Printable View
I think Tony Blair kind of said the same thing today:Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tony-b...211738120.html
or more like, It's happening all over - on the right and on the left...both in Europe and the United States.
Mistake for sure but not deliberate. A lot of Americans conflate the terms England and Great Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
And what's with Northern Ireland? They're in the UK but not Great Britain.
And the Irish Republic is neither of the two.
All very confusing for us simple Yanks.
It's not just you Yanks that get confused. I was living in England at the time the proposal on whether to hold a Scottish independence referendum was being discussed and one English woman asked me "why do so many Scottish people not want to be part of England." My reply, "you've just answered your own question..."Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
For me, the irony in all of this discussion about staying/leaving the EU is that if Scotland had gained independence (which is what I voted for), there would have been no EU referendum in Scotland. Whether we would have been allowed to remain in (or reapply for) the EU would have been an entirely different issue.
It is the difference between geography and politics that explains the confusion, and just to add to it, Great Britain is the island comprising England, Scotland and Wales, whereas the British Isles comprise the island of Britain, plus 5,000 other islands, including the Isle of Man, the Scilly Isles, the Channel Islands, Lundy Island and all those islands off the coast of Scotland (Orkney, Shetland et al).Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
Rather like the difference between the USA and the Americas...Where is America? And who is American?
We need to get out of the EU. However I fear we will do what the Scots did in their referendum last year - vote to stay out of "fear of the unknown" and then instantly regret doing so. I'm certain that if the Scots referendum was rerun now that the majority would vote to leave.
Where the Scots went wrong IMO is that the leave campaign only focussed on "nothing will change" so as to allay fears of the unknown - keeping the NHS, the BBC, the sterling (and the silence was deafening whenever a pro-independence Scottish MP would avoid answering "what's plan B in case you don't get to keep the pound" by blindly insisting "England will let us keep it, don't you worry about that". Can you imagine the US winning the hearts and minds of its people to rise up against Britian if they said "it'll be exactly the same, honest!". America, just like Slovenia, Slovakia, and all the Balkan/Slavic/USSR states did last century, is base their argument on striding out alone and forging their own identity. The pro-independence cmap for Scotland should have done the same - appelaed to forging a new nation under their own rules TV station, currency and thus not the have the elephant in the roo of "what is England won't share the NHS or the pound?"
Anyway, back to Brexit. The EU has already been pretty pissy with us despite us being the main military force and 2nd (I think) largest economic power - who's exit would leave the EU gaping like a woman's fanny after Big Jim Slade's had his way for 8 hours so just imagine what they'd be like when (yes, when, unfortuately) the nation chooses to play safe and stay in the EU? They'll be even toughter, even stricter, less willing to entertain us "little Englanders" ("little Islanders to include the other home nations) and will simply berate and shout is down with "No, UK! You had your chance to leave, you chose to stay, so shut the fuck up, do as you're told and keep sending the cheques!"
Surely there was always a contradiction at the heart of Scotland's independence campaign? On the one hand, independence, on the other hand the long term view that Scotland would be better off in the EU. Scotland was in the position in 2014 of feeling confident about its future, it had more political control over its own affairs than at any time since the Union, had retained its own legal and education systems so was not in the position of being, as it were a vassal state of the English or an oppressed colony. And the oil price had not fallen below the level that would have undermined an independent Scotland's fiscal programme (although in the long term the price of a barrel may rise again). On balance, I think the Scots could not see the benefits of 'going it alone' when in reality they were never going to 'go it alone' anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Dong
A similar dilemma presents itself with the Brexit argument -that the UK will leave the EU on Friday, and open negotiations on re-entering the single market on Monday, so why leave at all? I agree that the real dilemma for the UK is the long term enlargement issue and the way in which the EU is administered and governed, but the UK can only prevent Turkey from becoming an EU member if it uses its veto when doing so as an EU member state, as is true of Albania, Serbia or any other candidate state. There may be good reasons for leaving the EU, and good reasons to stay in, how one balances out those hopes and fears is down to personal prejudice, research, fear of change, and so on. I think the vote will be close, but I think the Remain camp will win, because fear is a potent factor, and there is much to be afraid of given the state of the British economy.
So many reasons why. Chiefly, controlling our own nation and laws; not having to do what we're told, having laws and policies (and levies) imposed on us, nor leading us by the nose down paths we don't want to go. Right now, the European ourt has absolute control over us - in short, we cannot enforce any laws if they do not agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
There's a big difference between agreeing trade deals with a body (the EU) and being bound by that body. As it stands we cannot arrange trade deals with the US, China, Australia, for example, and are missing out by being forced into a bloc who's trade deals are "one size fits all" and may suit another nation more than the next. The EU has also failed to set up trade agreements with some natiosn too, damaging our prospect for growth and trade.
