The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

mikey_dragon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

I got confused there between tariffs and trade barriers after reading that email posted by Tattie. So the question is are the tariffs extortionate? Is it more affordable than sending the EU a lot of money every week? I can't see the tariffs being that high (I don't actually know) but I also believe the powerhouse that is the UK would be in a position to negotiate terms on this - I guess that makes me a racist idiot according to some for believing that. Reading on the email actually answers those questions I've just asked under the question EU's Common External Tariffs. It's a win-win situation for EU exit.

mikey_dragon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ent you're just coming across as one of the remain snobs looking down their nose at people who disagree with their view. I was always a fan of the leave campaign, but the lies and discrimination against the opposition coming from the stay brigade is nothing short of embarrassing.

The fact the Leave lot can't come back with anything sensible/intelligent/accurate/factual to rebuff what Ent is saying does not make Ent a snob.

It's there, and I can also see it has been posted on this thread (like Tattie's post). The stay brigade just won't have it/dismiss it - that's what we've come to expect from them. I like reading the debate on here as I'm seeing a lot less of that than I do elsewhere, especially now that Ent has apparently upped sticks. I don't think Ent is a snob either btw, I read his last few comments and said he was coming across as one of the typical remain snobs who dismiss everything that disagrees with their POV. You may not agree with me but I've been finding that all of the lies and scaremongering is coming from one side, the remainers - and folk like me didn't even need any more conviction to be a BR-exit crusader .

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Ent wrote:No duty it is a fact because various groups have looked into it, the main bit of research coming from UCL.

You're entrenched opinion is the migrants are bad and look to discredit anything that says otherwise.

You are genuinely one of the stupidest people I have ever come across.

Research that didn't look into the cost of public services? Wage compression? Extra demand on housing? Or health services? School places? The costs of unemployed British people as a result?

You should read into things, rather than just glancing at the headlines and taking it as read.

I remember one EU-sponsored report which claimed immigration had cost the UK £120 billion. You're just looking for ones that support your point of view.

I'll use bullet points so you understand (pi$$ing in to the wind using that word):

• Between 2000 & 2011 immigration (EU migrants) contributed £20bn to the economy
  

• Those migrants would've cost £6.5bn in education if they were British
  

• Immigrants are 43% less likely to receive state benefits
  

• Immigrants are 7% less likely to live in social housing
  

• 25% of immigrants from A10 countries have a degree, 65% of those from EU-15 countries have a degree, compared to 24% of natives.
  

Immigrants increase aggregate demand and thus total aggregate spend within the economy. Such a scenario leads to increases in need for labour and thus job opportunities.

Your lack of knowledge on the benefits immigration brings is astounding.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ent you're just coming across as one of the remain snobs looking down their nose at people who disagree with their view. I was always a fan of the leave campaign, but the lies and discrimination against the opposition coming from the stay brigade is nothing short of embarrassing.

The fact the Leave lot can't come back with anything sensible/intelligent/accurate/factual to rebuff what Ent is saying does not make Ent a snob.

It's there, and I can also see it has been posted on this thread (like Tattie's post). The stay brigade just won't have it/dismiss it - that's what we've come to expect from them. I like reading the debate on here as I'm seeing a lot less of that than I do elsewhere, especially now that Ent has apparently upped sticks. I don't think Ent is a snob either btw, I read his last few comments and said he was coming across as one of the typical remain snobs who dismiss everything that disagrees with their POV. You may not agree with me but I've been finding that all of the lies and scaremongering is coming from one side, the remainers - and folk like me didn't even need any more conviction to be a BR-exit crusader .

Tbh, if you see it as snobbery and not a pretty big bloody clue that leave is wrong, then that's your issue.

If I said the sky was orange and Ent said no it's blue. And I said no it's orange. And Ent said well actually it's not even blue that's simply the illusion created by the diffraction of light passing through the earth's atmosphere. And I said no, it's definitely orange. And Ent went out and sourced research reports and opinions from the world's leading scientific experts supporting his position. And I still said, nah nah nah blah blah it's definitely orange.

......that wouldn't make Ent a snob.  Nor would it make the other people that also agree the sky isn't orange a snob.

superflyweight wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Reading one of the more recent lies spouted off by the scaremongering Stay brigade is that if the UK left the EU, Scotland would leave the UK to remain in the EU. Now whilst I don't necessarily see Scotland leaving the UK as a bad thing, and I'm sorry to say I know a few English that would be more than happy to see Scotland go, I would like them to stay in the UK. So do the Scots believe there's any truth in this?

Polling indicates this to be false. There is not a majority consensus in Scotland to hold a second referendum if the UK leaves the EU and, even if there was, I find it unlikely that the SNP would push for one knowing that they would lose.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14508986.Scots__would_oppose_independence_referendum_if_a_Brexit_goes_against_their_vote_/

Believe me, I follow Scottish politics closely, if the UK as a whole votes Leave, and Scotland votes Remain, the SNP will push for another referendum. No question. Sturgeon is too clever to want it, but her party (the governing party up here, albeit without a majority) will accept nothing else. What is more interesting is whether Westminster will allow it (which will create an almighty hornets next up here). As a "No" voter I was perfecty willing to accept that a consequence of a "No" vote could mean the UK voting together to leave the EU. The SNP argue that the point was lost on us, and we didn't understand that, and that we were somehow duped. I can see Westminster taking a pretty hard line: "you had your referendum, you had your chance, you had two years of debates etc. and the result was conclusive. No further referendum.". That will case riots up here - the SNP faithful have never and will never accept "no" for answer, and care little for democracy. It is a concern for those of us in Scotland who believe strongly in the UK, but I don't see it swaying many south of the border.

