Piston Heads is an automotive forum, if they don't want political posts they are within their rights to restrict that. You do not have freedom of speech on an internet forum you have to comply with the forum rules.

Politics and religion always cause heated debates and a lot of forums I use for overland travel or automotive outright ban any discussion on these subjects to keep the forum focused and avoid arguements

(not saying fastship deserved a ban or supporting PH)

Yes I have just read Patrick Minfords (et al) paper and the take away point on successful BREXIT would leave the UK as a genuine free trading nation in which all goods & services would be bought and sold here at world prices.


Essentially, this articulates in a scholarly fashion a point I made here early on namely that the Mercedes Benz truck in that takes the cheap goods to the ship in China cost £30k whilst the Mercedes Benz truck that picks up the cheap (but now taxed) goods in the EU cost £130k. Following Prof. Minfords model, in a free, EU exited UK the truck would cost £30k here too.


The truck of course, can be an actual truck or a metaphor for any goods or services traded at world prices. Of course there will be adjustments but a genuine free trading nation rather then the EU customs union? I think that is an economy I would like to live with.




The paper acknowledges that the real winner for OUT is immigration and elucidates on the consequences and how a free UK will look post BREXIT.



re. Pistonheads - not much. It's a commercial site (so they have their "interests" to look after) populated by highly materialistic middle England types; it's like Radio 2 on four wheels :rofl:

Interesting article recently on how the European Union was actually a CIA project: The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover


Not sure Britain will be even allowed to leave the EU if it's true! But that explains Obama coming tell the brits how to vote !

Prof Minford was interviewed on the BBC yesterday and he got enough airtime to put across his main points.
It is of some interest that way back earlier in this thread some of these ideas have been mentioned previously- they bear repetition however, especially now that the much wider audience out there in the MSM is being exposed to the concepts.
e.g. WTO rules for trading would work well for the UK with no trade agreements in place, and nearly all nations on this planet are members of the WTO now.

As mentioned earlier, the EU operates a trade restriction policy which is particularly onerous for the emerging economies.

I also read that article published yesterday.
Ambrose E-P, the author, has something of a reputation for writng quite contradictory material i.e. contradicting points that he has written earlier.
Also, I think the Telegraph is one of the MSM that has banned comments about their articles - I could be wrong on that however; it doesn't bother me greatly and it was certainly highly predictable as this referendum approaches.

If you find the gist of the A E-P article of interest then you may like to search for "Gladio" online - therein lies another theory.

That paper is from 2013.
The latest joint paper from 8 economists is located here:-
Economists for Brexit

So what do people think will happen to all the EU citizens living here now if we leave ??

Will they be rounded up and sent home ?

Will Spanish and Italian workers be made to apply for a VISA to stay unless they are earning £50,000 a year (Which out of touch city Ministers think is an average wage) ??

I live in a city which is full of Continental folk living and working here. They are part of our culture now and almost everyone enjoys and welcomes the diversity and culture that they bring with them.

I can't see everyone getting rounded up and sent home because we can do the same, so I just can't see it happening. Something will get sorted. It may become more difficult for new settles to move.

:rofl: 50K a year is an average wage, what planet are they on, wish it was

Wayne

In a a word, nothing significant.
We don't manage to deport illegal immigrants never mind those who are currently in the UK legally and "working hard".

A longer answer:-
One reply to the question is that the UK could, eventually, introduce a visa system that would operate in much the same manner as that currently used by other countries, including the USA and Australia.
Based on a points allocation that gives credit for desirable criteria such as age (old people like me are a drain on the medical system), levels of education, training and experience and shortages in a range of occupations, professions and the like – for instance, virtually all employers in the UK say that they cannot recruit enough engineers (why that is the case is a moot point).

Another view is that a decision to Brexit would result in a number of years of negotiation about the exit process – some say two years, others say much longer; during whatever that time scale is the current EU regulations of free movement of everybody would still apply.
Perhaps of some significance, during any such extended time scale the next UK national elections will be due to take place, but I have never heard anyone mention this in the MSM.

£50K: I haven't seen that kind of figure mentioned anywhere else – there was some discussion a while ago that any such concept would have to take into account the average wage of a NHS nurse or a lot of nurses would be “deported” and the NHS would collapse instantly.

In summary, the broad idea of those who discuss this subject beyond the banal is that there would have to be a system of controlled immigration rather than the free for all that is in place at present.

An alternative answer, for the HUBB pub on a Saturday night, is that only the ugly ones would be rounded up and sent home.
(there is an old Norwegian joke involved therein, but I'm not going there even in this pub).

Swiss facts:
1.They have 15% immigration at present.
2. This is of concern to the Swiss people who have made that clear in a referendum that gives their government two years to come up with a solution to what is considered to be excessive amounts of foreign workers imposed upon them by the EU regulations.
The two years expires around the end of this year.

Opinion:
The Swiss have a system of democracy that is the purest/nearest thing to a true democracy this side of utopia.

It does not pay for the Swiss government to attempt to ignore the result of the cantons' referendum (from memory, there are 16 of them and each and every one has a veto).

In any case, we will continue to be able to trade with the Swiss.

A bit more about the real economy
 

Musing upon the UK economy, on the one hand we have a government in place (for now at least) that claims to subscribe to the laissez-faire (L-F) approach to everything, the economy, policy for education – everything.
A key exception lies in EU sponsored legislation which is implemented in UK law with alacrity and is then monitored and enforced by the best group of civil servants on this planet.

Meanwhile, our official “opposition” political parties have no answer to this L-F approach, being formed from and based on what amounts to discredited socialist ideology from the 19th century (even Cuba is joining in and is coming in out of the cold).
OTOH, the very same UK government (including anyone bought by the establishment) have claimed via their recent publications to be able to predict, to an order of accuracy of one decimal point, what will come to pass with the UK economy about 15 years from now.
So, we have a L-F approach to the economy on the surface but big government lies behind that; big government that is over-bearing, excessively prone to interfering and generally incompetent in that it takes short term decisions based on their own political expediency, especially when elections are in the offing.
Just put this down as some kind of anomaly or is it the best of both worlds?


Globalisation.
It's the way forward.
For trading that is.
It should be borne in mind that governments don't trade; it is businesses, and individuals, who trade – governments just get in the way, imposing national and international rules as a means of implementing their political power and influence.
But, nation states are extant; they are not going to disappear in some magical process of elimination leading to a utopian planet of world citizens, a single world currency, a single world of common taxation rates and free movement of billions of people from anywhere to anywhere else.
The evidence for this view is clearly seen within the ongoing Eurozone experiment; by any measure , it ain't working.
In the case of the UK, we have been selling off the family silver (to use one cliche) for many years – the net result is that what used to be considered to be key strategic industries are now owned by corporations based in other countries; Germany, France, India, China, USA, you name them.
Some recent examples:-
Tata Steel formerly “British Steel”, aka Corus, from India, will put the interests of their own home nation before those of the UK – their UK boss said as much to the House of Commons committee a couple of days ago.

SSI, another steel production company but based in Thailand, pull out of the UK closing down a plant for which they may* have received earlier grant funding from the UK government.
(Over the past years, various companies have done exactly this, receiving generous subsidies sourced from the UK government/taxpayers for local or national political reasons to set up a facility and then pulling out, virtually at no notice, once the subsidies have been paid into an overseas bank account and any time limitations imposed have expired).

EDF currently indulge in the internal politics of France rather than meet their commitments to UK national energy policy agreed (yet again) directly with the UK government.

The common factor is government interference in trade; a “we know better than those directly involved” approach.

Does any of this matter in the context of in/out of Europe?

*I haven't researched this because there are far too many examples in other industries; they are legion.
In addition, the recent decision to close down the SSI blast furnace was correct from an engineering point of view (and from an economic point of view, if one can get past politically inspired financial decisions, yet again).
Arguably, that plant should never have been re-opened in 2012.
Sahaviriya Steel Industries relights Redcar blast furnace | The Engineer
“This philosophy was, and could only have been dreamed up by individuals with a financial background. I can assure you they were not professional engineers”

Representative democracy in action - it's all about Trading
 

Here's another version of representative democracy that will be totally ignored, at least until next years' elections in France.
French National Assembly Votes to Lift Russian Sanctions

Edit:
That link will try to get you to sign up, and pay.

Here's the gist of the situation, as described by another online site:-
America and EU countries illegally imposed sanctions on Russia - Washington four times since March 2014 for fabricated reasons relating to Ukraine.

Nations unilaterally or collectively may not impose sanctions on other countries, individuals, businesses or organizations. International law permits only Security Council members to impose them.

They're counterproductive achieving nothing. The EU succumbed to heavy US pressure, instituting its own sanctions on Russian state-owned banks, defense and oil companies, as well as restricting sales of weapons, military and dual-use technologies, high tech and oil industry related products.

Russia responded in kind, banning imports of various EU agricultural products. Sanctions harm both sides, accomplishing nothing for either.

On Wednesday, 101 out of 577 lower house French National Assembly deputies voted on a non-binding resolution to lift sanctions on Russia - 55 for, 44 against and 2 abstentions, the majority of lawmakers not participating.