And as un-altruistic as it may seem, it's unjust that a teeny, tiny nation that offers so very little to the EU in terms of wealth, military, jobs, and commerce can hold as much sway as major players on the world stage. Britain once ran the world, her genius and achievements shaped the world, from the industrial revolution to radar to engineering to computing and the world wide web. Her military porwess (now outweighed by supernations) was paramount to the world and is still, even now, a key player and one of just 8 nuclear powers. Her black ops train are the elite and train(ed) all the maor nations secret ops. No way should countries lke Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Finland, oland have anywhere near as much say or sway. Can you imagine the USA having to share parity with Cuba, Bolivia, Peru? Where those countries can impose their will on the US and veto changes or insist on changes?
I agree. Sadly.Quote:
But I think the Remain camp will win, because fear is a potent factor, and there is much to be afraid of given the state of the British economy.
No king, I could never imagine the US sharing parity of any kind with our North American neighbors. As a matter of fact the Monroe Doctrine pretty much states that foreign entanglements of nations in our hemisphere will be looked upon with harsh scrutiny by the US.
This was the first question asked of Obama at his recent joint press conference with Cameron. His response was a bit dodgy to say the least.
The question itself implies "mind your own business", and "don't advise us to give up sovereignty that your country would never contemplate". I respect that view as well as your admiration for all things British.
But the argument that you'd have to start from scratch on the Monday following a Friday BREXIT is overwhelmingly pragmatic. It just doesn't seem worth it.
Unless you look at our individual states as European Countries...in that event - we've already done it a long time ago.
I personally don't quite look at it that way though.
I'm not sure which way I'd vote...I would have to be living there and understand a little more about UK economy.
If I didn't think it would hurt the economy much though , I'd probably go with emotion the last minute and vote to leave.
In posting, I was just listing all we'd achieved but having said that, I'm sick of the way the country has gone for the past 30 years. Apologising for being British, for all our achievements, for colonisation, for the Empire. OKay, colonisation meant some harsh injustices but it also brought great reform, technology and civilisation. No matter the rights or wrongs, it was an amazing achievement and we were the foremost and advanced nation in the world. Even when the US and USSR started to overtake at the turn of the 20th century, we were still punching way, way, way above our weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
We shouldn't be hanging our heads in shame, trying to undermine every damn achievement and success we made. There used to to pride n this country - "Buy British" and "British is best" yet now that's seen as racist, xenophobic.....even by other Brits! As much as I have a pathological hatred of American jingoism and shake my head how serious Americans take American, their Americanism, and play the national anthem for the slightest of events I also look on with envy. Because that pride is now lacking over here. Maybe one time it was arrogant - just like the US appears now - but at least it was deserved (just like the US's arrogance is deserved considering all they've done in the past 100 years).
Pride builds a stronger nation, inclusiveness, togetherness, cameraderie - not the marginalised and fractured societies we have now where political correctness means we don't ask them to act o rconsider themselves British, have councils employ multi-lingual people rather than expect them to speak English, putting up notices in variosu languages because it's apparently racist to expect them to speak English when living in England. WTF?!?!?!?!?
Pride builds the economy - encourages investment and trade within the home nation as opposed to blithely looking for the best deal regardless where it comes from (we're now suffering in our once world-famous steel industry because every fucker runs to China and it's ludicroulsy cheap steel - steel which experts confirm is not up to the grade that British steel is and can be dangerous. The mind boggles.
Americans hoist the flag proudly and are louder than usual on 4th July whereas we are embarrased about our flag, think it makes us look neo-Nazi xenophobes and God forbid we celebrate our national day. In fact, we ALL (hoem nations) make a big fuss of Scotland's national day. And Ireland's. And Wales. And Northern Ireland's. We actively encourage Scots, Irish and Welsh to be proud to be Scots, Irish, Welsh but English?? Fuck, no, St George's Day is hardly ever mentioned in the press or elsewhere - it's seen as arrogance and racist, y'see, and - sadly - Brits from other home nations get their backs up when we dare to celebrate ourselves and so the cycle of kowtowing continues. We can't be proud to be English and whilst we are the dominant nation in the UK, everyone else can choose their nationality on their passports and what now but English isn't an option - only British. Fuck that! I'm English and fucking proud. I won't be wiped out and homogenised for political correctness.
I get it, we're not the force we once were but fuck it - be proud! Flex our chest muscles regardless. Don't skulk away, shoulders stooped, apologising and taking shit off inferior nations. When Latvia or even larger countries like Spain and Italy acheieve what we've done, then they can criticise. The Spanish Empire was nothing compared to ours and it took the French and the Spanish together with the Americans to take down the British who even then didn't realise how serious the US uprising was. France? They roll over whenever anyone invades and both England and Germany took it in turns to kill a weekend or two by rampaging and doing whatever the fuck they want. Even now, they hide behind Germany at the EU, like a kid hanging with the tough kid at school, thinking they're cool and tough by association (which is why it cracked me up when Germany turned on them last year and told them in no uncertain terms Germany does what it wants and France will follow). Italy? As was famously said - the Italian tank has 5 gears - 1 forward and 4 in reverse.