Agree with this, but if UK does leave, I could see the SNP making it part of their 2021 manifesto that they will insist on a referendum in 2021/2022 if they return a majority.  

Not sure Westminster will agree, but as you say, things will turn ugly if they don't.  

Rowley wrote:The Scottish Referendum, the once in a lifetime vote they're going to do twice.

Duty281 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

I got confused there between tariffs and trade barriers after reading that email posted by Tattie. So the question is are the tariffs extortionate? Is it more affordable than sending the EU a lot of money every week? I can't see the tariffs being that high (I don't actually know) but I also believe the powerhouse that is the UK would be in a position to negotiate terms on this - I guess that makes me a racist idiot according to some for believing that. Reading on the email actually answers those questions I've just asked under the question EU's Common External Tariffs. It's a win-win situation for EU exit.

I can refer you to the excellent Earl of Dartmouth's trade arguments:

If you scroll to page 69, you will see that tariffs have largely fallen over the past few decades to around, or just over, 5%.

http://iddeurope.org/pdf/INCONVENIENT_TRUTHS_ABOUT_UK_TRADE_AND_THE_EU.pdf

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

I got confused there between tariffs and trade barriers after reading that email posted by Tattie. So the question is are the tariffs extortionate? Is it more affordable than sending the EU a lot of money every week? I can't see the tariffs being that high (I don't actually know) but I also believe the powerhouse that is the UK would be in a position to negotiate terms on this - I guess that makes me a racist idiot according to some for believing that. Reading on the email actually answers those questions I've just asked under the question EU's Common External Tariffs. It's a win-win situation for EU exit.

I can refer you to the excellent Earl of Dartmouth's trade arguments:

If you scroll to page 69, you will see that tariffs have largely fallen over the past few decades to around, or just over, 5%.

http://iddeurope.org/pdf/INCONVENIENT_TRUTHS_ABOUT_UK_TRADE_AND_THE_EU.pdf

The article is a bit "ranty", but the facts are pretty clear and well put together. What he's basically saying is that if we vote Remain, we will incur no tariff charges on EU trade, but if we vote Leave, we'll pay between 5% - 10% on EU trade until such point that we conclude a trade agreement.

Remain = 0% charge.
Leave = 5% - 10% charge.

ShahenshahG wrote:Isn't that the ukip guy who wants to include the NHS in the TTIP agreement so his mates in the U.S can bid on it?

mikey_dragon wrote:Minus the money/membership fees () we give to the EU right now FES?

Duty281 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Isn't that the ukip guy who wants to include the NHS in the TTIP agreement so his mates in the U.S can bid on it?

He might well be, but I see not the relevance.

Duty281 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:2. The trade point is a biggie. Firstly I believe it is inevitable that the EU will impose some form of financial penalty in the form of tariffs on the UK for leaving. It would be political suicide for the EU to allow the UK the leave and cease paying into the EU budget, cease having to comply with free movement of workers, cease having to comply with EU laws around workers' rights and product compliance, and yet allow tariff-free trade. Your point around trade agreements with the rest of the world is a fair one, but I do wonder why we think we'd get a better deal than the EU in negotiating these. From a practical perspective we will also need to spend a fair bit on additional civil servants with experience in negotiating these. Gus O'Donnell has made the point that all the skilled negotiators for international trade deals currently reside in Brussels as employees of the EU (those "bloated Brussels bureaucrats" Farage keeps referring to). We will need to employ some of these people (which of course erodes the pot of money Leave seem to think we'll get by leaving but anyway, these aren't details we've heard much about).

If we don't negotiate a free-trade deal with the EU, then the EU is not allowed to discriminate specifically against the UK in the form of tariffs. Because we have a £60 billion trade deficit with the EU, it is highly unlikely that the EU would even want to punish us for leaving.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/

Not only do they want UK money to prop up the EU - they want to fine us and discriminate against us for wanting to leave, make our own rules and keep our own money. Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread btw - it's a lot better than the BS I read on a daily basis via social media. No petty bickering, or lying, just intelligent debate. Keep it up folks.

If we leave the EU then we will require a trade deal with the EU much like any other country outside the EU. Unless we are prepared to accept a compromise model (e.g. Norway and Switzerland), and I can see why thay would be attractive to Leave, then we will have to accept tariffs in exactly the same way as every other country outside the EU. That is not a "fine" or some form of "discrimination", it is equal treatment, nothing more nothing less.

Many Leave supporters see it as a price worth paying, which is fine. But to suggest that the UK would get preferential treatment (and that the EU would discriminate against the ROW), and be able to get the best of the EU without paying anything in or accepting free movement of workers or open borders, is a stretch. Then there's the political angle as well. The EU is a club, and like any club there is little sense offering all the benefits of the club without asking recipients to pay the membership fee and play by the club rules. If the UK is allowed to leave, but remain in the free trade area without having to make a contribution, keep its laws equivalent and open its borders, why on earth would other countries not just take the same deal?