We'll need to. They'll have a lot of our jobs if we Brexit.

Really? Where do you supppose they will find a brake system expert that understands the UK trailer market? How about my customers, the ones making trailers in Belfast and Scotland and Lancashire and Yorkshire, will they ship fitters and welders in? And their customers? Sainsburys and ASDA and Morrisons can buy German or French or Turkish now but choose not to because they wont adapt the design to get into the centre of York or meet whatever safety rule Boris invents next. We export to Norway because the Germans only design for Germany.

Jobs that can be moved are already moving. To India.

Andy

Really.

So a US company moving HQ to Switzerland is them taking over our jobs.

From a US company, not a British one.

So that's a service type industry I take it? More of admin roles etc. Not manufacturing.

See I have a big problem with the way the UK now relies on banking, insurance, financial services etc.
We used to be the biggest industrial nation on earth, hell we started the industrial age. Now we're importing skills from France to build us some power stations.

We built the first commercial passenger jet, and in collaboration with the French, built the only successful supersonic passenger aircraft. Concorde. Yet today we buy from the US and France.

We once exported our skills and goods around the world, now we take a back seat and see what crumbs some faceless non elected bureaucrats throw us.

The skill level in the UK today is very poor.

Most industries are screaming out for skilled workers. There are very few apprenticeships to be had for the young, and those being done are a shadow of the ones that we did.
Our industrial nation is grinding to a halt, not through lack of work but lack of skills.

The government is now messing with the education system again we see. Its already a mess, and about to get a whole lot worse.

The only ones getting richer are politicians and bankers. A lot richer.

I think the government are bricking it. If we do vote out, it will cost a lot of them and their financial institution chums lots.

Yes this will have some backlash further down the food chain, however people will still need the basics. Food will need delivering, lorries will need mending etc, and life will go on.
If Tarquin can't afford his new Bentley, I really don't give a stuff.

Dont get me wrong, the British public can also share in our downfall. Sale of our own domestic products has always taken a beating at home.
Both the car and motorcycle industries are almost extinct due to the British consumer buying foreign vehicles over our own. But then if we were able to apply import duty, I think the number would have dropped significantly.

So back to your point. No its not one of our jobs. Its an imported one for a foreign company that will be sending profits out of the UK and being a further burden in the long run.

Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk

Yes.

The British car industry is alive and well. The fact a Nissan is made in Sunderland makes it no less British that a Cortina made in Dagenham. No one will upset this massive organisation of trained, efficient workers. If they could pick it up and move it without trouble it would be in China now. We won't stop buying their BMW's so they'll have to keep buying our Nissans. The components are Chinese anyway, so only the point of entry into the EU changes.

BMW are vocal about brexit because in the UK their brand commands a premium where as in others it drops down amongst the high-average ones. They correctly anticipate any spat will effect both BMW and Mini, but this is one German company trying to avoid a bit extra work not the whole economy.

Andy

The logic of moving to a non-EU country like Switzerland in fear of the UK also becoming a non-EU country defeats me.


My industry is the heavily regulated and protectionist airline industry. It wound me up no end to watch Paul Kahn, the president of Airbus Group UK who said Airbus would not end its activities in the UK in the event of a vote to leave the EU but warned that future investments depended “very much on the economic environment in which the company operates”. This is the same company who a week earlier rolled off its first A321 at their new US Alabama plant and the same company who offered to transfer wing production from Broughton in Wales to China in exchange for a large order. So no change there, why did they make the intervention? What they don't want is the UK or Welsh government having the ability in an independent BREXITED UK to interfere should they wish to to move production out of the UK. This is how they want it, the EU to be supreme, an EU they can and do manipulate and the Welsh or UK government having little influence. As with steel so with aerospace.


Paul Kahn failed to mention (and was failed to be challenged on) if he would also decline the billions of taxpayers money used to build up Airbus – about €5 billion per project and if we left the EU would his outfit not ask the UK taxpayer for future subsidies, subsidies on which Airbus is 100% dependent. Draw your own conclusions...


As per my recent post about Triumph already anticipating the EU legislation, on hold until after the referendum, have made up their mind about whether to be in the EU or not and voted with their feet; they have built their four new factories in Thailand and Brazil


The other day I watched Ford's European chief Jim Farley state his company's position as Britain is better off remaining. The autocutie “interviewing” him failed to challenge the man on the fact that Ford, who continue to make many components in the UK closed down the factory that made that icon of the “British one man band” the Transit Van, the last Ford vehicle factory in the UK and moved it outside the EU to Turkey. Months before the closure they took £10m off the British tax payer to bolster the Southampton plant that made it. Jim Farley (and said “reporter”) neglected to mention the fact the Ford, the wealthiest and most profitable of the US car makers also got an £80m cheap loan from guess who? Yes the EU - to build up their Turkish plant. UK taxpayers subsidised Ford to move their plant outside the EU with the help of the EU.




As Cochise would say “white man talk with forked tongue”. Take away message is, there is no econonmic downside, only upside to leaving.



In any case, this referendum will be won on immigration and a strong stomach is needed for that distasteful fight.

There is no need for a strong stomach for the immigration issue....its quite easy...put a stop to it so we as 'The British' stop getting fleeced by foreigners taking the p!33 out of our welfare and health systems.
I am a foreigner in the country I am living in, I don't ask for nowt and I definitely won't get nowt, as hard as it is, Thailand has it right in that respect

Wayne

Which one? Morgan or McLaren?

The British car industry is now owned by foreign companies or, as you pointed out, a foreign car maker with a plant over here to get round import duty and costs.

It really grates when you see smiling politicians happy that Jonny foreigner is building there cars over here and creating so many new jobs. They fail to add where the company profits are heading - out of the UK. Add in the loss of import duty that would be payable.

Jobs that would have been in the UK anyway if they hadn't meddled with our industries in that first place with forced mergers and selling off for a pittance.
Then when they sold them to their chums for next to bugger all, who then thoroughly screwed the companies, workforce and even dipped into pension schemes to fund their lifestyles, allow them to get off scot free.

This whole EU debate is really a question of who is going to screw us over the least. To be honest, I'm not sure.

Yes the EU has developed into a monster that is getting pretty much out of control, that is now making pretty bad decisions to try to hold it together.
On the other you have our own political parties that look no further into our countries future than the next general election, will sell us all down the river to get one over their opposition and above all are all in it to line their own pockets and further their own careers.

Welcome to the reality of capitalism. You can have your freedoms if you can afford it.

Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk

Fastship - Airbus is another shining example of how we continually get sold out.
I would hate to see how much money the British government sank into joint projects, like Concorde for example, for a foreign company to walk away with all the manufacturing rights.

I'm afraid it started long before that though. Duncan Sandy's white paper did more damage to the British aircraft industries than the Luftwaffe. The only aircraft to survive his cuts was the English Electric Lightning, which was almost at production stage, everything else was cancelled.

Most controversially was TSR2, which was well into development and was under going air trails. Costs were well over budget, however initial signs were this was a world beating aircraft.
Unfortunately, the US also had an aircraft in the same category that they wanted to sell, so we scrapped ours - literally - and paid out millions for theirs that didn't turn up for years. (F-111).
So badly was it delayed, that the Buccaneer was developed and put into production as a stop gap.
If
Another fantastic decision by our elected leaders. I wonder how much was made by who on these matters, or am I just being too cynical?

Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk

Nope, not you who's cynical. TSR2 was an American, criminal intervention (remember them, our “friends” as Obama likes to state) in our industry and led to a massive brain drain, mostly to the US and Canada. In Canada it happened again with the AVRO Arrow. Again that advanced project was abrublty cancelled for no good reason and led to the collapse of AVRO there and virtually destroyed their advanced aerospace industry. Much of the US civil aviation industry was populated with Brits after that, even now although the B737, a fifty year old design now was largely developed into a viable aircraft by the Germans at Lufty.


The Phantom F4 was another example of this. I read the late, great Eric Brown's biography recently. Probably the greatest ever test pilot Captain Brown was instrumental in the testing and selection of the F4 for the navy and pronounced it a great aircraft, an almost unique view even in America!

The long term upshot of all this can be seen in the JSF F35 for the two new carriers; Lockheed's programme is $200 billion over budget and it's still not performing to specs but the US has a monopoly now so what can we do? Just to reiterate, that's $200,000,000,000 over budget...and no aircraft are now made in the UK. None.


I can see parallels in the commercial world with Russia's excellent, new MS-21 and China's A-320 knock-off the C-919. Both will struggle to sell globally but not because of any technical deficiencies. It's all politics.


Getting back to the issue at hand, in a free trading nation such issues may not arise, we could import from whomever, tariff free and to whomever on whatever terms they wish to damage themselves upon.


You can only fight one battle at a time. Vote Leave.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

I see that another Brexit argument cannot be reconciled with the facts;

Brexit argues that the EU will push the TTIP and that's been one of their main arguments for leaving, but today we learn that:-

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...ock-eu-us-deal

More interestingly that;

All 28 EU member states and the European parliament will have to ratify TTIP before it comes into force.