Putin got it right. He took over a defunct, broken and penniless Russa but he had pride. Instead of accepting Russia's new place in the world - as we keep being told we have to do - he puffed his chest out and roared. He had a rickety, almost derelict air force but still he got trhem airborne and buzzing other nation's airspace. He wasn;t a threat - it was an empty gesture - and he'd have been in trouble had thye been met with force but that wasn't the point. He was flexing his muscles and telling the world that Russia is a force to be reckoned with. And years later he now has a sizeable, working air force that would cause seriosu trouble to anyone but USA and China. Get it? He rebuilds an extinct air force whilst we cut our armed forces and slash budgets to the point of almost uselessness - makign us even more reliant on the EU, NATO and the pet poodle to the USA.
ALL trade deals need to start anew. Australia had theirs sorted in 8 months so all this talk of decades is just spin. But I put it to you, if you could go back in time to the American revolution, would you have stood up on the platform and said "look guys, even if we win this thing we're gonna have to set up our own currency, politicla structure, government, laws and trade deals........it just doesn't seem worth it?"Quote:
But the argument that you'd have to start from scratch on the Monday following a Friday BREXIT is overwhelmingly pragmatic. It just doesn't seem worth it.
Of course you wouldn't and of course it's worth it for the right to be self-determinate; to not have laws imposed on you, to not have to bear mass migration and allow complete aliens total access to your benefit system, your housing, your fucking national health service. The NHS is a wodnerful thing - that was unfairly and inaccuratley bashed in US discourse when Obama wanted to launch an American variant. No bigger a fraud was there than when some US politician said Stephen Hawkings would be dead if he was English and had to rely on the NHS - which prompted Stephen Hawkings to call in and explain he is English and that the only reason hes alive is because of the NHS. This magnificent, free healthcare for all entity, is on its kneed mainly due to to the influx of foreigners (legal and illegal). The legal ones can come in and claim from day one without putting a penny into the system to pay for it (like everyone else has to) and the illegal ones can't be stopped from using it because the deportment process is hamstrung by EU law!! Bloody lawmakers who don't live here, don't pay for the NHS, don't have to suffer the shortages as a result, and = most of all - are unelected! Would the US, or anyone in their right mind, tolerate unelected officials?
I think you have accepted uncritically some of the arguments made by the Exit campaigns which deserve closer scrutiny. For example, when you stateQuote:
Originally Posted by King Dong
As it stands we cannot arrange trade deals with the US, China, Australia, for example, and are missing out by being forced into a bloc who's trade deals are "one size fits all" and may suit another nation more than the next. The EU has also failed to set up trade agreements with some natiosn too, damaging our prospect for growth and trade
You appear to ignore the $40bn worth of trade and investment deals that the UK has signed with China in the last year, deals which have been reached in part precisely because the UK is a member of the EU. The largest source of inward investment in the UK originates in the USA and is mostly in services -telecommunications and finances- and is routed through the UK -in the case of financial services, through the City of London- again, precisely because it provides instant access to the EU. Given that the UK has long established trading relations with the Commonwealth, the USA, China, Japan, and even Russia, one wonders which part of the world the UK is losing out on because of its membership of the EU- Brazil?
You can read about the trade deal with China reported in October 2015 here-
https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-do-they-mean
And if you have time a more exacting analysis of UK trade and the extent to which the EU has benefited British firms is here-
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...jan14-8285.pdf
The Financial Times last month tried to imagine the UK leaving the UK and argued that if the UK did leave but did not then apply to join the EU Customs Union, it could instead negotiate tariff-free trade even though some EU states have implied they would not be so easy to negotiate, and makes a telling point about what exactly much of the UK's trade with the EU looks like:
One risk to the UK economy is that much of the trade in today’s world of global supply chains is in intermediate goods such as motor parts and electronic components.British businesses — and foreign businesses based in Britain — would be likely to find themselves at an immediate disadvantage and potentially excluded from those supply chains...
The point is that motor manufacturers spread production across the EU, so the UK leaving the EU would immediately change the terms of trade in supply chains in that industry, and even if over time some way were found to amend this, the question might be why did the UK leave the UK only to then suffer for 2-5-10 years while contracts had to be re-negotiated? Or not negotiated at all. A similar problem arises in the financial and service sectors. These and a few others can be found in the FT article here-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8b5907c4-0...#axzz481fkJoDy
From what I have read, so far, on trade and the economy an exit from the EU would be, certainly in the short term, say 10 years, damaging and potentially even worse. It seems to me that the Exit case is premised on an Exit followed thereafter by a re-entry, the crucial difference being the terms of trade, yet on a wide range of trading issues, the UK would not be able to avoid adhering to the rules of the very same single market it claims it wants to leave, so that this whole argument falls apart.
In reality, a fringe group of 'free market liberals' have decided that the globalisation that has trended toward the creation of large trading blocs which sign sweetheart deals with each other that exclude some and include others, is morally wrong because it fixes what ought to be free markets. But the alternative is a world economy made up of individual states whose companies are competing for the same markets where the only issue is that the markets will decide who wins, and who loses, and as is always the case, those arguing in favour of Exit cannot conceive of the UK being a failure if it stands proudly alone. But if losses mount, say, in the USA, a President Trump would then impose tariff barriers and end up practising an economic nationalism that is the antithesis of market forces. Global capitalism has reached a stage of development where the concentration of commodity production through modern technology into fewer economies, makes competition broadly inefficient, as the global production of steel currently shows.