If I were to play devil's advocate for a moment and sit on the Leave side of the fence, I'd say the best argument for Leave is sovereignty. There is a democratic deficit in the EU and the UK has been subject to some pretty spiteful legislation in the past, and been able to do very little about it. Following the financial crisis London was very much targeted by the EU Parliament and Commission with some disproportionate and fairly draconian pieces of legislation brought about to attack the fund industry in Europe (which is predominantly based in London). The UK Treasury and FSA (at the time) could do little more than lobby, and that never sat well with me. This was legislation being passed in Brussels, poorly drafted and going far beyond the G20 stated aims, that would predominantly affect UK companies. It felt like Brussels voting for Christmas, with the UK playing the role of the turkey.

Still, I maintain that the benefits outway the burdens to a significant degree.

I got confused there between tariffs and trade barriers after reading that email posted by Tattie. So the question is are the tariffs extortionate? Is it more affordable than sending the EU a lot of money every week? I can't see the tariffs being that high (I don't actually know) but I also believe the powerhouse that is the UK would be in a position to negotiate terms on this - I guess that makes me a racist idiot according to some for believing that. Reading on the email actually answers those questions I've just asked under the question EU's Common External Tariffs. It's a win-win situation for EU exit.

I can refer you to the excellent Earl of Dartmouth's trade arguments:

If you scroll to page 69, you will see that tariffs have largely fallen over the past few decades to around, or just over, 5%.

http://iddeurope.org/pdf/INCONVENIENT_TRUTHS_ABOUT_UK_TRADE_AND_THE_EU.pdf

The article is a bit "ranty", but the facts are pretty clear and well put together. What he's basically saying is that if we vote Remain, we will incur no tariff charges on EU trade, but if we vote Leave, we'll pay between 5% - 10% on EU trade until such point that we conclude a trade agreement.

Remain = 0% charge.
Leave = 5% - 10% charge.

Quite, with the added benefit that we won't be wholly reliant on the EU to conduct our trade deals with non-EU countries. Instead, we'll have the freedom as a nation to do it ourselves and, considering the EU economy will continue to decline in terms of global share, this is a huge, long-term advantage to Leaving.

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ent you're just coming across as one of the remain snobs looking down their nose at people who disagree with their view. I was always a fan of the leave campaign, but the lies and discrimination against the opposition coming from the stay brigade is nothing short of embarrassing.

The fact the Leave lot can't come back with anything sensible/intelligent/accurate/factual to rebuff what Ent is saying does not make Ent a snob.

It's there, and I can also see it has been posted on this thread (like Tattie's post). The stay brigade just won't have it/dismiss it - that's what we've come to expect from them. I like reading the debate on here as I'm seeing a lot less of that than I do elsewhere, especially now that Ent has apparently upped sticks. I don't think Ent is a snob either btw, I read his last few comments and said he was coming across as one of the typical remain snobs who dismiss everything that disagrees with their POV. You may not agree with me but I've been finding that all of the lies and scaremongering is coming from one side, the remainers - and folk like me didn't even need any more conviction to be a BR-exit crusader .

Tbh, if you see it as snobbery and not a pretty big bloody clue that leave is wrong, then that's your issue.

If I said the sky was orange and Ent said no it's blue. And I said no it's orange. And Ent said well actually it's not even blue that's simply the illusion created by the diffraction of light passing through the earth's atmosphere. And I said no, it's definitely orange. And Ent went out and sourced research reports and opinions from the world's leading scientific experts supporting his position. And I still said, nah nah nah blah blah it's definitely orange.

......that wouldn't make Ent a snob.  Nor would it make the other people that also agree the sky isn't orange a snob.

What has Ent said that is intellectually wonderful?

mikey_dragon wrote:TopHat you're doing it again. The remainers can argue their case all they want. They just seem incapable of doing it without hurling insults, scaremongering and looking down their nose at the opposition. Outside of that, some are capable of making reasonable and well-informed arguments. BTW allow me to clear it up, it was Ent's attitude and responses when he was questioned, not so much the POV he was trying to put across.

Duty, thanks. I'll have a look into that link and take it forward to some of the liars I know, you're a ledge mate.

A free-trading Britain, say Brexiteers, would no longer be held back by protectionist EU members. But other countries’ trade negotiators might find the British market of 65m consumers less alluring than the EU’s 500m. The top American trade envoy, Mike Froman, has said his country would not be interested in a bilateral deal with Britain. Agreements that China has signed with Iceland and Switzerland are lopsided towards the Chinese.

Coxy001 wrote:Stupidness again surrounding trade:

A free-trading Britain, say Brexiteers, would no longer be held back by protectionist EU members. But other countries’ trade negotiators might find the British market of 65m consumers less alluring than the EU’s 500m. The top American trade envoy, Mike Froman, has said his country would not be interested in a bilateral deal with Britain. Agreements that China has signed with Iceland and Switzerland are lopsided towards the Chinese.

           
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ent you're just coming across as one of the remain snobs looking down their nose at people who disagree with their view. I was always a fan of the leave campaign, but the lies and discrimination against the opposition coming from the stay brigade is nothing short of embarrassing.

