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as many people, both intra Europe and from outside Europe as possible because those people don't carry what they see as outdated cultural baggage, and as beneficiaries of open border Europe they can be relied upon to vote for more of it.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.

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

__________________
Right Way Round ...

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.

__________________