Consider the fact that when the idealists de-nationalised the UK's railways, the utilities such as gas and water, and put them up for sale in a free market, they were snapped up at a bargain price by companies partly or wholly owned by foreign governments. Most of the UK's rail operating companies are owned in part by state-owned companies in Germany, France and the Netherlands. That is the reality of the global economy, just as most of the world's oil and gas is owned by state-owned corporations. Those campaigning for an Exit from the EU refer to the UK as the world's fifth largest economy, but cannot then explain why the UK cannot build a nuclear power station without external financial support from countries such as China and France.
The UK does have a relatively strong economy, but it owes most of this to its membership of the EU.
Nope. I've been listening to both sides for years. My heart is just with the leave campaign. And if nothing else, we shoudl be self-determinate. Any country should be - least of all one with the legacy and impact of Britian (preferably England as I want an end to the Union).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
It's not so that trading with the EU means adhering to their rules. I know countries like Norway has to but there are caveats and circumstances that allow for greater latitude. I think - could be wrong - that Switzerland enjoys such freedom. Don't forget, as much as the EU and the in camp like to make a fuss of the fact we are one nation looking to leave a huge bloc that is bigger and richer than the USA, that bloc is terrified of us leaving. Our absence would tear a fatal hole in the EU (not that they will admit it) and, like Turkey did over the migrant issue, we need to punch our weight and pull rank to get what's best for us and you can be assured, the EU would follow.
In practice, the UK would likely seek to negotiate a novel form of Free Trade Agreement, but as Pawel Swidlicki of Open Europe notes, the trade-off is between “speed and scope”. If the UK wants a broad deal, particularly one covering services, including financial services, it could take some time. In the absence of a deal between the UK and the EU, the UK would then be required to follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs. he UK would pay tariffs on goods and services it exported into the EU, but since the UK would pay ‘most favoured nation’ rates, that would prohibit either side imposing punitive duties and sparking a trade war. Business for Britain, which campaigns for exit, estimates that at worst, tariffs would cost British exporters just £7.4 billion a year and says the UK would save enough on EU membership fees to be able to compensate exporters for that.
* The EU has so far failed to secure free trade deals with US, China, India.Major economies eg.
* Japan (one of the world’s largest) are not in a trading bloc.
* Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.
* Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
* EU directives are subject to a ‘rachet’ effect – i.e. once in place they are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed.
* Less than 15% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 5th largest in the world).
* Over 70% of the UK’s GDP is generated within the UK, but still subject to EU law.
* In 2006 it was estimated that EU over-regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year..
* In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998.
* Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market. The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.
* Norway only had to make relatively few changes to its laws to make its products eligible for the EU marketplace. In 2009, the Norwegian Mission to the EU estimated that Norway’s total financial contribution linked to their EEA (European Economic Area) agreement is some 340 mn Euros a years, of which some 110mn Euros are contributions related to the participation in various EU programmes. However, this is a fraction of the gross annual cost that Britain must pay for EU membership which is now £18.4bn, or £51mn a day.
The 5-10 years talk of negotiating trade deals is, as I said, baloney. Australia comopleted theirs with the US in 8 months and no offence to the Oz Monsters, but they're not even in our league. Washington would still need it's oldest, strongest ally and we are, whether they like it or not, the closest they have in terms of outlook, perspective and culture. As for the EU, we are one of the biggest importers so they need us too.
And yes, unlike the Scottish pro-indepedents, the leave camp has explored options of failure and are ot stickign their heads in the sand. Unlike the Scots, they have answers and sound reasons as to why they don't believe failure would take place and that's a BIG difference from Alex Salmond ignoring the question of "what if Britian won't share the Sterling?" The trth is thee's no sound financial reason why the UK woudl fail going it alone. There are infinitely smaller nations in the world that are prospering just fine - without a fraction of the UK's economy, military might and international standing. The argument that Britain would flounder outside of the EU is a shameful misnomer.
Plus bear in mind the EU as we know it today is a ery recent construct and a ar cry from what we signed up to in 1973. For thousands of years up until the last couple of decades the UK has prospered on its own so all this talk of collapse is pure nonsense.
And from the Andrew Marr show this morning:
While the UK would no longer be bound by EU regulation, legal judgements and free movement rules it would, in reality, still have access to the EU's internal market of 500 million people since free trade across the European continent would not suddenly come to a halt, Mr Gove said.
"If you negotiate a trade agreement with a country with which you currently have tariffs, then you need to negotiate which tariffs will remain and which will be reduced," he said.
"If you don't have tariffs then both sides can agree there is no need to erect them. Germany carmakers are not going to want to have tariffs erected when they sell many more cars to us than we sell to them.
"And I can't imagine a situation if any individual nation of the EU wanted to erect tariffs, that others would let them."
With Germany importing far more goods to the UK than the UK exports to them, he said it was in the interest of their "political establishment" for the current status quo to be maintained.