The fact the Leave lot can't come back with anything sensible/intelligent/accurate/factual to rebuff what Ent is saying does not make Ent a snob.

It's there, and I can also see it has been posted on this thread (like Tattie's post). The stay brigade just won't have it/dismiss it - that's what we've come to expect from them. I like reading the debate on here as I'm seeing a lot less of that than I do elsewhere, especially now that Ent has apparently upped sticks. I don't think Ent is a snob either btw, I read his last few comments and said he was coming across as one of the typical remain snobs who dismiss everything that disagrees with their POV. You may not agree with me but I've been finding that all of the lies and scaremongering is coming from one side, the remainers - and folk like me didn't even need any more conviction to be a BR-exit crusader .

Tbh, if you see it as snobbery and not a pretty big bloody clue that leave is wrong, then that's your issue.

If I said the sky was orange and Ent said no it's blue. And I said no it's orange. And Ent said well actually it's not even blue that's simply the illusion created by the diffraction of light passing through the earth's atmosphere. And I said no, it's definitely orange. And Ent went out and sourced research reports and opinions from the world's leading scientific experts supporting his position. And I still said, nah nah nah blah blah it's definitely orange.

......that wouldn't make Ent a snob.  Nor would it make the other people that also agree the sky isn't orange a snob.

What has Ent said that is intellectually wonderful?

It probably went over your head.  You think the sky is orange.

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah...negotiated in times of easy access to the E.U

Immigration has been in the news a lot lately, especially with the EU referendum coming up.

So let's use the tools and data of political science to understand the topic better.

Last year, 270,000 EU citizens immigrated to the UK, and 85,000 returned to the EU. So EU net migration was around 185,000 (1). Additionally, a similar number came from outside the EU, so 330,000 in total.

That was the highest ever level of EU migration – going all the way back to when we joined the EEC in 1975. Indeed during the 1980s the trend was the other way – British workers moved overseas, particularly to Germany, as their economy was doing better than ours at that time. You might remember the TV show ‘Auf Wiedersehen Pet’. Currently our economy is doing better than many European ones so more people are coming than going. But there's no reason to think that will always be the case.

The Leave campaign claim that EU migration is putting unsustainable pressure on our public services, worsening the housing crisis, putting pressure on the NHS, on schools and on our roads. Their latest TV broadcast for instance shows a sick older lady receiving NHS treatment much faster in an imaginary hospital if we leave the EU. Are they right?

Imagine that we left the EU and banned EU immigration completely. Nobody else allowed – no footballers, no entertainers, no chefs, no businessmen, no nurses, no cleaners, nobody. And we kept that door shut for ten years. And for comparison let’s say that we stayed in the EU and immigration continues at this year’s record level (the highest ever) for the next ten years. How would that impact our population and our public services?

In terms of population, we’d end up with 1.85m fewer people living in our country after the 10 years. That sounds like a lot of people, which it is. But we’re a big country – 64.6m in total at the moment (2). So even under these very extreme assumptions the difference is only 2.8%. Less than 1 in 35.

Would you notice the difference if there were 34 instead of 35 people in your doctors’ waiting room? If there were 34 instead of 35 cars ahead of you in the traffic jam? Would your child’s education suffer in a class of 34 instead of 35? I doubt it.

And don’t forget that we’re making crazily unrealistic assumptions about how much we could reduce immigration if we left the EU. Because even the most ardent Leave campaigners don’t say that we should stop immigration altogether. They usually talk of using a points system to reach the government’s net target of 100,000 per year. So the difference in population after 10 years wouldn’t be anything like as much as 1 in 35.

Let’s say we could hit the net target of 100,000 – half from the EU and half from non-EU countries for the sake of argument. In that case, the difference in population after 10 years would be 1.35m or 1 in 49.

And don’t forget that we’re also making another very aggressive assumption – that migration will continue at the same level as last year, our highest ever. It would be more realistic to take the average of the last five years migration (3). If we do that, then the difference in our population after ten years would be only 790,000 or 1 in 82.

1 in 82.

I can’t tell the difference between a crowd of 81 and 82 people (even when they were my own wedding guests!). Can you?

So here’s the thing: however you feel about EU immigration, even under extreme assumptions the impact on our overall population just isn’t very large.

Now at this point some of you might be thinking – “This can't be right - step outside and look with your own eyes! Britain is full of foreigners! The place I grew up is like another country! How can you claim that EU immigration is not significant?”.

I live in inner London so I can sense where you might be coming from. A few things to bear in mind:

1) The overwhelming majority of immigration to the UK over the last 40 years has been from outside the EU (3). However you feel about that, it has nothing to do with our EU membership;

2) Whether you like it or not, Britain has been a multicultural country for several generations at least. You can’t tell whether somebody is an immigrant just by looking at them (sorry if this is an obvious point). You might hazard a guess at their ethnicity or race but that’s a very different thing;

3) Historically, immigrants have clustered in particular areas of the country, so your neighbourhood may not be representative of the country at large;

4) British people from all backgrounds have become much more cosmopolitan in their tastes over the last 40 years. We drink in pubs much less, but enjoy wine at home or go to restaurants and cafes a lot more. Instead of just eating British food, we enjoy flavours from all over the world. So the retail and commercial landscape of our country has changed - to reflect our changing tastes, not just because of new arrivals.

