EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU?


  • Total voters
    653
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dared to get into a facebook debate on it. Sure that seems a huge mistake, but I did pull a liner out that practically shut down the argument.

People were banging on about taking back our power and those gosh darn inmigrants as usual, and someone posted "well we can at least take back all our power"

So I simply replied "yeah, and give it to the Tories"

I swear I could actually hear a few brains popping reading that, and silence since :lol:

That's what I don't get. Working class people saying they can't wait to take the power away from Brussels, but it'll be going entirely into the Tories' hands!

One guys response to this was that we can just vote them out in the next election, ignoring the high probability that it'll mean they're voted in again.
 
So should I go get some Euros tonight just in case? Is that how it works?
It's a bit of a gamble really, if we vote remain the rate will probably improve further.

If you buy now and we leave you'll have done better, if you buy now and we stay you'll lose out a bit.
 
The EU didn't impose austerity, your tory boys did.

Tell that to the Greeks, or the millions of other people across Europe who were hostage to a one-size-fits-all ECB.

The EU is absolutely culpable for its handling of the debt crisis; even the IMF, which Remainers trust without hesitation, was critical of Brussels.

Whilst this project has its roots in commendable ideals, the organisation of today is more than happy to sacrifice its citizens' wellbeing and prosperity to serve political ends.
 
I must admit I'm concerned that the shy Tories from the GE polls will reappear at the ballot box to finish what they started.
A lot of non Tories voted for them not because of the referendum but because they trusted Dave more than Ed on the economy.
 
It's a bit of a gamble really, if we vote remain the rate will probably improve further.

If you buy now and we leave you'll have done better, if you buy now and we stay you'll lose out a bit.

I was going to change a bit before I go and just get the rest out of an ATM there.

So I think it makes sense to change now, then it evens things out a bit either way. Also, I reckon we're leaving.
 
The problem is, the Leave campaign get all the eye catching headlines without actually having to mention the concequences... So they get to say "The EU costs us £350 million a week" or whatever it is, without actually saying *But we'll have to pay near that if we want to continue to trade with them anyway... or "Immigration is out of control" without saying *and most if it doesn't come from the EU anyway... or "The European Court will be in charge of ALL our laws" ... despite the fact that it isn't...

I got a leaflet today saying the EU is letting in Turkey... I mean, it's just continuous stream of bullshit
 
What annoys me is the pack lies and ignorance being spouted out by supporters of the leave vote. If people came out and said that they want to leave the EU because they don't feel part of Europe and want nothing to do with Europe then I could understand. I wouldn't agree with that point of view, but at least I could accept it.
But no, instead the supporters of the leave vote continuously come out with statements that are factually untrue, manipulate the truth to suit their views and blame all of Britains sorrows on the EU.

Another thing that I find shocking is the complete ignorance most Brits have about the EU, yet they're asked to vote on it. And this for a large part is also the blame of the remain campaign because of the negative campaign being fought by the remain camp.

The EU is far from perfect, but I can tell you one thing and that is that Britain is far better off remaining in the EU and it's the average man in the street who stands to suffer the most if Britain leaves the EU.
 
It's going to be fixed anyway by this corrupt government

Remain will "win" so don't worry if that's what you want.
 
I actually think there's little wrong with the remain campaign using her death considering it's likely very much what she would have wanted as community and solidarity was very much her passion.

It's like someone who spent their life raising awareness of cancer, dying of cancer and people moaning that there was a cancer charity collecting donations and using her legacy for their own benefits.
 
The amount of people I've seen say about this rigging thing. Has anyone voting leave actually done any homework on what it is they are actually voting for?
There was a YouGov poll posted recently that showed (iirc) 46% of those who said they'd be voting leave thought it was likely the vote would be rigged.
 
Tell that to the Greeks, or the millions of other people across Europe who were hostage to a one-size-fits-all ECB.

The EU is absolutely culpable for its handling of the debt crisis; even the IMF, which Remainers trust without hesitation, was critical of Brussels.

Whilst this project has its roots in commendable ideals, the organisation of today is more than happy to sacrifice its citizens' wellbeing and prosperity to serve political ends.

The Greece issue and the ECB is an Eurozone issue, not an EU issue. Besides the fact that Greeks themselves insisted on the Euro and caused their debt problem on themselves. So please stop manipulating the truth to suit your views!
 
Did you watch that video from the Liverpool University Professor @Nick 0208 Ldn ?

Thanks for reminding me about that. Yes, i did give it a look when someone first posted it on here. I would have had questions for him were i present, either to clarify things points on trade or his political interpretations.

IIRC he closing section was on trade with non-EU partners, and he suggested that we'd need to tear up all of our existing deals and start over. However i have read that we could invoke the presumption of continuity, which means that if both parties are satisfied the previous terms could be renewed without difficulty. I could be way off on this, only he never explored the possibility during his presentation.

He also cites 10 years as a likely time frame for negotiations with the EU, a figure which even surpasses the OECD's projections. Given our pre-existing links, the composition of the Commons, and Norway as a model to borrow from, i expect it to be far less. It is also worth pointing out that provisions of trade deals can be brought into effect prior to full ratification (this occurred with the EU-South Korea treaty so i understand), in some cases years earlier. So it may be that we reach a deal on the essentials within 24-months, and then work on the optional extras to follow.
 
