Just don't buy the argument that if the UK leaves, and Germany is promulgating a favourable deal to preserve its highly valuable exports to us, the Eastern European counties will veto proposed arrangments. Whatever the voting rights are, it doesn't reflect reality. Germany runs the EU, and effectively funds it (particularly if the UK leaves), so the idea that while taking German money, the Eastern Europe will browbeat Mrs Merkel or her successor into a trade war with the UK is fanciful. It's right that Brexit supporters should show, to the extent they are able, what the UK might look like post-exit. It's also the responsibility of the IN's to show what the EU is turning into. Increasingly weakening economies, Mrs Merkel greatly exacerbating the migration crisis with her open invitations, barbed wire fences going up all over the continent, 28 nations all pulling in different directions and cultures clashing, Russia running rings around the EU due to woeful lack of decision making ( after having been impotent over Ukraine), Turkey blackmailing the EU leaders for funds and EU membership ...and we want to stay in?
It's impossible for them to do anything. Nobody is having those conversations because there's no impetus to do so. The facts are that the other EU states do not, on the whole, want us to leave. There may well be a couple that are looking to see what happens, hoping that any exit vote sets precedents that they might follow in the future, but it's utterly unprecedented at the moment, and nobody wants to suggest within the EU that they are pre-judging the outcome of a referendum relating to a single member state. They also know that the UK, as one of the EU 'big hitters' would leave a far larger hole and do far more damage to the EU by leaving than - for example - Greece would. The 'plan' for the Exit is a two-year consultation and implementation period AFTER the vote has been decided. Until then (if it happens) you'll not get the answers to any of those questions. Shame really, because unless you know those answers, I can't see any sense in voting to leave, because you cannot possibly know what you are voting for.
It would be nice to have some honesty from them - at present, all we're getting are the dark arts from No 10
I'm of the belief that most of the people involved, on both sides, are totally unsure what actually might happen after the vote is counted. If it's "leave", the leavers don't really know if we'll be a better place to live and work than before. If it's "stay", the stayers are in the same place. Sadly, many of the politicians and business leaders who are expressing their views (for both choices) are not credible with me. They have their own personal agendas and, whatever happens, some resilience protecting them against the fallout that affect the ordinary people they are supposed to represent.
There's a lot of truth in this. Voters will do what they can in the next few months to get and gauge the facts, so they can vote with their heads. But because none of us, politicians and business leaders included, are clairvoyant, at the end of the day, many of us will be voting to quite a large degree with our hearts
Fact is, as Chaz is pointing out, neither you nor I can have any certainty as to what will happen in the event of an out vote, as its unprecedented. We can make assumptions and projections, based on our own interpretation of the rules, statistics, national characteristics and doubtless our own prejudices. There are many different scenarios. Here are 3 from the Financial Times: Booming Britain: Adherents of this scenario say the UK should not yoke its fate to the underperforming eurozone economy and should instead look further afield to more dynamic markets. However, trade deals with all these groups would need to be struck speedily: the EU is by far Britain’s biggest trading partner, and trade deals with another 60 countries would lapse if Britain left the bloc. Troubled transition: This scenario is based on the idea that trade is not one of the biggest issues for British economic prosperity and that, as a result, leaving the EU will not fundamentally affect long-term growth. But it does hold that the process of leaving is a risky one, with the possibility of a sharp fall in sterling and a fall in the price of UK assets. Disastrous decision: This scenario assumes that Britain ultimately reaches a looser trading relationship with the EU, which makes it more difficult to sell goods and, in particular, services to the continent. Deals with third countries become hard to reach, investments in Britain decline and the economy falls behind the country’s rivals. The same article attributes 10% of UK economic growth to membership of the EU and reckons that the major barriers to growth are home grown - poor education and low investment. Finally, something you will like Goldie, we are forecast to be the 6th biggest economy in the world in 2030 (India surges into the top 5) - above Germany for the first time since 1954 (of course for most of this period we have been smaller than West Germany as was). Thing is this is entirely driven by demographics, because of migration we are growing and Germany has been shrinking ......perhaps all these Syrians ending up there will change the picture. Personally I am bored of this 5th biggest economy stuff. We are 27th in terms of GDP per capita. 