Which isn't looking likely as the more left-leaning states will no doubt be scrutinizing the TTIP...

But here's the interesting part - Brexit portray this as some sort of amazing Braveheart-esq struggle for 'freedom', but in reality without Europe, the Tories would sell us down the river in a heartbeat;

Just thought that's an interesting example of how the EU protects British citizens from their wretched elitist government. Brexit just looks worse and worse.

Who needs an election?
 

Regarding the previous post, a couple of facts are missing:-

1. France has elections next year and Hollande has the worst polls of any sittting French president since year dot; something of the order of 25% popularity, and sinking.
Therefore, he will say whatever it takes to his target audience (small French farmers in this case) to win in 2017.

2. British national governments are re-elected every 5 years (although you wouldn't think that from the tone of the posting); the European Commission is "for ever" and completely unelected.
- We even have elections on Thursday this week.

Take your pick of these articles:-
EU Archives - TruePublica

Plutocracies replace democracies
 

But western, and westernised, nations are no longer engaged in capitalism, and therein lies the heart of the problem.

In short, real economies for real people in the real world have been abandoned by the financial engineering plutocrats (and how I do hate the latter expression and the associated bastardisation of the word "engineering").

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Yep.

The US congress would also have to ratify any such deal; some say that is unlikely given current events in the USA.
(Pres elect Trump).
Just Say No to Corporate Rule

Well we agree on that my friend, but seems to me a collective voice in the form of the EU is better to oppose the TTIP than a disorganized one. Germany and France are already turning against it. Over 3,000,000 signatories against it and a 150,000 written complaints to the EU commission from EU citizens. Together we stand, divided we fall etc.

Democratic deficiency is with us now, today
 

And there we differ: you have an amazing level of faith in the European Commission, flying in the face of all available evidence concerning how they operate.
It's called "Real Politics".
Just today, the EC has announced that Turkey will get it's visa free access to Europe irrespective of how Turkey has not done what they committed to under an earlier "agreement" that was brokered by just one nation, Germany.
Just watch the nations succomb to "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

For further reading, this is from yesterday, posted elsewhere and purloined by me for the sake of this discourse:-
"Thank you for your Blog. I did a similar thing and you can find my essays at http://www.partismfoundation.org/wp-...16-24-4-16.pdf
Whilst the Treasury’s EU Impact Analysis Report is nothing like as bad as Dave’s Dodgy Dossier which has come through everyone front door, it hasvery clearly been written to an agenda, as you say mixing apples and pears to make the points the Government wants to make. Thankfully the various Fact Checker websites (BBC, Channel 4, Telegraph etc.) appear to have done a reasonable job in pointing out the immediate errors and flaws. However, there is one major problem with the Treasury document which appears to have been missed by most commentators.
It is perfectly fair to say that, on average and when taken as a whole, immigrants contribute in taxes as much as they enjoy in public services. In fact, some calculations show that they contribute slightly more. But all these figures are based upon current account.
The argument that immigrants are social security scroungers is not only untrue but repugnant. There is the whole debate about immigrant remittances to their families overseas and the effect this has on the UK economy but that is another debate completely.
What is missing from the Treasury’s calculations and assessment is the capital cost of dealing with immigration. This is the cost of providing housing, schools, hospitals, water, sewage treatment, roads, and transport to name but a few. Each year the UK has to build public infrastructure equivalent to the size of the city of Leicester to cater for inward immigration.
If you assume the capital cost at £75,000 per person (£300,000 for a family of four), then the state has to borrow £22.5 billion to provide infrastructure for 300,000 new people arriving in the UK, and will have to do this each and every year that we are a member of the EU and have to abide by the principle of free movement of labour.
The interest on this £22.5bn is £562.5 million per year (assuming an interest rate of 2.5% – which is the long term average of UK interest rates). Using the same 26.7 million households as the Treasury, then this means that the interest cost is just a mere £21.00 per household per year. But this has to be paid every year. If you gross up these £21 per household per year for the same15 years as the Treasury has done, then the total interest cost per household is £2,840 which is about just under 70% of the £4,200 cost the Treasury estimates we are all going to be poorer in 15 years’ time if we Brexit. However, our National Debt will be £337.5bn higher, an increase of 21.6% above £1.56 trillion the UK is borrowing today.
If the EU had supported its free movement of labour policy with a fund which allowed for money to follow people, so as to pay for the infrastructure, as so many people have argued, then I for one would find it much harder to argue to leave the EU, for the only issue then outstanding would be the democratic deficit. But, there would be no democratic deficit if the EU listened and acted with appropriate policies on the genuine concerns of the peoples of this Island. Instead, continuously over the last 10 years the EU commission has refused to entertain such an idea.
It is worth comparing this idea of a Free Movement of Labour Structure Fund to the Common Agricultural Policy which takes 39% of its budget yet this sector accounts for only 1.5% of the EU’s GDP, and it only employs 5.4% of the total population; or to the Common Fisheries Policy which has killed off the UK fishing fleet whilst its CFP Fund goes to subsidising the fishing fleets of Spain etc.
The repugnant and illegal deal brokered by Angela Merkel, Jean-Claude Jancker, President of the EU Commission and Turkish President Erdogan for the repatriation of refugees from the EU back to Turkey highlights the democratic deficit. There is logic to Jancker and Erdogan being in the negotiations but why is Merkel representing the whole of the EU? Where is her democratic authority to represent 504 million people? She had none, but these people have just spent €6 billion of your and my money and struck a fundamentally illegal deal.
As I say in my essay on ‘The European Union, the refugee crises and Turkey’, this deal reminded me of the dreadful trade of human cargo of Nazi Germany and the railway sidings of Birkenau death camp.
At the end of the Second World War, the UK repatriated thousands of Poles back to Poland, at the insistence of Stalin, for them to meet dreadful deaths in his Gulag’s. It appears that those who lead the EU have learned nothing from our very recent history. Who is making sure that the EU is not repatriating any Iraqi Kurds because their chances in Erdogan’s Turkey are pretty damn slim? It makes me so damn angry.
This year the UK is going to be fined by the EU Commission €400m for breaching air quality laws. Laws which the UK can’t possible meet because we are such a densely populated country with a high proportion of diesel engine cars. These have a much higher poisonous nitrous-oxide and particulate output than a petrol car. It is estimated that around 40,000 people die each year in this country from bad air quality. We have to remember is the was the EU’s obsession for lower CO² output which caused them to promote diesel engines above petrol. What we know also know is that it the EU Comitology committee (See democratic deficit video at https://youtu.be/wPP1k8mNSYs), which is responsible for setting car standards, came under intense lobbying pressure from the car industry to set emission testing standards which were nothing like what happens when a car is driven. The discovery of VW’s emission testing defeat devise is only a small part of a scandal which goes to the heart of the EU.
One of the most frightening aspect of the EU is its determination to have its own military. How can this be a good idea, especially when it will be reporting to a bunch of unelected oligarchs? Do we really want to put our children and grandchildren at risk of being called up to fight in such an army? It is one throw from the EU becoming a military dictatorship like Egypt, Greece, Burma (now called Myanmar). Welcome back Napoleon!
Since time immemorial, people have been prepared to sacrifice democracy for economic gain. It is what brought Stalin to power in Russia and Hitler to power in Germany. It was what allowed Putin to remain in power in Russia whilst he seized back dictatorial type powers and took control of its media. It is why the UK was prepared to cede sovereignty to the EU in 1972. This is all well and good until things go wrong, as they did with Hitler, Stalin, Putin and now in the EU, when the peoples find out that they cannot remove from power those that are doing them harm.
Except now in the UK when we have once in a life time opportunity.
I hope our country is wise enough not to take the 30 pieces of silver offer by our High Priests"

I was veering on the out campaign because of the mess of the EU and I think the UK would relish the challenges without it.

Then I saw the government for what it was and realised that I don't trust a single one of them to look after what us important to me. Mainly human rights and environmental concerns.

I just don't trust our government to operate without the policing of the EU.

So I'll probably vote in.


Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Welcome to the forum!

Human Rights, its that kind of crap that is ruining the country. It takes forever to get rid of unwelcome guests...How long and hows much did it cost use to deport 'The Hook' due to him using Human Rights from Europe?
We can still have our own rights just with no one else having a say in it

Wayne

The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. It's part of the Council of Europe. You want to leave that too?

Who can blame you - dodgy Dave and his crew are not to be trusted but there will be many Governments during your lifetime and perhaps one of them will have policies you want to vote for. The EU Commission is for life and you will never have the option to vote on their directives.

One quick example of the EU abuse of Africa's environment and human rights; the CAP adds Euro 1000 to the annual EU family food bill, creates surpluses which are disposed of (dumped) using EU subsidies in Africa at prices rendering African agriculture unviable causing poverty, instability, animal poaching and mass migrations to Europe where the EU border force greets them with tear gas and battons.

Your choice but I hope even for their and Africa's sakes you vote leave.

Yes...if it means we can get rid of undesirables quicker

Wayne

Winston Churchill just turned in his grave.