"It is win-win for them at the moment," he said. "It should be win-win for us and it will be if we vote to leave and we can maintain free trade, stop sending money and also have control of our borders."
"I think it would be very difficult for any German finance minister to say to BMW I am afraid you are going to have to lay off workers because I want to punish the British for being democratic by erecting trade barriers...that won't happen."
Rather than quote your previous posts, I would like to respond by making some points that are raised in them.
To take the last point first the claim that For thousands of years up until the last couple of decades the UK has prospered on its own is risible nonsense. The formation of the East India Company in 1600 marks an important moment in the history of British trade, because it took place at the same time that the Royal Navy was beginning to dominate the high seas, at the expense of the Spanish Armada, and is thus fundamental to the growth of Britain's maritime based Empire. Without the Empire, be it the Americas or Africa, India and China or Australasia, there is no wealth, no power, no glory. And just as the British Empire transformed the places I have just mentioned, so they had a tremendous impact on Britain. If you want to take a trivial example, Fish 'n Chips will suffice -potatoes from America, fried fish from the Jews: the national dish is immigrant food. Throw in tea, coffee, sugar, cotton, silk, diamonds, and opium and you can wave goodbye to the idea that Britain ever prospered on its own, and that is before one adds in those crucial moments when foreign armies intervened to save Harry, England and St George.
It is also the case that in the same decade during which most of the Commonwealth countries achieved their independence, the UK in 1960 was a founder member of the European Free Trade Association, along with six other European states (Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland) and it is estimated that foreign trade among its members increased three-fold, even though this was by volume smaller than economic growth in the existing members of the Common Market at that time. Collectives work.
The argument put out by the Exit campaign that the UK will be able to re-negotiate trade deals with the EU as Norway and Switzerland has done misses some important points, the most obvious of which is that Norway and Switzerland have access to the Single Market, but must adhere to its four freedoms and cannot negotiate amendments because neither are EU members.
Norway offers a startling example of how a 'proud, independent' nation has grown in spectacular fashion since the 1970s when the first oil field in the North Sea was discovered -Ekofisk (1969) -by integrating with Europe and the wider world. Norway had a strong fishing industry and a merchant shipping fleet of historic proportions, although it was in trouble in the 1960s. The problem was that Norway had no expertise in the petroleum industry, and lacked the capital to develop it. The only way Norway could enjoy the prosperity based on petroleum it now has, was to invite foreign companies to do what at the time it could not, even if it did impose stipulations that were designed to protect Norway's indigenous industries. Not only was the development of this industry thus due to international co-operation, the man credited with pioneering exploration in the North Sea, and the subsequent development of the industry was a Muslim immigrant from Iraq, Farouk al-Kasim, whose story, of greater significance to Norway than the murderous career of that cretin Anders Breivik, can be found here-
https://next.ft.com/content/99680a04...b-00144feabdc0
In the case of Switzerland a neglected aspect of the UK's relationship with the EU helps illustrate why membership has not only been a major benefit, but why it would also be so damaging -here we are talking about Research and Development (R&D).
The EU has the largest share of science R&D activity in the world -22.2%- followed by China -19.1%- and the USA -17.6%. As a survey of R&D in the EU has argued-
The EU is now a community of scientific talent which can flow between countries without visas or points systems and which can assemble bespoke constellations of cutting-edge labs, industry and small businesses to tackle challenges local and global...
In 2011 the EU created a single common strategic framework in R&D called Horizon 2020 worth $80bn of funding over 7 years (2014-2020). Switzerland had been participating in science framework projects in the EU since the 1990s, but in 2014 a referendum to limit immigration was passed, and as a result Switzerland refused to grant free movement of participants from Croatia, but therefore fell foul of the provisions of Horizon 2020 and was suspended. As a consequence
The Swiss government was forced to replicate at national level a temporary programme to replace immediate access to the ERC programme and subsequently negotiated limited access to H2020, with much reduced access to programmes, exclusion from the new SME Instrument and loss of ability to coordinate collaborative research within H2020. This is reliant on continued freedom of movement. Switzerland also funds Swiss participants in EU collaborative programmes directly at national level, requiring parallel domestic administration and an agreement to accept all funding decisions made in Brussels, effectively losing control of its national science budget.
Were the UK to leave the EU it would want to retain its involvement in EU R&D such as Horizon 2020 and continue to pay for it while having no influence over the budget, and having to replicate all the administrative procedures currently performed by the EU as it would be an outsider, increasing the costs of participation. This might sound obscure, but R&D is crucial to the economic future because of its impact on projects related to health, engineering, chemistry, communications and all those 'new industries' that we expect our children to graduate into over the next 25 years. You can read the report on the importance of R&D here-
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...er-an-eu-exit/
I could go on - but the basic argument of the Exit campaign can be summed up thus: we want to have all the benefits of the club without paying the membership fee or abiding by the rules.
