[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[Mr K]

Interesting different take from the Telegraph and Guardian today :-

Guardian - hopes fade of a deal
Telegraph - Cameron closing in on a deal

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-february-deal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...t-workers.html

A fudged deal will have been done months ago. Dave and the EU are just waiting for the right time to announce a monumental non-break through. Carefully timed, for dramatic effect for the British public and ensure the right outcome. The vote won't even be close - i'm predicting 58% to 42% to stay in; the public are very fickle when it comes to change.

I thought they had pre-arranged the 'deal'. Seems rather risky of Cameron to set himself up to fail if his goal is to stay in the EU, although he did screw up the Scottish referendum!

That said if he got a deal that limited free movement to some extent, a benefit freeze and some other minor concession I think many would shrug and vote to stay in.

[heero_yuy]

Some interesting data from youGov after digging deeper into polling results:

People say that the outcome of Cameron’s negotiations will affect how they will vote. When we ask them "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union”, 41% say 'remain' and 41% say 'leave'. When we ask how they will vote if Cameron achieves only small reforms, it’s 37% 'remain' and 38% 'leave'. If Cameron achieves major reforms, it swings to 50% 'remain' and 23% 'leave'. If there are to be no reforms at all, it's 32% 'remain' versus 46% 'leave'. Of course we have no way of knowing how accurate these predictions of their vote will be, but they do allow us to come to some useful measures which I discuss in the conclusion.

YouGov full artical linky

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Evidence for that it would be a disaster please.

It may certainly harm big business, however this may also be more than offset by increasing the competitiveness of small businesses - purely domestic businesses will no longer have to adhere to the same standards as those larger businesses exporting to the EU, with extensive legal departments to ensure they adhere to the mass of red tape.

I can find you businessmen who work in more competitive industries and believe that the impact of Brexit would be neutral at worst to their own operations.

EDIT: You can use the CBI as an example if you like, but do bear in mind that of their alleged 190,000 members some 55,000 are farmers who are members of the NFU, which is affiliated to the CBI. If I say Common Agricultural Policy does that ring any alarm bells as far as their bias may go? The NFU are just one of the affiliated trade bodies all of whose members the CBI claims for its own.

The CBI is estimated to represent no more than 2,300 actual businesses in the UK. Less than 1 in 200. In addition their own position was for EMU / the Euro and they ensured they selected the cohorts they surveyed at that time to support their own position. That turned out well. There are plenty of indications they are doing the same again regarding Brexit.

We desperately either need to dive head-long into integration or to leave. The status quo won't do. There is no desire for change of the status quo, the desire is for ever-closer union and that's not changing. There's considerable evidence that ever-closer union isn't going to be viable and it's growing on a weekly basis - see the migration farce as Germany tried to fix its demographic problems in one fell swoop, ended up overwhelmed, and is now trying to strong-arm the rest of the EU to compensate for its mistake.

Given the slow down in world economies, especially the Asian and South American zones I do not see that many opportunities for bilateral trade deals for the UK At least in the EU we have the ability to punch above our weight in acquiring trade arrangements and contracts. UKIP particularly are incoherent over this, seeming happy to cut aid to those very countries we will need to trade with.

Trade is recovering within the EU, albeit slowly, and rather more quickly in the US. I much rather we attracted that trade with a combination of EU clout and our own British flair.

I am also concerned that those companies and areas of manufacture that require coordination across borders within the EU will migrate into the membership zone if we leave. I am thinking of aerospace manufactures and the car industry, for example, where components and sections are manufactured here and exported for assembly, or vice-versa. This is enabled by reduced paperwork and non-existent duties. Most north European countries are capable of manufacturing and assembling. Our home skills and expertise only have an edge because we are in the EU trading area.