Lack of democracy, and transparency
 

An interesting view point from TV tonight.
Neil Kinnock was rejected by the UK voters twice but then went off to the EU and took on powers that over-ride the UK parliament.
(he is not unique in this regard).

I can't see how you square that with the election of a new government each and every 5 years Vs the "quangos" of the Commissioners of the E Commission.

As it happens, I do think that governments should not have an automatic right to a full 5 year term and they got away with a "fast one" when that was brought into being - but it is a matter for the UK parliament to sort out that one.

:welcome: here by the way, with your first post; new blood is welcome!!

Some how I can not see Winston Churchill wanting to spend millions of pounds keeping these people in the country. Feeding, Clothing, housing, health, then plotting against us, oh and then spend millions more fighting to stay in the country they don't like because its cushy.
So if it means pulling out then Yeah.
At the end of the day if they don't like it they can always leave..or not come in the first place

Wayne

Where is the EU heading?
 

With respect to where the EU has come from and where it is intending to go over the next few years (a policy of "ever closer union" and 4-5 new member nations).
“Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.”

- Albert Einstein

Finally someone has made me consider voting to stay. If the Trump reccomends Brexit I'm thinking about doing the opposite. :rofl:

Andy

Do you Trust this man and his fellow remaniacs?
 

...his own words from his own mouth:-

https://youtu.be/JMEB6sNb0yw

Moving along ..................
 

For anyone who has been following these cases over the past 3 months, it was announced today that at least 7 police forces in the UK have started criminal investigations.
http://www.electionexpenses.co.uk/

Criminal prosecutions of sitting conservative MPs could follow + by-election re-runs of any affected seats.
The current government majority is 12.

Its the best thing Trump has said since he started bumping his lips all those months ago :rofl:

Wayne

Brexit: The (animated) Movie
 

https://youtu.be/j0pwXLtvt2w



forward to all the BREMANIACS you know beer

If trump is forit, I'm agin it.

Telling it like it is
 

One of the better written, rational discourse, that deals with nearly every aspect that has been discussed in here over the past few weeks:-
https://eurout.net/discussion/
Law.
Democracy.
Ever Closer Union.
Migration.
The economy (the real one).
Fiscal union.
Political union.
The attainment of power.
Ideology.
Et al (although the CAP seems to be missing and I don't agree with the assertion that the Euro is a "trusted" currency).


"Two half-century old questions remain unanswered: ‘To whom are you accountable?’ and ‘How do we get rid of you?’
Rather, they haven’t been answered satisfactorily, either by EU leaders or by the Remain campaign. Perhaps this is because the only honest answers are: ‘no one’ and ‘you can’t’."

This just highlights my previous posts

Judges stop Theresa May deporting terror suspects*

What the flipping hell is going on, they can stay in our country because of human rights issues if they get deported....what about our human rights!?

Wayne

What does this have to do with the EU and Brexit?

Again, the European Court of Human Rights is a function of the Council of Europe, not the European Union. Brexit means little in relation to the issues that seem to concern you.

Yes I know. Something else in my opinion we should get rid of.....I bet Churchill is turning in his grave......

Wayne

Has the dog from the insurance advert died then? I hadn't heard:innocent:

Is it groundhog day?

You tell me....you seem to be good at that


Anyway back to the topic at hand


Cameron warns Brextit would lead to War and Genocide, why make it sound that he whole of Europe will implode if we leave, I am pretty sure that will not be the case.
Housing prices going to drop, how can they say that? No one know what will happen in the next 5 to 10 years if we leave the EU OR even if we stay in the EU.
But if we stay we will more than likely still be propping up Greece financially and maybe even Italy soon

This was quite interesting
Never mind Brexit risks – to stay in EU is a bigger danger*

Because it probably will, us leaving is merely the trigger.

Mezo.

Ahh, good.

My God - their hysterical rants are getting more and desperate!

We've won this lads bier

Just heard more of Cameron’s speech today re. BREXIT meaning war in Europe and invoking the British soldiers and the “serried rows of white headstones” their testament to a safe and secure Europe. Well my great uncle was killed in his tank at Caen after the landings, his is one of those white headstones at Cambes-en-Plaine War Cemetery.


I'm sure when my uncle was burning to death in his tank he didn't think this is for the a greater EU so that my country is reduced in status to that of Alabama.


Cameron is a man who studiously avoided putting on a uniform all his life – how dare he invoke my uncles death in support of his specious arguments to remain. The man just has lost it. He is utterly contemptible.

As a family with links to various cavalry regiments we are lucky to have not had a directly related death since Mons in 1914, but I'm certainly with you on this one.

The argument is just more scare mongering too. If we are in they vote us down and the next Hitler or Napoleon gets an easy victory. If we are out and they fall out amongst themselves again we can cut off their credit like we did in 1870, no need to actually land. If they are as stable and safe as they tell us we need not worry because theyll want to settle their disputes at the negotiating table. When I see France hand their bomb controls over to the commission and name their aircraft carrier the Jaques Dellors I'll believe the EUSA has taken over from barely hidden national interests.

Andy

Very despicable. all those soldiers past and present didn't die for the UK to become what it is today.
I certainly didn't fight for my country for it to be used as a floating hotel with great benefits and to be imposed on/told what to do from someone who is in fact from a foreign country whilst paying through the nose for the pleasure.

Wayne

Just shows what utter low life these politicians are, resorting to scare tactics.

I think this vote will be which end of the stick is less shitty, and to be honest I'm still not sure.
Yes we do need to break from the EU, as all the signs are there that collapse is imminent, and if we can distance ourselves from some of the fall out all the better. Its still going to hit hard though.

But then we'll be left with this shower. Deep joy....

Sent from my KFFOWI using Tapatalk

If we vote out Dave will resign. Then its Boris or Komrade Korbyn :(

Andy

Stephen Kinnock MP for Aberavon (location of the TATA Steel Mills, killed off by the EU) is an archetypal Europhile MP, the type who will thrive here should we remain.

I was going to write a short piece on how the entire Kinnock family has deeply enriched themselves from having the snouts in the EU trough but it even made me just walk away in despair. There is just too much of it, you could write a book. Simply google "kinnock family eu earnings".

It's just got to stop.

At the moment Germany appears to have massive power in the EU and the balancing forces should be France and the UK. But France currently tends to act in tandem with Germany.

The EU as a block of 28 countries counts as the world's second largest economy by GDP, but Germany (4th), the UK (5th) and France (6th) make up more than half of the total.

The remaining 25 countries are relatively minor economies with Spain next largest at 14th (less than half the GDP of France), then Netherlands at 17th, Sweden at 23rd. Even Poland is bigger than Belgium.

Should the UK exit, Germany's percentage of the rump EU GDP rises from today's 20% to 25% further increasing the perception of power. Only France is an economic challenge (if challenge is a viable word with Holland running the economy). With argumentative Britain out of the room, Germany will have even more freedom to meld the EU in the direction it wants.

Could a rump EU hold together? Would other countries (Netherlands?) be tempted to follow the UK's lead?

In diplomatic historical terms what you quite rightly point in this paragraph is an historical anomaly. Historically, the UK always managed to incite a balance of power between the Germanic and the Francs. Even, the UK has never been shy on putting its weight behind the weakest of the two with the objective of restoring the balance of power in the continent whenever circumstances warranted such action.

It's not as if France is willingly on the side of Germany. France simply doesn't have an alternative right now and Hollande is way too blind to see any other way. Between the rock of Germany and the hard place of ideology, Hollande, like Captain Renault, simply blows with the wind. And the prevailing wind right now happens to come from Berlin. This concubinary relation won't last forever but it's where we are now. What does this mean to the UK? It means that the balance of power in the continent is now much harder to achieve than in the past. But, then again, Brexit may quite well be the straw breaking the camel's back and things revert back to their ancestral course.


It might quite well be the real and undeniable end for the EU.


Is there still an EU other than on paper? :innocent:

The Netherlands? From all countries why did you mention them? Given their affinity with Germany I'd see them as the least probable country to try an exit from the EU. In any event, in case of a Brexit, I see most likely a continued erosion of the EU albeit at a faster pace than what has been happening until now followed by an outright implosion rather than other individual countries following the UK to the exit. But if I had to speculate on this last scenario I'd say that Denmark was the strongest candidate for an exit. The Danexit.

Because of the 'tegen' (against) majorities in both the 2005 and the 2016 referendums.

Denmark would have been my second choice, especially as they never embraced the euro.

There is a stronger anti-EU feeling in the Netherlands that elsewhere. My bet for following the UK out would be Denmark who truely do want freedom from German rule on principle and Finland who also have a massive neighbour, but one that is best dealt with in the Swiss manner of not winding them up yet looking vicious enough not to bother with.

This isn't 1916 or 1816 though, the next Bismark will be working at the EU commerce comission sub-comittee on green house gas hot air not building an army. Refusing to adopt the new standard of cucumber curvature and having your quota of bacon imports cut isn't something to really have nightmares about (unless you have to read the paperwork and there is a test at the end)

Imagine how popular Frau Merkel will be if the EU has to ban Lego AND Scotch as part of the break up.