11th in terms of trade volume. And 3rd in terms of financial assets per capita. Take your pick. All fairly meaningless to me, I'm interested in actual quality of life (21st in the World Happiness report, whatever that means).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35749084 Boris Johnson: EU referendum gag email was 'cock-up' Boris Johnson says a memo instructing his senior staff to back him over the EU referendum has been withdrawn. The London mayor, who is campaigning to leave the EU, said the email to deputy mayors and senior advisers was "a cock-up, and not something I agree with". It told them to "either advocate the mayor's position or otherwise not openly contradict it". The email was sent 24 hours before Mr Johnson accused pro-EU campaigners of trying to gag opponents. It was sent by his chief of staff, Edward Lister. "Nobody has been gagged, I was only made aware of this edict very late last night and it ceased to be operative as soon as I was made aware of it," Mr Johnson said. "All I can say is it obviously hasn't been operative because my advisory team take a very different view from me." He added "it's a cock-up and not something I agree with", saying he was in favour of allowing - in the words of former Chinese leader Chairman Mao - "a hundred flowers to bloom". The mayor said his staff were "producing all sorts of views completely different from my own", adding that the memo had been "wiped from the page of history". David Cameron and the government are campaigning to remain in the EU in the 23 June referendum. Government ministers have been told they can back either side, but conditions apply and they are not allowed to use Whitehall resources to help their campaigns. The City Hall instruction, in an email sent on 4 March, was circulated before Mr Johnson accused pro-EU campaigners of trying to silence those arguing for Brexit who he claimed were being "crushed by the agents of Project Fear". The email, revealed by BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg, says it includes an attachment offering formal advice from the City Hall management team on what the Greater London Authority (GLA) can and cannot do during the referendum. The email highlights that the advice says: "Boris is entitled, as mayor, to adopt a public position on this issue and then, as with all other mayoral policies, to receive support from GLA officers in relation to that policy position. "The advice also makes clear that GLA officers can, when not at work, express personal opinions (which be contrary to the mayor's views). Whilst this is the formal position for you also, I would expect, given your roles, you either to advocate the mayor's position or otherwise not openly contradict it." The email also notes that because it is a referendum and not an election "you are all able to be involved in the campaign as you may wish (but without using the authority's resources for your personal activities)." The mayor's official spokesman said: "The mayor is relaxed about any of his team of advisers in a personal capacity campaigning for or supporting either side in the EU referendum. "He wants to see an open and inclusive debate, and recognises that some of his advisors have differing views to those he holds. "In his role as chief of staff Ed Lister advised the team that as official mayoral policy is now to support the case for leaving the EU they are requested to support that position when undertaking official City Hall business." The mayor's office said the advice was "in line with that issued by the Greater London Assembly's statutory officers". Although his deputy mayors and senior advisers are political appointees, they are technically officials of City Hall so not subject to the same rules as elected representatives.
If we left, there's no doubt that there'd be a period of challenging transition, the question is whether the end product is worth it. I think you're right, Stan, that quality of life for UK citizens is paramount (which should not be viewed as selfish, since it should include ensuring we push trade the way of poorer nations to help them flourish - I prefer this to simple aid, although foreign aid is essential in emergencies, as in Syria presently.) For many UK citizens, quality of life is having access to a house or flat, an NHS that works for them , finding a place for their child at school, being able to drive on roads that are not gridlocked. The current huge annual increase in our population is not sustainable if a decent quality of life is maintained. Immigration had to be controlled and it's simply impossible in an expanding EU, as Cameron has found to his cost, when his ambitions on trying to peg back numbers coming into the UK have come to nothing
It's a waste of time putting this stuff up to add prejudice, Chaz, because for every dirty trick from Brexit, there will be five from government. Longworth lost his job on the strength of it, and 10 Downing Street lied through their teeth that they had no involvement.