The primary point is that the international economy is an inter-dependent economy, even the strongest economies rely on foreign imports, foreign markets, foreign workers, and foreign capital to survive and grow. The concept of sovereignty is little more than a conceited claim that pretends real power exists only inside the state. It does not. The same people who argue for an exit from the EU do not argue for an exit from NATO or the UN, even though the UK cannot defend itself without NATO and cannot even patrol its maritime borders without asking for help, to the extent that last year on 43 occasions the UK's borders were monitored by NATO aircraft from Spain, France, Germany and the USA. And in terms of sovereignty, if Turkey were attacked by Russia and called on fellow-members of NATO to assist, what is the UK going to say -'we are sitting this one out'? What happens if Argentina re-invades the Falkland Islands and fellow NATO member the USA says 'we are sitting this one out'? Isn't this why we join international organisations, for mutual benefit?
And it is because the benefits outweigh the costs, that we are better of in the EU.
Besides all the pro-Trump posts I get on Facebook from friends and family, this is what pops up from one of my former work colleagues. I might need to de-friendAttachment 934888
I have linked below the Financial Times poll tracker with a start date in 2010 updated to yesterday May 17th 2016, which shows on aggregate that the current position suggests a 46% vote to Remain, a 44% vote to Leave. This is in contrast to the What UK Thinks aggregate based on six polls held between the 4th and 15th of May 2016 which produces a 51% Remain and 49% Leave result. Note that the FT tracker also lists the numbers of people polled which ranges from 3,000+ to a poll as low as 800. The Don't Know voters clearly make a difference to the outcome, with the forthcoming poll by the British Election Study reaching the most dramatic conclusion so far.
The BES preview was the lead item on Channel 4 News last night, and shows:
The outcome of the EU referendum vote is on a knife edge with little more than one month to go, according to one of the largest surveys to date.
Among a huge sample of 22,000 voters, Remain has a narrow lead of 43 to 40.5 per cent, according to new data from the British Election Survey.
But the advantage is wiped out among voters who say they are very likely to vote – giving Leave the victory by 45 per cent to 44.5 per cent.
The new data also indicates that ethnic minority voters could hold the balance of power. While white voters are split evenly, all ethnic minority groups are far more likely to back Remain. However, the data also suggests that turnout could be 20 to 25 per cent lower among ethnic minority voters. Voter registration is also lower and with only three weeks to go before registration closes on 7 June, time is running out for new voters to ensure they have their say on 23 June.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7034751.html
The BES findings do return us to the issue of voter registration and voter participation, an issue which appears to be critical in the performance of modern democracies where apathy or an unknown factor has led to low turnouts for local and also general elections. In the case of the EU Referendum, because this is a unique event with a high profile that has long-term ramifications for the UK as a whole, I expect voter turnout in general to be high, but if it is the case that ethnic minorities who on balance are in favour of Remaining in the EU do not/have not registered -the deadline is the 7th June 2016- and do not vote, this would at least narrow the margin. Although I expect Remain to win the vote, a narrow victory will not settle the issue, but for those opposed to the UK's membership of the EU the campaign to leave will continue as if nothing had changed.
The Financial Times poll tracker is here-
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polli...nce_sem/auddev
The What UK Thinks poll of polls is here-
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/
The British Election Study website (nothing so far on the poll mentioned above) is here-
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/
Good read about Brussels using some backdoor loophole to manipulate UK pension eligibility for non-citizens. This kind of bullshit gives credence to Leave side.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/318...ritish-pension
Hmm..The Daily Express? One notes that more than half of the article that makes claims the EU is going to 'seize control of the benefits system' is actually about Turkey's application to join the EU which can only happen if ratified by all 28 member states and Cameron saying, explicitly that this is not going to happen. It must also be the case that if an EU migrant worker from Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands or Romania lives and works in the UK they must be entitled to the same benefits as everyone else, allowing for the new arrangements in the deal Cameron reached with the EU earlier this year which places time-constraints on when migrants can claim benefits. The Express is pumping up an aspect of 'ever closer union' in the Social Union proposals of the EU on the grounds that this removes policy making from London to Brussels, but ignores the reasonable argument put forward by the EU:
One important policy goal of the EU is to ensure that people are not prevented from acquiring adequate pension rights when they move to live and work in another EU country. Social security coordination plays an important role in this regard. The Commission has also proposed legislation to ensure that mobile workers are not prevented from earning and keeping occupational pension rights.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=752
We are in a single market, the broad assumption must be that people working in it across the EU are entitled to the same range of benefits, of which pensions is surely basic, whether they are British citizens working in France, French citizens working in Britain, or Romanian workers in the Netherlands. My suggestion is that if you want informed articles on the EU, the Daily Express is not the best place to find them.
The pension article was in a tweet from someone who would quote Donald Duck if it advanced the Exit viewpoint. I had no idea the source was that dubious.
One thing I remember about British newspapers when I lived in London was the daily pic of a random bare breasted woman. This was back in the early nineties so I guess political correctness would have done away with that journalistic tradition.
Not being from the UK, I can only ask that you vote leave with all your heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by sexyasianescorts
Be brave and take the leap :claps
PS : for those who fail to see it, above is sarcastic.