Andy

It's been well noted & documented that the UK's EU referendum is being closely monitored, and the result even more so.

IMO & unfortunately we'll highly likely to remain in & the EU dictatorship will implode even further, whilst other nations may or may not have their own EU referendum.

It's disappointing to see lack of ambition and unprofessional scaremongering on a daily basis here in the UK.

Utopia is the future
 

It is reported that Greece has an entry in the 2016 Eurovision song contest: Utopian Land.
(Incidentally Romania is thrown out of the song contest this year for non payment of the due fees to the relevant European authority).


Considering the tentative agreement that the UK PM developed with the EU a few months ago, it seems that the country would continue to remain on the periphery of the European project when this referendum is lost by the Brexit camp; neither fully in nor fully out – the worst of both worlds, marginalised while mainland Europe continues to integrate to develop the utopia.
This will not be satisfactory to the modern day political classes, even in the medium term and definitely not in the long term and it won't satisfy those politicians who speak up for an integrated union of the current European nations.


Once the Brexit supporters have lost the referendum, it will be necessary to move toward ever closer union in order to seal the referendum result and finish once and for all the argument about the direction in which both the UK and the EU are going.
This is also necessary to nail the concept that a nation can actually leave the EU. To the politicians it would be unthinkable to have the prospect of yet another referendum, 10-20-30 years (say) into the future.


To achieve this it will be necessary to complete certain actions, step by step, convincing the population via a number of means, such as establishing UK governments of national unity, drawn from and staffed by those who are committed “Europeans” while ostracising those who have argued otherwise (politics in the UK are changing greatly at present in any case):-
*The Euro to become the national currency of the UK.
*Following currency union, common rules on taxation across the new Empire.
*Integration of UK national laws with European law.
*Resolution of the unwritten constitution of the UK, so that it becomes fully integrated with a commonly developed mainland-of-Europe written constitution; this will require that the UK Royal family steps down from their current role in the UK establishment, along with any other residual monarchies in places such as the Netherlands.
*Concurrently, the Church of England would become dis-established and a proportion of premises in the UK should be given over to the new incoming and growing religions, such as Islam and the Catholic immigrants from mainland Europe; this would solve any issues concerning the upkeep of the fabric of those ancient buildings.
*A common foreign policy for Europe can be developed concurrently which will lead to the establishment of standing armed forces with an oath of allegiance to the European authorities and a common flag will be but a detail. Such an oath will be based upon secular principles which will have to be the new across-Europe “religion”.
*Naturally, everyone will be part of the Shengen agreement, national parliaments will act much as the current UK local authorities and lower level authorities can amalgamate as necessary or be dissolved if they prove to be redundant; for instance via the use of single elected mayors dealing with each of the regions.
European federal police, taxation, drug enforcement and similar cross-Europe authorities will be established as a matter of course.
*Current national overseas territories will come under new methods of providing them with foreign and defence policy, this applying to all of those territories currently covered by the UK, France, the Netherlands etc: the purpose of this will be to give the new United States of Europe (USE) access to overseas real estate as a means of establishing itself on the world stage, especially relevant to the new European navy and air force. The USE will be well placed to take on a supra-national role in the world.
*It may be possible for individual regions of the new Europe to participate in international sport (as GB perhaps in the case of this island), at least for some time, but there will also be an aim for the new country of the USE to be the primary “unit” for such as the Olympics.


There is no specific logic to the current location of the centre of this new empire being in Belgium, and it may be that a new capital will be built, perhaps on the banks of the Rhine, or the Danube for instance; somewhere more central certainly and a brand new build, a la Canberra or Brasilia.


Immigration will be a non-issue: the oft-used argument that the best levels of pay and perks have to be paid in order to attract the very best of available international talent will trickle down to all levels of social strata and economic activity.
Europe will have the very best of the nurses, dentists, soldiers, fruit pickers, street cleaners, day labourers and all other manner of trades and professions to continue commercial activity and economic growth.


That about covers it; the rest is just detail.
What's not to like?

^
All the more reason to vote to Leave the EU

Wayne

How "Project Fear" is being funded
 

How "Project Fear" is funded:

Christine Lagarde is making yet another doom-mongering ‘major intervention’ at 10am, with that €400 million fraud trial still looming over her. The IMF chief will again warn against Brexit during a meeting with Osborne at the Treasury, a geo-political courtesy return favour to the Chancellor, who campaigned hard for her to get the job. Like pretty much every group Remain have wheeled out, the IMF has received funding from the European Commission. Pro-Remain groups which have made referendum interventions have received €160 million from the Commission in the last nine years:


courtesy Guido Fawkes

I thought Brexit was "Project Fear". Fear of greater federalism, fear of losing our cultural identity, fear of worsening immigration, fear of being drawn into the Euro, fear of having European laws thrust upon us, fear of losing the Royal family, fear of EU dictatorship ...

Just saying.

I think it's going to be close but have the feeling that whilst the depth of opinion is stronger with Brexit, there's more in favour of Remain. A poll on another site. Small representative size, admittedly.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Motorcycl...17.17.35-L.png

From the Spectator
 

http://cdn.spectator.co.uk/content/u...the-140516.jpg
"Death, War, meet Brexit"

Tory MEP cracks up live on air...




"It's not fair. We've cheated, lied, bullied and faked, just as Dave told us to do, and we're still being asked these bloody awkward questions and people still want to leave. This isn't the way Dave said it would be and I'm not playing any more!"

How the EU over regulates us
 

https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM


clipped from "BREXIT THE MOVIE" full version of which can be viewed here
https://youtu.be/UTMxfAkxfQ0

or on VIMEO
https://vimeo.com/166389884


PS - how can I put up youtube clips oh here - the tags don't work :(

Watched the full version, made my blood boil at some points....all the more reason to vote Leave

Wayne

Watched the first ten minutes; really interesting, despite some questionable and obviously biased positioning. I've bookmarked it for later. :thumbup1:

Lies told to Norway before they rejected EU membership
 

Lies told to Norway before they rejected EU membership





https://youtu.be/i-UbT0g9A8c


The campaign to get Britain out of the European Union has taken a three-point lead over the "Remain" campaign, polling firm TNS said on Tuesday, the first time it has found the "Out" campaign ahead since February.

Forty-one-percent of respondents wanted Britain out of the EU, up five percentage points from a May 3 poll, while those wanting to remain in the bloc fell one point to 38 percent.


Well done Mark Carney, Balls, Osborne & Cable Mick O'Leary et al. Can we have more "Project Fear" from you plz

Remain 55% - 37% Brexit

IPSOS MORI 18.05.16

An outside opinion
 

I'm relatively new to HUBB, so I should probably confess two (or three) things about myself first:

1. As I recently broke a few bones in an accident, I currently got way too much time, which is probably why I read through way too many comments here - no offense!:innocent:

2. I am German by birth and citizenship (living snd working in the UK for some 5 years now), so I'm not unbiased to all of this but can perhaps contribute to somewhat of an outside view on this.

3. I am an economist and, having previously worked in finance, am currently doing a PhD in international monetary economics. So I can say a few things about the economic arguments being made.

I can understand the emotional case people make for Brexit in the UK to a certain degree. Britain has a very proud tradition of the oldest parliament in the world among with the pioneers of free markets and human rights, and it has defended this continent against evil in some of its darkest times, which was appreciated by the turn of history with the loss of an empire. Given all that, advise coming from the other side of the channel is understandably not always appreciated.

But then there is the reality of international policy in a globalising world: We don't live in a colonial world any more and and we face a whole bunch of problems that require international cooperation. And for that we need to move to a new understanding of governance, one based on international cooperation. Where we negotiate international treaties that are then defining our understanding on how we work and live together, trade, travel; how we protect ourselves from abuse, fraud, our consumers from malpractice etc. Since these treaties are being negotiated, one will have to commit to compromises and, yes, it implies a loss of sovereignty.

Then there is the economics of it. The biggest case seems to be made about migration. Europe seems to be overrun by refugees, in constant crisis and as a consequence everyone seems to want to the UK. First, let's establish that there is a difference between a refugee and an economic migrant and that Europe is by no means overrun by refugees, but rather behaving like a giant ***** in the light of crises in our direct neighbourhood, that we have in many cases at least contributed to. Let's also establish that roughly as many Brits live on the continent as vice versa. But more importantly, that immigration is a good thing! And yes, even in low wage segment.

A paper on the economic effects of the balkan refugee wave on the Danish labour market was published this year! Interestingly, since it used panel data one could "follow" specific cohorts of sample individuals and in away track the careers of people. It turned out that, yes, migration did increase competitive pressure in the lower wage segments. But, because the Danish labour market is very flexible, people reacted to this pressure simply by moving occupations to more productive jobs. This led to an increase in wages and employment throughout the whole labour market spectrum. Other research is usually inconclusive or shows insignificant effects for low-wage migration. But I don't know of any recent reputable paper that shows unambiguously significant negative effects of migration. So what matters isn't migration but the labour market structure.

