar consensus on the 'Leave' side that the 2004 expansion of the EU would result in huge crime waves and immigration waves in the UK, which it has not. Economists do get it wrong, but it is still a consensus.

    In fact, there is even proof that this economic consensus is true - unlike there was proof for the euro consensus. The pound fell by 2% on the day that Boris Johnson said he would join the 'Leave' campaign. Yesterday, as the ICM poll broke showing 'Leave' ahead, the pound dropped suddenly against the dollar as well. Investor confidence in the UK is at its lowest in nine years - since the financial crisis - because the fear of Brexit is bad enough for them to withhold funding to the UK. These are the warning signs that the economic consensus is right and that actually, the UK will suffer from Brexit at least in the short-term.

    Crucially, there has been no independent, reputable study of the economic impacts of Brexit that has not stated that there will be at least a short-term negative impact. Most studies agree that GDP could drop by as much as 2% and that the pound could shed 20% of its values - both worse than the 2008 financial crisis collapses. Many banks, especially American and Swiss, have headquarters in London because we offer them access to the Single Market; because 'Leave' is unclear as to whether we will stay in the Single Market, these banks have threatened to move headquarters and axe jobs so that they can have a guarantee of remaining in the Single Market - causing many to go unemployed. HSBC, for example, has detailed relocation plans to France, axing 1,000 jobs in the UK. The same goes for many industries and factories.

    There is a possibility of a longer-term recovery, but this has a weaker consensus of just 4% of economists. In any case, the brain-drain caused by the short-term GDP decline can be comparable to the brain-drain of Southern Mediterranean countries caused by the 2008 financial crisis and their own short-term GDP declines. Recovery could be long, uncertain and unpredictable.

    Yes, it is true we run a £80m trade deficit with the EU. It is, however, fallacious to say that they will give us the best deal possible because they rely more on us than we do on them. The EU constitutes up to 45% of our exports - the 'Leave' campaign is eager to emphasise this percentage is declining, but the EU nonetheless remains our largest export partner. Meanwhile, we constitute about 7% of their exports. If we leave, this means that whilst only 7% of the EU's exports will be put at risk if trade barriers were to go up, 1 in 2 of our own exports would be affected. This is why there would be havoc across the country: we risk losing a market of 450m-odd consumers, and this will lead to further unemployment and businesses shutting down.

    You can point to the benefits of individual policies like the CFP, sure. But it is clear that the 'Leave' campaign cannot defend the economic impacts of Brexit. This is an argument it cannot win, has already lost, and should not make.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Likewise, this has been a very bitter debate. All the 'Leave' side saying we should be like Albania or Norway or Switzerland...that's insulting: I just want to be British

    The European Union was inspired after the Second World War in an attempt to restore peace and economic stability in mainland Europe. It still is the world's most successful peace process and far from being some outdated institution, it remains the modern progressive way forward for the European continent. As the rest of the world develops, becomes more globalised and becomes more interdependent, so too must the peoples of Europe unite in one big superpower if they are to retain international influence, power and leverage and to oppose the natural decline of Europe's ageing societies and economies.

    Interesting your point about 1973. I've seen numerous commentators arguing that in 1975, most voters voted under the knowledge that the Common Market would expand further. Multiple 'No' leaflets are available to see online which do show that, at the time, it was one of their key campaigning points that the EEC would expand further, dismantle the UK and take more sovereignty away from the UK. Even the 'Yes' leaflets reflected that - they rarely even mentioned "the Common Market" and implicitly focussed on the bigger picture of a United States of Europe. The EU of today is arguably much less powerful than the one these leaflets made them out to be.

    So don't listen to Farage who's rewriting history and telling us we never signed up to this EU: we signed up to one far worse than this one in 1975.



    Yep, don't worry, I know the structure of the EU

    And don't worry: I also believe that the democratic deficit in the EU makes a diseased mockery of the electorate of the peoples of Europe. This is precisely why my sentence actually talked about building a fully-democratic United States of Europe: I don't classify myself as "pro-EU" and I'd like to see the Commission abolished with more democratic power returned to the peoples of Europe and moved away from national governments and their appointed commissioners.