I agree that the ultimate solution is total unification, as in the USA. However, this shouldn't happen until populations and states are ready for it and want it. This may never happen. I am one of those who thought the original EEC was just a capitalist club with no interest in the welfare of people or the environment. The EU is a vast improvement, in that respect, because it aims to get capitalism to deploy its acceptable face. However, as a half-way house I agree it is somewhat uncomfortable and impractical at times.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

I am one of those who thought the original EEC was just a capitalist club with no interest in the welfare of people or the environment. The EU is a vast improvement, in that respect, because it aims to get capitalism to deploy its acceptable face.

You have to be joking! The EU is run by a bunch of communists/socialists/maoists. They are at best, trying to get everyone under their control in an attempt at benevolent dictatorship and at worst trying to sneak communism in by the back door.

[Osem]

Yep I'm not convinced the EU is a benevolent organisation devoted to caring for the masses and saving them from capitalism. They operate far more like FIFA than a charity.

[ianch99]

There seems to be more and more parallels with this vote and the Scottish one. The SNP relied on lies (oil revenues) and emotion to try and woo the voters and in the end, they failed because they could not convince the more conservative voters that their independent future was based on facts and logic rather than emotion and prejudice.

This seems to be going the same way: there is a lot of emotive stories playing the latent race/foreigner card which will convince some but until the Brexit players present convincing fact-based evidence of the benefits of leaving, I think the electorate will vote, like in Scotland, for the status quo with the hope that sensible reform will happen over time.

The EU, in the wise of Donald Rumsfeldt, is a "known known" ..

One thing is sure if the vote goes against them, the Brexits, like the SNP, will be complaining that they need a second referendum within the year

While there are doubtless parallels, the arguments are by no means identical. Don't underestimate the extent to which a single economic and monetary policy swung the argument in Scotland (characterised by the argument over th the pound). There is no such parallel in the UK's relationship with the EU, and in any case the EU's monetary woes have not exactly been great positive arguments for Remain.

Look at it this way: the two biggest crises to engulf the EU in recent years have both been precipitated by treaty provisions the UK refused to sign - namely Schengen and the Euro. Yet these are supposed to be fundamental to the whole project. It can be argued that the UK is already on a different trajectory than the rest of the EU, and wisely so, given the strife the EU currently faces.

The Nationalists in Scotland would have jumped at the chance to argue that Scotland should have left the UK due to being on an inevitable diverging path. They did actually try to make that argument. It fell flat because it's not true, and because the argument to keep the pound was entirely contradictory. There are no such complications with regards to the EU.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You have to be joking! The EU is run by a bunch of communists/socialists/maoists. They are at best, trying to get everyone under their control in an attempt at benevolent dictatorship and at worst trying to sneak communism in by the back door.

Citation required.

---------- Post added 10-01-2016 at 00:06 ---------- Previous post was 09-01-2016 at 23:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Yep I'm not convinced the EU is a benevolent organisation devoted to caring for the masses and saving them from capitalism. They operate far more like FIFA than a charity.

Again citation required.

EU finances are amongst the cleanest there are. I'm not talking about the member nations, some of whom are corrupt, but the actual Brussels managed budget. Since 2007, when the EU budget started submitting its budget to independent auditors, the budget has been signed off. Once or twice there was a 4% discrepancy, much lower than most national budgets. Within 12 months any discrepancy due to errors and fraud has mostly been clawed back or resolved.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm

Before you say that this all lies then you have to realise that all official EU websites are bound in law to be accurate.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=roughbeast;35816633]Citation required.[COLOR="Silver"]

Again citation required.

They look like the opinions of the posters to me not statements of fact, therefore no citations required.

EU finances are amongst the cleanest there are. I'm not talking about the member nations, some of whom are corrupt, but the actual Brussels managed budget. Since 2007, when the EU budget started submitting its budget to independent auditors, the budget has been signed off.

The EU accounts have not been signed off for 19 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-spending.html

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

Given the slow down in world economies, especially the Asian and South American zones I do not see that many opportunities for bilateral trade deals for the UK At least in the EU we have the ability to punch above our weight in acquiring trade arrangements and contracts. UKIP particularly are incoherent over this, seeming happy to cut aid to those very countries we will need to trade with.