Then, there seems an odd conviction of the British that the continent would be economically dragging along. As a matter of fact recent figures suggest that the UK is actually growing below average in the EU, that average income, taking living costs into account, is about average, that overall welfare as measured by the HDI is about average. Yes, the Euroarea is a bit of a pain but given the crises it was confronted with it is doing alright - there were crucial reforms to banking supervision, and, although not complete, a banking union is almost standing. The banking sector has consolidated (not just in Europe) and public finances in most countries have improved. But, yes, there still is a long way to go. But then, we were hit by quite some crises, and the UK has a quite a bit of a public deficit as well I believe. So no exception here.

Now, trade. Well, it's actually quite simple. The EU is a customs union. If you leave it you gotta pay tariffs. Thinking that you just simply adopted a no tariff free-trade regime sounds nice, but is also incredibly naive. Do you really think the government would simply scrap all tariffs? Come on! Think Tata, to name just one example. But also examples of tariffs or embargo's used as tools for foreign policy? Surely, the EU's protectionist policies were often horrendous - especially agricultural subsidies. But that has lost more and more in significance. In fact the often dreaded common agricultural subsidies took more than 70% of the EU budget in 1982. Now it's just about a third. When it comes to trade, don't fool yourselves. Yes, Germans will still be selling cars, and French food to the UK but it'll be more expensive and hence less. But more importantly, they'll be all too keen locking up their service sectors and that'll be a real blow to finance in the UK.

Regulation. Yes, there is silly regulation coming from Brussels. But guess what, you'll find that everywhere and Brussels bureaucracy is actually relatively small considering the size of the single market. Most of it actually considers norms and consumer protection. I actually appreciate that electrical appliances need to be tested before they can be sold and that food needs to be labeled. Also, the EN norms I think were quite useful. Yes, indeed, you can go on measuring things in stones, pounds, yards and inches, but sorry... it isn't very practicable. Can you give me one good reason why we should have different power plugs? Emission controls I believe are a good thing as well. Or the ban of certain pesticides or animal protection regulations when it comes to a lot of farming ect. But more importantly, you'll have to meet all these regulations anyway, if you want to trade with the EU.

Well, then, is the EU democratic? Yes, of course it is! All legislation that comes from Brussels has to go through the European parliament and the European Council. Actually, the Lisbon Treaty crucially strengthens the parliament and enabled it to draft own legislation to become the main legislative chamber. The EU Commission is elected by the parliament in the same way every government is and was clearly running campaigns with candidates for the presidency. When just less then half of the population is casting a vote but a clear majority is complaining about a lack of democracy, well whose fault is this then? It seems to me, that the reason people perceive the EU as undemocratic is because national decisions can be overruled. Well, but then a majority of Europeans was against it. That's democracy!

Jurisdiction: The European Charter of Human rights was essentially following a blueprint of an understanding of universal human rights drafted British lawyers after WWII. It enshrined the right to a fair trial, privacy, freedom of speech among other things. It's exercised at the European Courts of Justice in Strasbourg. The UK appoints one of the judges and one advocate general for it. Theresa May has recently criticised it for its rulings on anti terrorism laws and its enforcement on the right for privacy. But frankly, the way the UK government dealt with these rights was at times appalling and people should be more concerned about this. Today I actually saw a discussion on this on the BBC: A "constitutional expert" in defence of Brexit argued against the ECJ because it weren't British judges ruling there. What a condescending thing to say!

But frankly what I found quite surprising is to find so much Euroscepticism on this platform. Of all the people, you are the ones benefitting from it. You travel a lot across Europe and clearly benefit from open borders. You only need one currency in Europe and wouldn't have to deal with a multitude of exchange rates. And I bet many of you got holiday homes in Europe or even live abroad. Not to mention cheap airfares. So, you can't be serious when you want to vote for a lot of hassle to come just for a bit of national pride!

Cheers and apologies that this ended up so massive (as said: too much time)!

Wayne

Quite a good debate, but a bit long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTJ...ature=youtu.be

Wayne

I'm not saying that the UK won't be able to protect itself or cope with any of these things but merely that there is an advantage to be had from cooperation. Take trade sanctions against Iran for example: It was just after the EU has embargoed Iranian oil export that diplomatic breakthroughs were achieved. Take the refugee crisis: Cooperation failed and what did it lead to? A dodgy deal with Turkey. But also security: Extradition treaties were a nightmare before the common arrest warrant. And even now there should be far more and not less cooperation in policing. Needless to say how important cooperation and common regulation is in finance.

It would be a valid point, if this was a problem. But it isn't. Yes, there will be people who exploit the system. But you'll find the same for Brits. And the majority is paying into the system and has a job. Fiscally it's a very simple thing: more people pay in than receive benefits (including all kinds of indirect benefits) so it's a win. But when we talk about benefit fraud, why don't we just come up with the simple solution of working on a European social charter? Jeremy Corbyn seems to be thinking along these lines lately. Although I frequently disagree with him, I think he's got a point there. Also, the EU is letting you do quite a bit about benefit tourism: Remember, there will be a benefits ban for 4 years.

You are nowhere near the point of overpopulation in the UK. Yes, the population density is very high. But that's manly because about a fifth of the population lives in the Southeast not because there isn't enough space. Yet London has hugely benefitted from migration. Just compare it to a few decades ago when the population was in decline. And sorry, but the facts just clearly speak in favour of it. The empirical evidence is quite overwhelming.

And I'm not saying that it is. But Greece was also confronted with a set of austerity policies combined with a reform agenda, that would frankly let Thatcherism appear as a walk in the park. Look, no one would deny that Greece was messing up big time, or Germany for that matter. But there is no point in being vindictive about it. We need to get on with it. And the Greek have actually achieved more than they are often credited for. Well and Italy still has a deficit, yes. But the stubborn focus on deficits is a bit narrow anyway. They also went through some crucial labour market reform. Spain has consolidated its banking sector drastically and now sees good growth, and a fall in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. France is now finally tackling its overly rigid labour market. And most importantly, your not a member of the Euro area anyway, and will never have to be - you got a permanent opt out. So let's be fair on this.

Let's just clarify something about the WTO: It is an organisation to settle trade disputes. The EU is a member of it. As a member of the EU Britain has all benefits of of WTO membership as well. BUT added to that it benefits from no tariffs among member states. We can do this because we agreed an a common set of rules and regulations. Its called the single market, and even the Brexit camp doesn't deny that you won't have access to it any more. And that should worry you. When you look at steel tariffs by the way, you will find that the EU tariffs have led to more than a 90% drop of imports. Sure, one can levy 3-400% tariffs like the Americans do. But what's the point, if you locked out imports already? But then, didn't Brexiters pledge not to tariff anything anymore? Well...

I'm glad you mention Switzerland by the way, because I'm a frequent reader of the NZZ, a leading Swiss daily. So I follow the debate over there closely. And they can't be clearer about the warnings the sent! Following the referendum on migration, the Bundesrat is now struggling to implement legislation that is in line with the so-called bi-laterals. This is a set of rules the Swiss had to sign in order to gain access to the single market. So, just like Norway, Switzerland is effectively an EU member but can't decide on any policies. And with the recent they might've cut themselves out of the single market which is actually hitting their economy already.

Look, nobody is messing with your beloved adaptors and you can go on driving on the left and measure things in cans of thunder and bottles of sunshine. But don't you think there should at least be a minimum of common norms for things to make life a bit easier? Take a printer for example. Would you like a world in which you would have to buy different sheets of paper depending on where the printer was produced at just because one couldn't find agreement on a common letter size? And sorry, the metric system is just better. It just is! But keep your imperials. Nobody really cares in Europe.

Yes, imagine that? And you know why? Because there are other's national decisions as well. And you can have the decency to respect that! There are policies that are affecting all of Europe (trade). Decisions on this will have to be legitimised by all of Europe as well then. That's what the EU parliament is for. And guess what? Everyone had a vote in that. You may have voted for somebody else than the current commission (I hope you voted at all; and by the way: I have voted for that commission), but a majority in Europe disagreed with you then and you will have to accept that. Those are the rules of the game and that isn't any different in the UK. Funnily enough you could make the same argument against any UK government: "They're not doing what I want, I haven't voted for them, they're overruling Yorkshires council of elders... how dare they? Undemocratic!". But that's a bit childish, don't you think?

Well, the Greenwald thing was quite bad and I think you should be more concerned about your governments attitude towards privacy and press freedom in many instances (also: think Leveson), but I invite you to review some of their most prominent cases. All on wikipedia. But more to the point, this is just about living up to your own standards. British lawyers drafted the thing. And they are a panel of judges, representing all EU countries (two of them British) by the way. Sounds fair to me.

You might as well say scrap the justice system altogether. Its fantastically expensive and why having checks and balances? People will just do the right think. Seriously, don't be that naive.

This is a bit like the "What have they ever done for us"-sketch from Monty Python, don't you think?

I mean, hey, in the end of the day it's your decision and a lot of us might actually go back to where they came from. But if you think it solves any of the domestic problems that the Brexiters want to make you believe it does, you're mistaken. Nothing will be solved but a lot destroyed, so not too sure about that.