    Reform of the EU to build this kind of more democratic 'United States of Europe', which works on a federal and maximum-devolved model (the two are not mutually-exclusive), is not impossible: Cameron had a chance to ask for a meaningful reform and bottled it. Additionally, there is hunger for such a democratic model to build a United States of Europe both across Europe and in Brussels, if you listen to MEPs like Verhofstadt and his Alliance for Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

    Still, we complain that the change needs to come from Brussels: in fact, the change needs to come from us. The European Union cannot be democratised for as long as there is no European 'demos', and the demos has to be built through increasing turnout to its elections and for making the MEPs accountable to their constituents. Last election, the few of us who actually bothered turning up to vote voted for 24 UKIP MEPs alongside multiple other Eurosceptic Tory MEPs: these MEPs have the worst attendance ratings in the European Parliament and rarely serve their constituents. Rather than asking for meaningful reforms, they deliver meaningless diatribes in the few occasions that they're in the European Parliament. Clearly, the low turnout and voting for such awful MEPs who don't do their jobs result in absolutely no hope of ever democratising the EU.

    So if we do want to democratise the EU, firstly we have to bother to turn up to vote so that we build a European 'demos' demonstrating our capability to vote, and we secondly need to vote for parties interested in democratic reform and not in just lazing around on an overblown salary without serving their constituents.

    I am not saying that the EU doesn't have a democratic deficit. In fact, I hate the EU because of it. I want to build a fully-democratic United States of Europe instead, and this requires a democratisation of the European Union - but this does not need to come from Brussels, but from the peoples of Europe themselves. I want a Europe that doesn't determine the amount of water we flush in our toilets, but a Europe that rivals the great superpowers of the world and sets the international agenda worldwide.

    In any case, this over-fixation with the democratic deficit of the European Union is somewhat bizarre. We are part of so many other international agreements, like the WTO, NATO the Council of Europe and the UN, and we do not choose our representatives there. At least in the EU we have elected representatives that, even though they cannot propose laws, do actually make them. This isn't to say that the democratic deficit isn't a disgrace, but it is to question whether the democratic deficit in itself is sufficient a reason to leave the European Union without leaving all these other organisations. After all, Farage wants us to leave the EU and take up a seat at the WTO - going from one partially-accountable organisation to a totally-unaccountable organisation!



    Most of these are quite debatable. The European Union's environmental regulations actually make our country safer and if you look at many leave campaigners' economic studies of Brexit, almost all of them include taking away necessary safety precautions to save money - such as removing the requirement for buses to be fitted with devices recording how many hours a driver has worked (tachographs). Many of the businesses also arguing for Brexit are even doing so because the EU has sued them in the past because their products were dangerous for public use, so they have unresolved beef with the institution. Take Sir James Dyson, for example, who wants to leave the European Union because it said 'no' to one of his hoovers as it would have been dangerous for public use.

    If the EU is protecting ordinary people through its regulations, I'm not sure talk about CO2 emissions and environmental regulations is convincing to voters. These regulations aren't excessive either: the UK has one of the freest markets in Europe, if not the West.

    The membership fee is not £55m a day; this doesn't take the rebate into account alongside various other subsidies. It's more like 27p per person per day, which is about two freddos. Coupled with the indirect benefits of the European Union - like better facilitated trade - this 27p per person per day disappears too.

    Now, this has been said multiple times already, but the 'Leave' campaign would do best to stop talking economics: there is absolutely no evidence to support that 'Leave' would have any overall positive economic impacts on the UK, even though money could be made from removing the CFP and various other regulations that we know have been detrimental to the UK. The 'Leave' campaign needs to stop talking about economics and start talking about arguments where it might actually have a point.

    There is widespread economic consensus - at least 8 in 10 of the country's top 600 economists - that Brexit would have at least a short-term negative impact to the UK's finances. Yes, there was a similar consensus of the euro - but there was also a similar consensus on the 'Leave' side that the 2004 expansion of the EU would result in huge crime waves and immigration waves in the UK, which it has not. Economists do get it wrong, but it is still a consensus.

    In fact, there is even proof that this economic consensus is true - unlike there was proof for the euro consensus. The pound fell by 2% on the day that Boris Johnson said he would join the 'Leave' campaign. Yesterday, as the ICM poll broke showing 'Leave' ahead, the pound dropped suddenly against the dollar as well. Investor confidence in the UK is at its lowest in nine years - since the financial crisis - because the fear of Brexit is bad enough for them to withhold funding to the UK. These are the warning signs that the economic consensus is right and that actually, the UK will suffer from Brexit at least in the short-term.

    Crucially, there has been no independent, reputable study of the economic impacts of Brexit that has not stated that there will be at least a short-term negative impact. Most studies agree that GDP could drop by as much as 2% and that the pound could shed 20% of its values - both worse than the 2008 financial crisis collapses. Many banks, especially American and Swiss, have headquarters in London because we offer them access to the Single Market; because 'Leave' is unclear as to whether we will stay in the Single Market, these banks have threatened to move headquarters and axe jobs so that they can have a guarantee of remaining in the Single Market - causing many to go unemployed. HSBC, for example, has detailed relocation plans to France, axing 1,000 jobs in the UK. The same goes for many industries and factories.