Add prejudice? I'm not adding anything apart from sharing a current report on the situation that has emerged today. Please don't assume that just because Boris and his team want to supress comment, the same can apply here....
So it seems like the Governor of the Bank of England can't say that uncertainty about the EU is a risk to the economy (not, please note, that we should stay or go, but simply that uncertainty is not good for business confidence) in the short term and then sticking up for himself without having a C14th throwback wet himself in his presence and a bunch of others like serial failure David Davis slagging him off in rather personal terms ("ooo, he's not as good as Mervyn King, is he?") and saying in not so many words, that his own (Davis') opinions were 'facts' and people who don't agree with him are liars. Of course, had Carney said the € was the cause of uncertainty, the in side would be doing similar stuff. Carney and his mob are obviously pretty crap, they have no idea what's going on with interest rates and contribute to business uncertainty themselves, but I'd still take their comments on the economy rather more seriously than I would Jacob Rees Mogg's, who won't be happy until we have reintroduced serfdom and revoked the reformation. This is simply pathetic. The Brexiters have to start to admit that among politicians and big league decision makers at least, they are in a minority. They have to forget this and start making a positive case to the voters, where I think it is a very close run thing, rather than whining and playing the victim the whole time. Their current campaign is incredibly reactive and passive, playing to those who have already made up their minds rather than those who could be persuaded. Once again, we deserve better. Then again, perhaps we don't, we voted these muppets in.
Carney's performance was typical corporate arse-covering. If we leave, and there are difficulties, he'll say he warned us. If we stay and the EU goes south, he'll say he never advised to stay in.
Exactly. Who cares if there are problems when we leave? Ok, lots of you do......................fair enough. I don't. I want us to be a completely sovereign Nation, whatever the problems we have to encounter. We have managed fine on our own throughout history and along with our membership of NATO, we'll be fine if we leave. If me and mine will be worse off economically for a while after an exit, I will still vote to leave.
If you think that leaving the EU will return sovereignty to the UK, you clearly don't understand what sovereignty means. We have endless treaties, agreements, understandings, and obligations to pretty much every country in the world. NATO, the UN, the EU, the G8/G20/G33, are just a few. All of these have some level of input to our way of life, and leaving the EU will mandate a different kind of agreement with them, which will affect our trade, taxes, immigration, etc. Our 'sovereignty' encompasses everything we do as a nation - including how we act and interact with other countries. And we will continue to interact more with the countries in the EU whether we leave or stay. So if you think that 'leaving the EU' actually means leaving the EU entirely, then you're mistaken. They are our biggest trading partner, and we will have to set those arrangements in place. And as nobody knows what those arrangements will be - due to there being zero precedence of this - then you have no idea what the consequences will be - not for you and not for the country. Nobody does. But don't kid yourself that an Exit vote will return sovereignty to the UK, because it really, really won't. Not the way you think sovereignty works, anyway.
I imagine Col is referring to Parliamentary sovereignty, a principle of, and the most important part of, the UK constitution. Parliament is, and must remain, the supreme legal authority in the UK, responsible for all laws. The EU, by its institutions including its court, is constantly attempting to undermine the sovereignty of the British Parliament. By leaving the EU, we can deal with the EU as a trading partner - at arm's length.
Treaties, trade agreements etc do not damage sovereignty. Un-elected bureaucrats from abroad, making laws for my Country does.
As you know I get and respect your views on sovereignty Col. But the EU doesn't work like that, all the laws have to be ratified both by the European Parliament, which you can cast a vote for, and by representatives of the member states in the Council of Ministers, which will include someone subject to election in the UK. You can could still argue that it's too far away from home, but where does that argument stop? I could make a case for sovereignty for Warwickshire, Leamington Spa or my house on those grounds. And I might still be unhappy when my dog ends up as Prime Minister. All units and sub units of government are made up. I'd be happy to cede sovereignty of our island to a genuine, representative European Government or even a Global one, if it would make the world a better place.