The Sun's Page 3 lasted from 1970 until last year and is one of those topics where you either 'chill out' or campaign against. Britain's official moron, a chat show host called Jonathan Ross once taunted (ex-) Labour MP Clare Short about it when she said on his show -I think in the 1990s- it should be scrapped. On at least one occasion they printed a photo of a 16 year old which would be illegal in the USA, but is par for the course as far as Rupert Murdoch's is concerned. You can read about it here if you want to -Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3
There are two dates, depends what you vote for.
It's actually Boris Johnson who has a thing with Donald TQuote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
I'll paraphrase what JP Morgan CEO said to his London employees:
'BREXIT will force the bank to reduce head count in our London business units...But don't let my message influence your vote'
Thanks Jamie.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...vent-of-brexit
The Financial Times poll tracker gives the Leave the EU vote a 2% lead over Stay (47% Leave, 45% Remain) and the odds from the bookies also appear to have narrowed. This closing of the gap causing panic in the Remain camp is not dissimilar to the poll that was released prior to the referendum in Scotland in 2014 which gave independence a narrow lead, so it is not clear how far these polls are reflecting the 'deep' vote or the 'superficial' headline vote. In some polls the result is arrived after eliminating the 'Don't Knows' so I expect this group and the overall turn-out to be crucial.
Meanwhile as The Sun backs an Exit from the UK, we are given the prospect of 'Taking the County Back' from Brussels, only to hand decision making to Rupert Murdoch, a proprietor of newspapers who knowingly broke the law and who is a free market liberal who hates trading blocs and the EU in particular, as is well documented-
Many years ago, journalist Antony Hilton asked Mr Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union.
He replied: "That's easy. When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice."
FT Poll tracker is here-
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polli...nce_sem/auddev
Latest odds are here-
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...bership-result
Quote from Murdoch is here-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7080881.html
Why you should vote Remain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQtd9X4UO8k
While being amused, I think my first thought was surprise that a boy of that age would be allowed to swear in public, even if it is a song. The Oliver show segment this closes is also on YouTube and quite good, particularly the exposure of the EU regulation mania which in the case of Pillows seems to be fluffed up quite a lot...the Brexit campaign has always been stronger on fantasy than reality.
Yea I was a little shocked seeing a youngster singing such naughty lyrics...shock and awe have always been Oliver's shtick.
But he makes a great point. You can hold Europe in utter contempt and simultaneously support Remain. Haven't the French started every war in history and needed to be bailed out each time?
Making fun of Europe is a great Anglo-American tradition. Not to be confused with BREXIT being a major blunder.
A harsh judgement on France, who did not issue an ultimatum to Serbia in 1914, and did not invade Poland in 1939...and while there may be an irony in the border officials of the UK being based in Calais these days, I don't think there is any support for 'returning' either Normandy or Aquitaine to the English crown, even if some workers in London and the south-east commute from Normandy every day, more the benefits of contemporary travel than politics.
The interesting poll reported in today's Telegraph has reversed the situation we were in last week, where Leave edged ahead, this poll puts Remain 7% ahead -53% Remain, 46% Leave. The bookies now have Remain at odds on and Leave slipping away to 11/4 against. There is a lot of debate about the polls and whether or not they are telephone polls, face-to-face, or even asking the right people, as Leave voters are shown to be less likely to change their vote. This suggests the turn-out will be as crucial as the 'Don't Knows' do not usually make up their mind until the last few days before the election. As former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson put it, A week is a long time in politics.
There was always the possibility that an unforeseen event, or a major gaffe by a leading campaigner could flip the vote, much as in the US election an indictment of Mrs Clinton, or more likely, Trump veering away from a prepared script to say what he thinks could damage their image with the voters, as to some extent has already happened with Trump's initial reaction to the murders in Orlando.
The murder of Labour MP Jo Cox may be one factor in the reversal of Leave's fortunes, as her killer comes across as an English Breivik, giving his name in court as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have said they will not challenge Labour when the MP's constituency votes for her replacement -but a neo-Nazi has said he will contest the election on behalf of a party he calls Liberty GB, although he has yet to sign up any supporters to get himself onto the ballot paper. But he does represent that part of the Leave campaign that people don't want to talk about as they are even more extreme than Nigel Farage and the United Kingdom Independence Party.
These apparently tenuous connections may in fact reflect a growing unease with the way that Farage has muscled in on a tepid campaign by leading Conservatives Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Chris Grayling. The earlier emphasis the Conservatives (and some Labour Leave campaigners) made on trade, finances, sovereignty and politics has been taken over in the last 10 days by immigration, but I think this is a toxic issue in British politics and that it loses more votes than it gains. Leave are also divided as Johnson said at the weekend he supported the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants which is not what Farage and the nationalists want to hear. I suspect that as in the US, the key issue in the EU Referendum is the economy, jobs and pensions, and the fear that Leaving the EU is too much of a gamble is swinging the vote back to Remain.
However, the evidence we do have is that this is still going to be a closely fought campaign, and that the margin of victory will struggle to get into double figures, but right now on a turn-out of 70-80% I give Remain the edge over Leave.