“But wait! What when Turkey, Montenegro and Albania join the EU? We’ll be swamped!”

No we won’t.

Mainly because Turkey and Albania are nowhere near being eligible to join the EU, and Montenegro is tiny. Also don't forget there are 27 other countries in the EU to choose from if residents of those countries did fancy a change of scene.

And even if in the distant future many other countries did join and we did find ourselves swamped, Britain could leave. We’re free to leave the EU whenever we want. But if we leave and then want to rejoin, we’d need the consent of all 27 other member states. Better to stay and keep our options open than leave in fear of something that is very unlikely to happen.

And so far we’ve also not factored in the contribution that immigrants make to our country, and specifically our public finances. EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they use in public services, as they are much more likely to be of working age than the general population (4). So if we used that extra tax revenue to hire more doctors, build more schools, invest in transport and so on, we’d actually have better public services than we would without any EU immigration.

It takes time to hire and train teachers and doctors, build schools and roads, and so forth. So it’s true that a sudden influx of people into an area can put short-term pressure on services. But the fundamental reason for the issues we identified at the start – NHS pressure, oversubscribed schools, congested roads, the housing crisis – is not EU immigration.

We are now six years into a government austerity programme to attempt to balance the books. So it’s not surprising that our public services are feeling the pinch.

An ageing population and new advances in medicine put particular strain on the NHS.

For the last thirty years, we have failed by a wide margin to build enough houses in the UK. Interest rates have been at an ‘emergency’ rate of 0.5% for the last seven years. That is why house prices are so high.

And this story of decades of underinvestment is repeated for our roads and railways too.

All of these issues are home-grown. And all of those policy areas are entirely within the control of our government in Westminster. They have nothing to do with the EU and are not the fault of EU migrants.

Finally, there’s been plenty of academic research into this issue, including a summary paper just published by the London School of Economics (5).

The research shows, contrary to many tabloid headlines, that

1) Immigrants do not take a disproportionate share of jobs created by our economy;
2) There is no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on wages;
3) There is no evidence that EU migrants affect the labour market performance of native-born workers (i.e. make it harder for native-born workers to get promoted, get a pay rise, etc)

So it is clear from examining the evidence that fears of immigration have been blown out of all proportion by the Eurosceptic press and the Leave campaign.

But what about all that money we send the EU? Couldn't we use that to improve public services?

Yes, but it wouldn't go very far, and it would be outweighed by the economic damage from leaving.

Our net contribution to the EU was £8.5bn last year (6) which works out at 36 pence per person per day. That is a drop in the ocean compared to our annual NHS budget of £116.4bn (7).

And if you’re trying to work out the impact of leaving the EU on our public services, you can’t just look at our net contribution. You also need to consider the effect that leaving would have on the size of our economy, and hence the tax revenue the government can generate.

Seven highly respected independent economic organisations have tried to work this out (8). And all seven of them have reached the same conclusion: that the economic damage caused by EU exit would more than offset the saving from our EU contribution.

The best estimate suggests that the government would have between £20bn and £40bn less to spend on public services than if we remained in the EU (9). So our public services wouldn't be better if we left the EU - they would be much worse.

So if we left the EU to ‘take control of immigration’, and then reduced it as discussed above, we’d still have all the same problems we have today – the housing crisis, an overstretched NHS, oversubscribed schools, heavy traffic, etc.

But we’d also have two even more serious problems to add to the list: a recession and the unknown consequences of destabilising the very institution which has secured peace in Europe for the last 70 years.

People are sceptical of economists’ forecasts. But you don’t even need to estimate many of the economic problems that will arise from EU exit – you can see them already in the currency markets.

The pound suffered its biggest one day fall in seven years when Boris and other MPs joined the leave campaign (10). You can watch the impact of movements in the referendum opinion polls in the EUR/GBP exchange rate. A major bank recently warned that EU exit could wipe 20% off the value of the pound through devaluation (11).

Devaluation sounds like a dry and abstract concept. So let me explain what that means:

20% of your life savings wiped out overnight.

The numbers in your bank account will be the same, but what you can buy with it will be 20% less, since most things we buy these days come from overseas.

Only the other day the Financial Times reported that hedge funds are planning to run their own private exit polls on referendum day to speculate on the currency markets ahead of the official result (12).
Just as during the ERM crisis of 1992, the vultures are circling, waiting to feast on our self-inflicted wounds.

And here’s another very clear threat: to our jobs. Only last Friday, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, warned his staff in Bournemouth that one, two or even four thousand of them would be made redundant if we leave the EU (13). Imagine how his staff are feeling today. And as a manager, let me tell you: that’s not the kind of thing you tell your employees unless you’re deadly serious.

Even leading Leave campaigner Michael Gove admitted just a few days ago that jobs are at risk if we leave the EU (14). Multimillionaire UKIP donor Arron Banks described this economic damage as ‘a price worth paying’ (15).

Arron Banks, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage might be rich enough to gamble their jobs on EU exit - but are you?

It is quite possible that some of your friends and family will lose their jobs as a direct result of Britain leaving the EU. Do you want to be responsible for that?