Also, I'm just giving you my opinion. So chillax! :thumbup1:

EDITED BY TIM CULLIS TO REMOVE EXCESSIVE QUOTATION

Welcome to the forum and our country. I hope our NHS is treating your broken bones to your satisfaction. In reading your viewpoint I find some of your position to be contradictory; how does restricting our country to the protective confines of the EU and its' customs union correspond with the concept of globalisation?


That controlled immigration can be economically beneficial is beyond dispute. This is what we seek in an independent UK. However, your position on immigration is hopelessly naive; EU ideologues see those people who identify themselves as British, Greek, German, French etc., instead of "European" as the chief obstacle to accelerating the single state project. They will want to inflate the population with as many people, both intra Europe and from outside Europe as possible because those people don't carry what they see as outdated cultural baggage, and as beneficiaries of open border Europe they can be relied upon to vote for more of it. It is dangerous gerrymandering. This is most clearly visible by the tear gassing, baton wielding EU border forces and their newly erected barbed wire fences we see on the news. The Schengen system of passport free travel is now effectively dead.


The future trade policy is up for grabs. In my view we have no need of any trade agreement with the EU or anyone else. We simply trade under WTO rules. Simple. Your tariffs only contribute to your further economic decline. Goods (including BMW's) will be available at world prices, not at “EU protective cartel” prices. In short, prices will fall, rapidly and steeply.


The blow to the finance and banking in the UK is already under way. The City will still face a hard time if we remain in the EU as the UK did not achieve a veto to protect it from greater control by the eurozone and from decisions of the European Court of Justice. In recent years, there has been increased tension between the eurozone and non-eurozone members, with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) having to decide on areas of contention.


There has been a trend in which the UK has witnessed a declining ability to influence the regulatory environment for the financial sector, in areas such as the bank bonus tax, the financial transactions tax and the ban on short selling. In view of this, in early 2015, there was a concerted political effort to ensure the ECJ decided in favour of the EU on the issue of allowing euro clearing to take place outside of the eurozone and in London. While this was a significant victory, remaining in the EU does not resolve the issue. In the future it is likely that the eurozone will centralise further, ensuring that the ECJ will have to decide again in the future on areas of contention. Protecting the City was
considered one of the most important aspects of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, but the legal opinion is that water tight protection was not achieved.


Regulation? As a German and an economist you will know that your country's Wirtschaftswunder was largely thanks to Ludwig Erhard and his quasi ordoliberal theory. It's emphasis on liberal deregulation is what drove Germany to its' current economic heights. What a shame therefore, that the EU and its' re-regulation will bring all that to an end. Don't take us with you.


That the EU is democratic is plainly and so obviously untrue as to not be worthy of further comment.


Of course there are some conveniences to the freedom of movement but I have no problem travelling to Switzerland as I just did, or Norway where I wish to go this summer. As for cheap air fares, low cost airlines are my profession; When Stelios, a wealthy, well connected Greek wished to start an airline where did he choose to do so? London. When Tony Ryan finally put his shoulder to the wheel one last time which city pair did he start with? London was one… Each airline, when first attempting expansion into Europe faced concerted and systematic obstruction from local, national and EU regulators and vested interests. Ironically, they are now both strong advocates of “remain” perhaps because their business models depend on the wholesale shipment of PAX from poorer EU countries to richer EU countries. I'm sure Gdansk is a worthy place, not on my bucket list though. The EU now seeks the re-regulation of the airline market through taxation, working directives and a thousand minor regulations Air France, Lufty et al can lobby the corrupt EU commission with. Don't even get me started on Alitalia!!!




Good luck with your Phd. You will find that an English Phd is more rigorous than a German Phd and in defending your thesis or dissertation you will come under more rigorous examination than I have provided here. In that and in your arguments for remain I would humbly give you some advice:-

...contradictions can't exist in nature you should therefore check you premises. "You will find that one of them is wrong."

All of the above though, is utterly irrelevant; as a scholar you will understand the concept of a moral inversion. For me this is what the EU is. A corrupt cross-section of the culturally prominent and politically connected that loudly damns all the values and virtues that being British embodies; reason, independence, self-interest, and pride in productive achievement and more besides. In this referendum, to pursue their doctrine the EU and their advocates are seeking in us, the sanction of the victim, a sanction they need from us in order to destroy us. It is their only power over us. Don't give it to them. Vote leave.

I somehow sense this it not really a welcome, is it?

Yes it does. As the German insurance system would yours. And also, as it should since I was and still paying into the pot. So I don't feel the urge to be exceptionally grateful, in case you insinuated that.


This seems to be a term used in public debate to suggest being in favour of migration when all one actually just wants to close borders and cap migration. It suggests that there is need to control, steer and eventually cap migration when this is empirically simply wrong! I know it is counter intuitive but the evidence suggests that precisely uncontrolled migration has positive employment and income effects.

How can we say this? Well, first because of the group of migrants we looked at - refugees, surely the kind of group an immigration control system would reject.

How can we say this is not because of any factors that were actually controlling for? This is dealing with a so-called endogeneity problem: The number of refugees coming into a specific region may be determined the local labour market situation which would in turn be affected by that number of refugees coming in. Thus, we cannot empirically distinguish cause and effect. The way we deal with this is by constructing an instrument for labour supply. And that is the Danish refugee dispersion policy. Because coincidentally, it was absolutely random. That means that when precisely looking at an experimental setup when any kind of control does not matter, do we get these positive effects.

And why is that? Precisely because inlanders face competitive pressure! Since when did we start believing competition was something bad? Macro-economically, labour is essentially a factor of production. So allowing for it to be traded freely and internationally (no I'm not referring to slavery but lifting immigration related work restrictions) causes efficiency gains and makes us more prosperous.

So why not do it and just abandon all borders? Well, interestingly estimates suggest that world GDP would indeed rise by some 60% if we did that but the problems are mainly political ones. In other words, we simply couldn't agree on the right terms with many countries (availability of e-passports, problems with criminal records systems and all kinds of diplomatic issues). So we ended up in a system where we unfortunately still need way to many visas to live and travel in other places. But within the EU we could and we should really, really appreciate this.

This is actually the only good point I see on the side of the Brexit campaign, although I am a big-time supporter of that single state. Because, I believe, if you guys don't want to be member of such a project, why force you into it? I thought there were some good points raised on this earlier in the discussion. In the end, Europeans want their state, the UK doesn't want it. So why should it stay in, being on a permanent break on everything?

Well, truth be told, nobody forces the UK into anything. There is a permanent opt out from the Eurozone and now from ever closer union, so it seems quite clear that the UK gets that extra of autonomy and it will keep it. Most integration happens within the Euroarea and the UK won't be affected. But what you talk about is quitting treaties that have previously been agreed and that is jeopardising the relationship between EU and the UK in an unnecessary way.


Please try to understand what trading under WTO rules means! The EU is a member of the WTO, so it does follow its rules. The UK decided to delegate its trade policy to the EU because this way it would simply have a stronger negotiating position in the WTO plus lower tariffs! And the UK has a say in European trade policy! A significant one! WTO rule means less, not more trade! What Patrick Minford is trying to sell you is a lie. His calculations seem pretty outdated to begin with and underlying assumptions are preposterous! Do you really believe the UK would abandon all of its tariffs? Or that China suddenly does a u-turn on steel? And yes, the UK market is important to the EU, but don't fool yourself: a UK government would be taken to town in Europe in renegotiations. The Swiss had to experience and the Norwegians did as well. By the way, reputable research suggests that trading blocks actually increase world trade. And again, Minford is reputable. He is an Economist equivalent to big tobacco, climate change deniers or the NRA!


No, just partly. It was mostly a catch-up of growth following previous destruction. Other countries experienced it as well. But yes, I do believe in de-regulation, and surely it played a central role in our economic success. But I also believe in market failures and that the EU is not responsible for everything it's blamed for.

How is that untrue? You could vote in EU elections couldn't you? And your PM sits in the EC, doesn't he? He even has a veto there. The only thing you can't get over is that some legislation is decided Europe-wide, meaning others have a vote as well when you would just like to force your opinion on it.

Aha. Good to know. What a high quality contribution that is!

EDITED BY TIM CULLIS TO REMOVE EXCESSIVE QUOTATION


Your economics may or may not be valid. They are your views, one amongst many. As the old joke goes:

The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: They're both wrong.

Whilst you ignore the existential reasons for rejecting the EU you still dispute its' democratic credentials; I haven't the time to express my personal views on all the ways the EU is undemocratic so I shall relay this concise, short essay.

The EU's law-making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services.

There are four key institutions of the EU: the European Commission, European Parliament, European Council and the Court of Justice of the EU. Each institution supposedly represents separate interests. The Commission represents the EU, the Parliament represents the people, the Council represents the Governments of each Member State and the Court interprets the law. However, these institutions do not do this in practice, as they all represent large multinationals and an integrationist agenda, as the intention is to create a federal United States of Europe. This new country already has a flag, a Parliament, an anthem, Presidents, currency, a legal system, legal status and a navy - to name just a few.

The EU Commission is the guardian of the treaties and enforces EU law. More importantly, this means it is the Government of Europe which has the sole right to propose the laws which increasingly encroach on our lives here in Britain.