Periods of economic slowdown are when trade deals are most desired. When all is going well there's less desire to interrupt the status quo. Increasing export markets and removing trade barriers gets far more urgency during slowdowns.

Originally Posted by roughbeast

Trade is recovering within the EU, albeit slowly, and rather more quickly in the US. I much rather we attracted that trade with a combination of EU clout and our own British flair.

Our trade deficit with the EU is increasing. This isn't a good thing for us.

Originally Posted by roughbeast

I am also concerned that those companies and areas of manufacture that require coordination across borders within the EU will migrate into the membership zone if we leave. I am thinking of aerospace manufactures and the car industry, for example, where components and sections are manufactured here and exported for assembly, or vice-versa. This is enabled by reduced paperwork and non-existent duties. Most north European countries are capable of manufacturing and assembling. Our home skills and expertise only have an edge because we are in the EU trading area.

No-one is suggesting we leave a free trade bloc with the EU. The tariff-free trade bloc is considerably larger than the countries that are within the EU's political institutions.

Originally Posted by roughbeast

I agree that the ultimate solution is total unification, as in the USA. However, this shouldn't happen until populations and states are ready for it and want it. This may never happen. I am one of those who thought the original EEC was just a capitalist club with no interest in the welfare of people or the environment. The EU is a vast improvement, in that respect, because it aims to get capitalism to deploy its acceptable face. However, as a half-way house I agree it is somewhat uncomfortable and impractical at times.

So you were unhappy with simple free trade and economic co-operation and wanted to, at least partially, be ruled from Brussels? By definition giving up at least some sovereignty was required for the EU to achieve the aims you applaud. To each their own.

The EU is derided as being corporatist, the weight of its regulations harming smaller businesses in their attempts to compete with larger corporations able to afford compliance departments.

The Tobacco Products Directive, for example. This group you are such a fan of for their getting capitalism to deploy its acceptable face are enacting a policy which, in the UK, is likely to cost lives. We have a high proportion of users on e-cigarettes due to our liberal policies and are being dragged down by the lowest common denominator approach.

I may not like a fair amount of what the UK government, in any colour, may do, but at least I get to send vote to send a representative there rather than, at very best, having my country's representatives outvoted ~25% of the time by groups that none of our country can influence democratically and, at worst, policy direction being entirely due to a group appointed, none directly democratically voted for.

You'd be fine if the House of Lords were the only group able to introduce legislation and decide policy direction for the UK, with the Commons able to amend and reject policies only I guess?

The EU has brought some legislations that may, in your mind, aim to get capitalism to deploy its acceptable face but it's doing nothing in that regard that the UK governments couldn't do if they so chose. Your post implies that you are fine being dictated to as long as you agree with the diktats that are being delivered. I prefer representative democracy and sovereignty, even if I don't like the results.

[Osem]

[QUOTE=Pierre;35816645]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

Citation required.[COLOR="Silver"]



They look like the opinions of the posters to me not statements of fact, therefore no citations required.



The EU accounts have not been signed off for 19 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-spending.html

Citation required...

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The EU accounts have not been signed off for 19 years

Or to put it another way, they have been....

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-a...ans-37130.html

Who to believe

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Or to put it another way, they have been....

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-a...ans-37130.html

Who to believe

OK it would seem that the accounts are audited, and are signed off. However, they are signed off subject to containing significant material error.

Approx 4% of the budget is dodgy, but a lot f that is actually the fault of the member state and not the EU.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/has_...18_years-28593

[Mr K]

Europhobes grasping at straws really. This is a non-contest, Dave's masterplan for a 'stay in' vote is on track.

Only a minority have strong views on Europe. Most are indifferent, and either won't vote, or will vote for no change because of the constant scare stories that will be leaked day by day.

Dave's a master at this sort of thing, you've got to had it to him. Even Boris has been silenced.