We took an evidence-based look at the immigration and EU issue above. But the Leave campaign and Eurosceptic press (Express, Sun and Mail in particular) choose to paint a very different picture. A picture which blows these statistics out of all proportion. 'Strangers in Our Own Country' 'Our borders are out of control!'. You know the stuff I mean. Pictures which invite us to eye our friends and neighbours with suspicion and even hostility. Editorial which pins the blame for every problem from housing to wages to traffic to NHS waiting times on immigrants.

And it's not even because they don't know any better. The leaders of the Leave campaign and the political editors of those newspapers are clever, well-educated people. They know the facts I set out above just as well as I do.

Yet instead of presenting a balanced view, they choose to deliberately whip up fear and suspicion of immigrants for their own political purposes.

Shame on them.

Why? Because appealing to people's basest prejudices sells newspapers and gathers votes. Just ask Donald Trump.

And what greater contrast could there be between the divisive rhetoric of the leave campaign and the noble vision of the EU's founding fathers.

Men who, amid the ashes of World War Two, set their national differences aside and dared - not just to dream but to build - a better Europe for us all.

A Europe in which war was “not only unthinkable … but materially impossible” (16).

Here’s Winston Churchill addressing the Congress of Europe in 1948:

“A high and a solemn responsibility rests upon us here ... If we allow ourselves to be rent and disordered by pettiness and small disputes, if we fail in clarity of view or courage in action, a priceless occasion may be cast away for ever. But if we all pull together and pool the luck and the comradeship - and we shall need all the comradeship and not a little luck … then all the little children who are now growing up in this tormented world may find themselves not the victors nor the vanquished in the fleeting triumphs of one country over another in the bloody turmoil of … war, but the heirs of all the treasures of the past and the masters of all the science, the abundance and the glories of the future.”

And - against all the odds - we did it.

We pooled the luck and the comradeship and achieved Churchill’s vision.

Those “little children” are now retired – the first generation in a thousand years to grow up without the horror of war in Europe.

Instead of building weapons, our scientists work together to solve the greatest problems of our age.

We enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to people in 1948.

All the cities, art, history, people, food and culture of this wonderful continent are open to us whenever we want to visit, to live or to work.

Hundreds of millions of European people who until only a few decades ago were ruled by dictators or communists now enjoy democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the abundance of the free market.

I think that’s worth 36 pence a day.

And yet here we stand, about to turn our backs on this great project, thanks to cynical newspaper owners and barefaced lies from the Leave campaign.

Forget what the Sun says.

Forget what’s good for Boris’ and Farage’s careers.

Listen to every current and former British Prime Minister (17). Every other major UK political party leader (18). To Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to Angela Merkel and a host of other world leaders (19). To Stephen Hawking and 83% of scientists (20). To 40 religious leaders (21). To 300 leading historians (22). To the Trades Union Congress and our six largest trades unions (23). To 88% of economists (24). To the National Farmers Union (25). To the Chief Executive of NHS England (26), to the Royal College of Midwives (27) To British businesses of all sizes (28).

For there is an overwhelming consensus among experts of all kinds that Britain is stronger in Europe.

And what does the Leave campaign say to this?

“I think people in this country have had enough of experts” (Michael Gove, Friday 3rd June)

What an extraordinary response.

If you were sick, you’d want to see a doctor. If you had a plane to fly, you’d want a pilot. So when we have the most important political, economic and foreign policy decision of our lifetime to make I think we should listen to the people who are in the best position to evaluate what to do. And they’re all telling us the same thing – we’re much better off in Europe.

It might not be what Michael Gove wants to hear. But it sounds like the right answer to me.

So when you’re in the polling station on Thursday 23rd - with that stubby little pencil in your hand –Vote Remain.

Not in fear, but with pride – about what we, the people of Europe, have achieved together.

Not in ignorance, but with science firmly on our side.

And not alone, but with the greatest statesmen of the past three generations urging us on.

And then in years to come, when your children ask you how you voted in the referendum of 2016, you can look them in the eye and tell them you were on the right side of history.