Thanks for reminding me about that. Yes, i did give it a look when someone first posted it on here. I would have had questions for him were i present, either to clarify things points on trade or his political interpretations.

IIRC he closing section was on trade with non-EU partners, and he suggested that we'd need to tear up all of our existing deals and start over. However i have read that we could invoke the presumption of continuity, which means that if both parties are satisfied the previous terms could be renewed without difficulty. I could be way off on this, only he never explored the possibility during his presentation.

He also cites 10 years as a likely time frame for negotiations with the EU, a figure which even surpasses the OECD's projections. Given our pre-existing links, the composition of the Commons, and Norway as a model to borrow from, i expect it to be far less. It is also worth pointing out that provisions of trade deals can be brought into effect prior to full ratification (this occurred with the EU-South Korea treaty so i understand), in some cases years earlier. So it may be that we reach a deal on the essentials within 24-months, and then work on the optional extras to follow.

Indeed, most likely outcome would be some kind of agreement on a continuation of many existing agreements, including much maligned agreements on freedom of movement of Eu/uk citizens, trade regulations, etc. That begs the question, what's the point of leaving in the first place?
 
There was a YouGov poll posted recently that showed (iirc) 46% of those who said they'd be voting leave thought it was likely the vote would be rigged.

People seem very confused on that side. They are voting leave for the power, but that power is going to go to the tories. They want the tories out even though Ukip are closer alligned to them and Labour opened those pesky floodgates they love talking about, and now I'm seeing lots of stuff about house prices and mortgages, when it's likely we'll hit some kind of recession and no one will be any more likely to afford one!

My quest for a genuine, honest answer to what we actually gain if we leave continues...
 
Thanks for reminding me about that. Yes, i did give it a look when someone first posted it on here. I would have had questions for him were i present, either to clarify things points on trade or his political interpretations.

IIRC he closing section was on trade with non-EU partners, and he suggested that we'd need to tear up all of our existing deals and start over. However i have read that we could invoke the presumption of continuity, which means that if both parties are satisfied the previous terms could be renewed without difficulty. I could be way off on this, only he never explored the possibility during his presentation.

He also cites 10 years as a likely time frame for negotiations with the EU, a figure which even surpasses the OECD's projections. Given our pre-existing links, the composition of the Commons, and Norway as a model to borrow from, i expect it to be far less. It is also worth pointing out that provisions of trade deals can be brought into effect prior to full ratification (this occurred with the EU-South Korea treaty so i understand), in some cases years earlier. So it may be that we reach a deal on the essentials within 24-months, and then work on the optional extras to follow.

Cheers nick. Best rebuttal I've seen although I have some questions for you that I can't be bothered typing, the twat that I am.
 
Which goes straight to the Tories.

Lose-lose right there!

Short term yes but that's not a great argument when looking at the long term and considering that quite a few people actually like having the Tories in power.
 
Short term yes but that's not a great argument when looking at the long term and considering that quite a few people actually like having the Tories in power.

Yep. But it's not my personal stance, it's just what I pointed out today to some lefties banging on about voting leave for control/power and all that. Nothing is straightforward in this, it would be nice just to see the more determined element (on both sides) think a little deeper is all.
 
Short term yes but that's not a great argument when looking at the long term and considering that quite a few people actually like having the Tories in power.

You get the benefit of the government able to screw you over on inconvinient things things such as workers rights, consumer rights, etc
 
Yep. But it's not my personal stance, it's just what I pointed out today to some lefties banging on about voting leave for control/power and all that. Nothing is straightforward in this, it would be nice just to see the more determined element (on both sides) think a little deeper is all.

Fair enough and agreed! I've been getting told off for taking time to make my mind up.
 
The only real argument for leaving is immigration, when people are completely forgetting other areas which are arguably more important such as economy and health. Pretty sure we'll make the right decision and stay in.
 
Thanks for reminding me about that. Yes, i did give it a look when someone first posted it on here. I would have had questions for him were i present, either to clarify things points on trade or his political interpretations.

IIRC he closing section was on trade with non-EU partners, and he suggested that we'd need to tear up all of our existing deals and start over. However i have read that we could invoke the presumption of continuity, which means that if both parties are satisfied the previous terms could be renewed without difficulty. I could be way off on this, only he never explored the possibility during his presentation.

He also cites 10 years as a likely time frame for negotiations with the EU, a figure which even surpasses the OECD's projections. Given our pre-existing links, the composition of the Commons, and Norway as a model to borrow from, i expect it to be far less. It is also worth pointing out that provisions of trade deals can be brought into effect prior to full ratification (this occurred with the EU-South Korea treaty so i understand), in some cases years earlier. So it may be that we reach a deal on the essentials within 24-months, and then work on the optional extras to follow.

I think he states that those countries official stand was generally that they would want to wait to see how our economy reacts to leaving the EU, and at that point consider what we have to offer as alone we'd be a completely different proposition.

Surely the hit to our economy would be seen as an opportunity to take advantage by many other nations. Whilst continuation might seem the default, I'm not convinced it would be the norm. That both parties are satisfied would surely be a big if.

As for the EU, he acknowledges that you could come to a temporary agreement to then build on but uses the Swiss as an example of how long that can take, the difficulties and hurdles, and that to finally resolve could take multiple decades resulting in a large amount of time and money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.