Two days to go.
Are the pollsters asking anyone in Northern Ireland or Scotland? It must be that the data is all from England. It's the only explanation for why Ladbrokes is making Leave 1-4
I can't ever rember odds and polls being this much out of line with each other.
As far as I know the major polling organisations convene panels whom they believe are a fair representation of the electorate in terms of age, location, social class and occupation. Some also use telephone polls but apparently cold callers for various scams have eaten into this mode of polling while some claim the only people on the phone during the day are the retired and the unemployed and that Conservative voters tend to put the phone down rather than answer questions, while panels may include opinionated people or activists with an agenda. The organisations however believe their methods are fair, and explain the 2015 General Election failure due to poor sampling.
There is an overview of polling methods here-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35350361
And as a matter of interest I link an article on the situation in Northern Ireland where the Unionists mostly favour Leave while the Republicans/Nationalists favour Remain, which is odd, because if the UK were to leave a United Ireland could be closer to reality than it is at the moment, or it could be that Sinn Fein and other Republicans are too busy counting the money they get for their 'local communities' in EU grants to waste time worrying about a united Ireland....or maybe they are worried border controls will return...who knows?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/op...-34475000.html
We will know after tomorrow
I am probably going to make a fool of myself, but I predict Remain will win the vote tomorrow by a margin of approx. 7%. I also expect the voter turnout to reach and probably exceed 80% which would make it the largest turnout for a vote in a nationwide election since 1950.
Voter turnout in Scotland before the 2014 referendum on independence was the highest at 84.59% since the General Election of 1951, and on that basis I expect the UK to match that. Similar traits are the beliefs on both side that they have edged each other prior to the vote but with the vote for change losing out to the status quo. If it all goes wrong I guess I will have to find somewhere else to live.
For those interested, this link indicates voter turnout in elections since 1945.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
And a reminder of the Scottish poll in 2014-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotti...ferendum,_2014
You got your turnout, 83.7%
Exit data showing Remain victory @ 93% certainty. And your point spread of 7 looks spot-on
We should have actual numbers by midnight New York time
Ugh. surprise Leave strength in Newcastle results. Sterling taking a major league dump vs yen and dollar
gonna be a long night
:D
Sense at last.
All we need is a Trump victory in November and the triumph of the ignorant and easily manipulated will be complete.
A few comments on the result:
1) I was wrong, because I thought that the risk factor was strong enough to support the Remain vote, but the margin of victory of 4% is weak, and I did expect the turn-out (72%) to be closer to 80%.
2) The results confirm the haemorrhage of the Labour vote in 2015 is part of a continuing trend. This is a major crisis for the Labour Party, not least because its leader failed to make any impact on the debate, and because Corbyn personally has been opposed to the EU all his political life and only supports/supported the Social Chapter of the Single Market Act. The left is in disarray and I see no short or medium term revival for it in the UK, and I do wonder if Corbyn can survive as leader of the party.
3) Scotland has voted to Remain, and I expect the Scottish National Party to use this fact to consider its 'next step'- either to begin the process for a new referendum on Scottish independence, or to 'wait and see' for the next two years to see how the negotiations on an Exit proceed. Either way, the UK is facing the most serious challenge to its structural integrity since Irish independence, and I don't see how on present evidence the UK can hold together in its present form.
4) The EU Referendum has been a major disaster for David Cameron, who this morning has announced that he will resign earlier than expected as leader of his party, and that the party must choose a new leader -and thus, a new Prime Minister, by October this year (he had already made it known he would not lead the party into the 2020 General Election).
5) The result could present the British government with a dilemma as this result weakens the status of Gibraltar as part of the UK, with only 823 people voting to leave the EU (19,322 voted Remain). The irony of course is that now the only way Gibraltar can remain in the EU is to become part of Spain, however, I expect them to choose being 'British' over becoming part of Spain, and the economic prospects are yet to be determined. A weak pound could make Gibraltar a happy destination for the Spaniards, but weaken the jobs market.
6) The vote is a major victory for two groups: on the one side there is Vladimir Putin and the European fascist movement, the vote being hailed by Marine Le Pen as a 'victory for freedom'. The real question now, probably a longer term one is whether or not the EU can survive in its present form, and I would not be surprised if it changes significantly over the next 10 years, and this plays into the agenda of the second group who see this as part of a reversal of globalization and the beginning of the end of trading blocs and mega-trade deals, as they want a world economy dominated by private companies and entrepreneurs rather than states even though most of the world's capital and resources are owned by states, and most of them dictatorships.
7) The likely scenario is that -market reaction aside- change will take place slowly so that the full impact of an exit from the EU may not be felt for as much as 5 to 10 years, but as the Bank of England will be reviewing its contingency plans I would not be surprised if interest rates rise in the next 7-10 days, a sign of the changes to come.
I don't know what else to say, it is obviously easier to predict the future than it is to make it happen.
Most cringe-worthy moment...Nigels 'Independence Day" speech.
Yeah Nige, you hadn't practiced that!