Thank you for reading

(1) https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
(2) https://www.ons.gov.uk/…/populationandm…/populationestimates
(3) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-…/…
(4) http://www.economist.com/…/21631076-rather-lot-according-ne…
(5) http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf
(6) https://fullfact.org/euro…/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
(7) http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngla…/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx
(8) http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf
(9) http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf
(10) https://next.ft.com/co…/7fa04d70-d911-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818
(11) https://www.theguardian.com/…/EU exit-could-wipe-20-percent-…
(12) https://next.ft.com/co…/7e26d896-241c-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d
(13) BBC Radio 4, 3rd June 2016; see also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450460
(14) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/…/i-can-t-guarantee-everyone-will…
(15) https://www.politicshome.com/…/arron-banks-%C2%A34300-loss-…
(16) http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/declaration-of-9-may-1950
(17) David Cameron http://www.theguardian.com/…/david-cameron-launches-tory-ca… ; Gordon Brown http://www.theguardian.com/…/inspiring-view-britishness-def…; Tony Blair http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36408239; John Major http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/John-Major-Voting-to-leave-wil…
(18) Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) http://labourlist.org/…/europe-needs-to-change-but-i-am-vo…/ Tim Farron (Lib Dem) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Britain-impoverished-backwater… Caroline Lucas (Green) http://europe.newsweek.com/caroline-lucas-EU exit-european-r… Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) http://www.thesun.co.uk/…/Nicola-Sturgeon-vows-to-back-argu…
(19) Barack Obama http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you… ; Hillary Clinton http://www.theguardian.com/…/hillary-clinton-britain-should… Angela Merkel http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726; Shinzo Abe http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/japanese-prime-minister-shinz…/
(20) https://www.theguardian.com/…/stephen-hawking-donald-trump-… ; http://www.nature.com/…/scientists-say-no-to-uk-exit-from-e…
(21) http://www.theguardian.com/…/religious-leaders-oppose-EU exit
(22) http://www.theguardian.com/…/vote-to-leave-eu-will-condemn-…
(23) http://uk.reuters.com/ar…/uk-britain-eu-unions-idUKKCN0V517D
(24) http://www.itv.com/…/almost-nine-in-10-economists-believe-…/
(25) http://www.theguardian.com/…/british-farmers-uk-eu-nfu-brex…
(26) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36353145
(27) https://www.rcm.org.uk/…/royal-college-of-midwives-supports…
(28) http://www.independent.co.uk/…/EU exit-eu-referendum-what-wi…

Duty281 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah...negotiated in times of easy access to the E.U

We don't have a free trade deal with the USA, we merely have excellent bi-lateral trade independent of some decrepit political union.

superflyweight wrote:Like almost anywhere else you care to mention Jeff, Scotland is full of asswipes.  We just seem to have an unhealthy minority of nationalist asswipes.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Like almost anywhere else you care to mention Jeff, Scotland is full of asswipes.  We just seem to have an unhealthy minority of nationalist asswipes.

What a cretinous statement.

Duty281 wrote:But for the locals there are a lot of negatives and few positives - so like in Scotland after the referendum (whatever the result) I think a lot of OUT voters will never return to a Labour Party who can only view immigration as a positive and actively conceal, like the article, the true impact of immigration on the working class

And the establishment don't see this as a problem of any kind.
This is why I will, with a heavy heart, be voting for EU exit.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I think Labour may have lost some traditional working class votes to UKIP actually.  Not a case of traditional left versus right but who is felt to best represent the 'working classes'.

Coxy001 wrote:          
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

TopHat24/7 wrote:That Guardian 'comment' piece sums up the leave campaign perfectly.  It IS actually all about immigration and the bigoted concerns of little englanders, or in this case a little scotlander.

Azzy wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

Fact: by the time any EU exit has been worked out, Barack Obama will be in life-long retirement. He will have zero say, or influence, in the UK's trade dealings with the US. Clinton isn't stupid enough to close ties with us, and Trump loves the UK - either way, Obama's comments were a favour to his friend Cameron. Empty threats from an empty man.

A free-trading Britain, say Brexiteers, would no longer be held back by protectionist EU members. But other countries’ trade negotiators might find the British market of 65m consumers less alluring than the EU’s 500m. The top American trade envoy, Mike Froman, has said his country would not be interested in a bilateral deal with Britain. Agreements that China has signed with Iceland and Switzerland are lopsided towards the Chinese.

Azzy wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:          
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

Fact: by the time any EU exit has been worked out, Barack Obama will be in life-long retirement. He will have zero say, or influence, in the UK's trade dealings with the US. Clinton isn't stupid enough to close ties with us, and Trump loves the UK - either way, Obama's comments were a favour to his friend Cameron. Empty threats from an empty man.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Azzy wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:          
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

Fact: by the time any EU exit has been worked out, Barack Obama will be in life-long retirement. He will have zero say, or influence, in the UK's trade dealings with the US. Clinton isn't stupid enough to close ties with us, and Trump loves the UK - either way, Obama's comments were a favour to his friend Cameron. Empty threats from an empty man.

Whilst I agree with the gist of what you say (i.e. we shouldn't be too ready to jump on this sort of posturing and that Obama will indeed be out of the picture when the decision as to when and whether to negotiate is made) I would be wary of the piece in bold: Trump is an unstable individual and takes criticism badly (and personally). He's fallen out badly with the Scottish Government and will not have taken positively to the motion in the UK Parliament to ban him from the UK. If Boris makes it into Number 10 then perhaps relations can be repaired (they share the same love of self-promotion and also the same levels of attention to detail), but I wouldn't bank on Trump looking upon the UK particularly favourably.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Azzy wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:          
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

Fact: by the time any EU exit has been worked out, Barack Obama will be in life-long retirement. He will have zero say, or influence, in the UK's trade dealings with the US. Clinton isn't stupid enough to close ties with us, and Trump loves the UK - either way, Obama's comments were a favour to his friend Cameron. Empty threats from an empty man.

Whilst I agree with the gist of what you say (i.e. we shouldn't be too ready to jump on this sort of posturing and that Obama will indeed be out of the picture when the decision as to when and whether to negotiate is made) I would be wary of the piece in bold: Trump is an unstable individual and takes criticism badly (and personally). He's fallen out badly with the Scottish Government and will not have taken positively to the motion in the UK Parliament to ban him from the UK. If Boris makes it into Number 10 then perhaps relations can be repaired (they share the same love of self-promotion and also the same levels of attention to detail), but I wouldn't bank on Trump looking upon the UK particularly favourably.

He won't get in anyway.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Azzy wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:          
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

Fact: by the time any EU exit has been worked out, Barack Obama will be in life-long retirement. He will have zero say, or influence, in the UK's trade dealings with the US. Clinton isn't stupid enough to close ties with us, and Trump loves the UK - either way, Obama's comments were a favour to his friend Cameron. Empty threats from an empty man.

Whilst I agree with the gist of what you say (i.e. we shouldn't be too ready to jump on this sort of posturing and that Obama will indeed be out of the picture when the decision as to when and whether to negotiate is made) I would be wary of the piece in bold: Trump is an unstable individual and takes criticism badly (and personally). He's fallen out badly with the Scottish Government and will not have taken positively to the motion in the UK Parliament to ban him from the UK. If Boris makes it into Number 10 then perhaps relations can be repaired (they share the same love of self-promotion and also the same levels of attention to detail), but I wouldn't bank on Trump looking upon the UK particularly favourably.

He won't get in anyway.

I truly hope you're right, but I said exactly the same about the Republican nomination process, and he turned that into a procession.

I also predicted that Boris would never lead the Conservative Party, thinking his track record of infidelity, broken promises, erratic behaviour and gaffes would hold him back, but he's become ridiculous popular amongst rank and file Tories and indeed the wider public, and looks odds on favourite to replace Cameron (and I'm not even sure a Remain vote will stop him).

I despair over the current state of politics, I really do.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Azzy wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:          
No doubt the leavers will simply say "But BoJo and Gove said we would be free to get our own trade deals, we'll just ignore that one of the most important figures in American trade has said 'ermmm no, we won't give you jack sh*t'"....... What amazes me is how you ignore quotes and facts and replace them with your own assumptions.

Fact: by the time any EU exit has been worked out, Barack Obama will be in life-long retirement. He will have zero say, or influence, in the UK's trade dealings with the US. Clinton isn't stupid enough to close ties with us, and Trump loves the UK - either way, Obama's comments were a favour to his friend Cameron. Empty threats from an empty man.

Whilst I agree with the gist of what you say (i.e. we shouldn't be too ready to jump on this sort of posturing and that Obama will indeed be out of the picture when the decision as to when and whether to negotiate is made) I would be wary of the piece in bold: Trump is an unstable individual and takes criticism badly (and personally). He's fallen out badly with the Scottish Government and will not have taken positively to the motion in the UK Parliament to ban him from the UK. If Boris makes it into Number 10 then perhaps relations can be repaired (they share the same love of self-promotion and also the same levels of attention to detail), but I wouldn't bank on Trump looking upon the UK particularly favourably.

He won't get in anyway.

I truly hope you're right, but I said exactly the same about the Republican nomination process, and he turned that into a procession.

I also predicted that Boris would never lead the Conservative Party, thinking his track record of infidelity, broken promises, erratic behaviour and gaffes would hold him back, but he's become ridiculous popular amongst rank and file Tories and indeed the wider public, and looks odds on favourite to replace Cameron (and I'm not even sure a Remain vote will stop him).

I despair over the current state of politics, I really do.

Eh?

That's the minimum essential qualities you need to become a politician. Anything else is a bonus.

The trouble with politicians these days, is that there are very few representatives that actually genuinely care about the people they stand for.

mikey_dragon wrote:Guys I've just noticed that #BR-exit is automatically changed to EU exit - I must have missed being told there is a reason for this?

Duty281 wrote:Another thumping win for Leave tonight.

Thank goodness useless Boris isn't debating on his own. If he does become PM, Corbyn might even be able to land a telling blow or two.

Duty281 wrote:Another thumping win for Leave tonight.

Thank goodness useless Boris isn't debating on his own. If he does become PM, Corbyn might even be able to land a telling blow or two.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Another thumping win for Leave tonight.

Thank goodness useless Boris isn't debating on his own. If he does become PM, Corbyn might even be able to land a telling blow or two.

Didn't see it, but reports up here are to the contrary, and that Sturgeon took Boris apart. Then again, the media up here always say that about whoever Sturgeon is debating!

Anything new or interesting to add to the debate?

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Another thumping win for Leave tonight.

Thank goodness useless Boris isn't debating on his own. If he does become PM, Corbyn might even be able to land a telling blow or two.

The missus, who sits in the don't know camp (cow), said Boris and leave took a sustained pounding and that they simply resort to playing the race card.

Former board member for leave is also switching sides... Citing racism. As much as you try and say you're all not closet racists the facts are either there or beginning to emerge duty.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Another thumping win for Leave tonight.

Thank goodness useless Boris isn't debating on his own. If he does become PM, Corbyn might even be able to land a telling blow or two.

The missus, who sits in the don't know camp (cow), said Boris and leave took a sustained pounding and that they simply resort to playing the race card.

Former board member for leave is also switching sides... Citing racism. As much as you try and say you're all not closet racists the facts are either there or beginning to emerge duty.

I think you need to take that back.....and apologise for your disgraceful insinuation.

Or I will report it.