    There is a possibility of a longer-term recovery, but this has a weaker consensus of just 4% of economists. In any case, the brain-drain caused by the short-term GDP decline can be comparable to the brain-drain of Southern Mediterranean countries caused by the 2008 financial crisis and their own short-term GDP declines. Recovery could be long, uncertain and unpredictable.

    Yes, it is true we run a £80m trade deficit with the EU. It is, however, fallacious to say that they will give us the best deal possible because they rely more on us than we do on them. The EU constitutes up to 45% of our exports - the 'Leave' campaign is eager to emphasise this percentage is declining, but the EU nonetheless remains our largest export partner. Meanwhile, we constitute about 7% of their exports. If we leave, this means that whilst only 7% of the EU's exports will be put at risk if trade barriers were to go up, 1 in 2 of our own exports would be affected. This is why there would be havoc across the country: we risk losing a market of 450m-odd consumers, and this will lead to further unemployment and businesses shutting down.

    You can point to the benefits of individual policies like the CFP, sure. But it is clear that the 'Leave' campaign cannot defend the economic impacts of Brexit. This is an argument it cannot win, has already lost, and should not make.
    Thank you; you have been the first person I've seen with well-reasoned arguments for remaining in the EU. There were a few things with which I had disputes, but I'm glad you have your thought-out reasons without conforming.

    When I am next on a computer I'll bring those up (the disputes.)
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    The membership fee is not £55m a day; this doesn't take the rebate into account alongside various other subsidies. It's more like 27p per person per day, which is about two freddos. Coupled with the indirect benefits of the European Union - like better facilitated trade - this 27p per person per day disappears too.
    People are forced to pay that 27p though. Doesn't matter if it is 2 freddos, it is still done by force and not voluntarily
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    But then the ones that know the most tend to be brexiteers.

    #justsaying
    And yet actual intellectuals are pro remain, whereas so far the pro-brexit campaign has mostly UKIP/Tory peers arguing the case, who are well known for only serving their own personal interests. Do please, jog on.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose if I had to boil it down to a single sentence it would be:

    Leave campaign claim we can establish better trade deals alone than we can with the EU, but given we require electricity from France to keep the lights on, how strong exactly do you think our negotiating position would be?

    Incidentally, a lot of the EU standards we like to complain about were drafted and written by us, as British Standards, before they became the international standard because of how good they were. I find it curious that what was our own best practice is now too arduous for us.

    Also, if Britain does leave the EU, I strongly suspect Scotland will be leaving the UK (possibly with Wales and N. Ireland to follow).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrueDetective01)
    People are forced to pay that 27p though. Doesn't matter if it is 2 freddos, it is still done by force and not voluntarily
    Welcome to the concept of taxation. It's a sod isn't it?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    Welcome to the concept of taxation. It's a sod isn't it?
    Well I know that taxation is theft which seems to annoy some people on here
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iainvg)
    And yet actual intellectuals are pro remain, whereas so far the pro-brexit campaign has mostly UKIP/Tory peers arguing the case, who are well known for only serving their own personal interests. Do please, jog on.
    Intellectuals as in masochistic slaves for unelected sociopaths, those intellectuals?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrueDetective01)
    Well I know that taxation is theft which seems to annoy some people on here
    There are multiple countries with no taxation should you wish to avail yourself of them. Although it tends to be quite a sod if you want anything that might be considered a public service in this country. Main examples being education, hospital & dental treatment and workers/human rights, to name a few. If you do decide to opt for them I recommend being highly qualified and know where your local embassy is.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    There are multiple countries with no taxation should you wish to avail yourself of them. Although it tends to be quite a sod if you want anything that might be considered a public service in this country. Main examples being education, hospital & dental treatment and workers/human rights, to name a few. If you do decide to opt for them I recommend being highly qualified and know where your local embassy is.
    Wait, do you actually want people to pay a certain percentage of their money at gunpoint?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Damned if you do, Damned if i don't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrueDetective01)
    Wait, do you actually want people to pay a certain percentage of their money at gunpoint?
    If you mean "do I believe in taxation?" then, yes, I do. I also believe in insurance and other such things I spend my money on.

    If I objected to paying taxes, I'd go somewhere I didn't have to, it's not that difficult.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Remain say good, leave say bad; remain say bad, leave say good
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.