The Commission is made up of 28 unelected commissioners, who cannot be held to account. Each commissioner has a specific policy area in which to create laws. The Commission has a President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker); unlike the other 27 commissioners he is personally elected by the European Parliament, however his was the only name on the ballot paper, not exactly democratic. The Commission is advised by the Directorate General, which along with the Commission is heavily lobbied. Once the Commission proposes an EU law, this proposal is taken to the Parliament.

Secondly, the Parliament is made up of 751 MEPs who are elected by the people in EU Member States every five years in elections. National parties arrange themselves into European groups of similar parties throughout Europe. It also has a President (currently Martin Schulz) who was voted in by the Parliament, but once again he was the only candidate. Theoretically, the Parliament has the ability to remove the Commission; however the Parliament has never successfully been able to remove it - even when the Commission has been full of corrupt cronies. The Parliament didn't even remove the commission of 2004 to 2009 which was full of questionable characters. This Commission included Siim Kallas the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after £4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia's national bank.

This is not a Parliament in any real sense, as they have no right to propose laws. Instead it is a façade, created to make the EU look democratic, rather than give the public a choice over those who makes their laws. The Parliament does vote and can make amendments on laws proposed by the Commission, but the Commission must accept any of the amendments proposed for the changes to become effective, showing where the power lies.

Additionally, once something becomes an EU law, the Parliament has no ability to propose a change to this law. All the power is given to the Commission. It is clear the public's elected representatives do not matter in the EU. It's a 'club' to push through laws which would be rejected by national Parliaments. Once the Parliament approves an EU proposal, it is sent to the European Council.

The European Council - sometimes called The Council - is the meeting of the Member States. It is called the European Council when the leaders of each Member State are in attendance, and The Council when it's the ministers for the policy area being discussed attending. This is the final hurdle any European proposal has to pass in order to become law. Decision-making at this stage is done almost entirely by Qualified Majority Voting. This means the UK Government can vote against a proposal and as long as it receives enough votes from the other Member States it becomes law in the UK anyway. The UK only has a veto to prevent EU laws impacting the UK in a very minor number of areas. If the European Council/Council approves proposals, they become EU law. They will be in the form of EU regulations or directives. If they are regulations the new EU law applies to all Member States without any of those states having to pass legislation in their own home Parliaments. If they are directives, the national Parliaments are forced to change their national laws within a specific time limit to comply with EU law - whether they want to or not.

Finally, the Court of Justice of the EU is supposed to interpret EU laws to ensure they comply with the EU treaties. Unfortunately, it does not do this. It happily ignores the treaties when it wants to if the EU is pushing its own federalist agenda. This is not a court like we have in this country; it is a kangaroo court wilfully ignoring the rule of law, as it did with the bailouts which should have been deemed illegal. The treaties clearly stated bailouts were illegal, but as the bailouts helped to prop up the failing Eurozone project, the EU court allowed them anyway.

The EU is a highly undemocratic organisation ratcheting more and more power with every passing day. It is impervious to public opinion. The people who matter in the law-making process are unelected and therefore unaccountable. The only way to secure genuine democratic control over our own law makers is to leave.

In choosing to dispute the above you would lead me neatly on to the ultimate error you make; ignoring the “law of identity” :- A is A.

Again I haven't the time to define the philosophy in relation to the EU and nationality so I will quote from the good book - and you may or may not "get it":

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

And to which I would merely add – I Am British! A is A

Look, I guess it's pointless going on about this. If you believe the EU is ruled by the Illuminati, then that's your opinion and I accept that. But I won't exhaust myself in something that frankly has stopped being a debate a long time ago. I actually just wanted to state my opinion and I've done that now.

On the 23rd you'll cast your vote and I'll hope for the best and on the 24th the world will still be turning and we will still be biking.

In that sense,

cheers!

@ Paul Wohlfart
@ Fastship

Outstanding points of view chaps. Simply wonderful to read your highly intellectual comments and arguments.

Don't stop. Keep it coming. I'm learning a lot. :thumbup1:

BUT puhleeze keep it friendly and open-handed. We are all mates in here. Transcending borders. Always our common aim.
bier

Cheers, glad you enjoyed it. No offence taken from or intended to fastship. So for me that's all cool. I just simply don't see a point in discussing articles from the out campaign or logics now. I think we're getting a bit off topic here. I guess I wrote enough to justify my opinion so that everyone can make up their minds on it.

So for now I rather leave it to others to chip in!

I thought Illuminati is what Ducati fit to the front of their bikes for those dark nights. :rofl:

I am chilled Paul, just giving you my input to your points bier

Ride safe

Wayne

Yup or ...............
 

As I stated on another site already, this reminds me of the "Frozen" song:

Let'em go, let'em go
If they don't wanna stay let'em go.

Whether or not GB will be better off without the EU .... well, who really knows.

@Paul Wohlfarth

Thanks very much for your succinct and informed post, I'm afraid this thread had ceased to contain any such content long ago. And that's the issue really, ridiculous propaganda touted by both sides makes it difficult to come to a reasoned decision.

Having said that the latest nonsense spouted by the Morons Messiah (aka Boris, or is it Churchill reincarnated) has solidified my position.

I'll be voting to stay.

Osbourne did it for me. "House prices will fall".

Will this be because the atmosphere will catch fire and a plauge of frogs will descend or because there will be fewer immigrants needing somewhere to rent for the few hours they aren't at Sports Direct?

What a shower of idiots who think we believe their scare stories. Can't we replace the lot with a Saturday night TV show and phone vote? At least that way the population learns dancing dogs and talentless teenagers get boring after a few weeks. The one where Ant and Dec have to tell the family of HMS Boaty McBoatface that their Sons are lost at sea might educate a few too.

Andy

So if you between 25 and 64 you don't exist? As this group are the real income earners I wonder what that result would show?

You can make numbers show its mathematically possible for an elephant in stilettos to balance on a golf ball, but reality is somewhat different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

just returned from France
 

Contrary to your view, the population of France, that I have experienced during my second visit there in the past 6 weeks, is in revolt against their own elites.


People with whom I interacted showed great disdain for the Euro currency and all things associated with it; sure thing, this is just a random sample of people, but real people such as those at camp sites and manning reception desks at hotels.
Clearly you circulate among others.


Regarding your adherence to your economic theories; they are thoroughly dis-credited and are just a part of the problem offering simply more of the same old, same old, same old .......................... All related to the TINA syndrome churned out by the vested interests.
(take a look at the economic crisis thread).


Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education.
- Mark Twain

If only.

The EU is much more akin to "Hotel California".

Incidentally, during one of my recent conversations with a Frenchman, he referenced to VE day which received absolutely no coverage in the UK TV channels so far as I can recall (I no longer take any notice of them and view other channels, produced from outside the UK, for news coverage and commentary).

You seek, you find. You knock, they might let you in.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Motorcycl...11.20.25-L.png

Are you suggesting that the polling data, remembering that this was a poll of polls, is somehow trying to represent a particular view?

Oh and:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Motorcycl...3lrqtujy-M.jpg

The European Army.
 

Just got back from an ace weekend away at Mugello. If you only go to one race go to this one! :D


Dodgy David Cameron who has repeatedly made it clear that the United Kingdom will never be a part of the European Union Army was once again caught in a lie as a military exercise taking place on Salisbury Plain at this very moment involves the second Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment and the fourth infantry brigade with the flag of the “EU Battle Group” emblazoned on their vehicles. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...3864361554.jpg



European Union Battle Groups are composed of three 1500 rapid response a team of troops, directed by the EU Council of Ministers, and is designed to respond to security crises.


The Council of Ministers is the unelected executive of the EU.


A European Army is in the future of the EU. The EU's long term policy is to displace the US dominated NATO but has not had the structures or funds to do so to date.


A German Government white paper outlines steps to gradually co-ordinate Europe’s patchwork of national militaries and embark on permanent co-operation under common structures. The paper was originally scheduled to be published earlier this year but its' controversial contents caused it to be delayed until after the referendum lest it gave ammunition for the cause of BREXIT.


At the European level, the paper calls for “the use of all possibilities” available under EU treaties to establish deep co-operation between willing member states, create a joint civil-military headquarters for EU operations, a council of defence ministers, and better co-ordinate the production and sharing of military equipment.


When the remainiacs led by Cameron et al claim that Britain is safer and more secure with our European Allies, those of us with longer memories will recall Mitterrand of France refusing to recall French technicians from Argentina who were fusing exocet missiles for that country which went on to sink HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor killing may British servicemen and merchant marine and damaging the chances of victory and also Belgium who halted the export of artillery shells and small arms ammunition to the UK during that conflict and at our time of most need.


The recent vote in Parliament not to go to war in Syria can, in the future be overruled by the EU Council who under the Lisbon Treaty, will have supremacy over national Parliaments.

If you want British troops only under democratic, British command and for a safer UK there is only one option: Vote Leave

Well as you love your figures and stats so much, you might noticed the ones from the previous post of yours don't match. In some instances, not even close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk