EU referendum are you in or out

[pogo]

Many specifics could be decided on the UK side though, and should of already.
ie. Will places that previously got EU funding get equivalent funding from the money saved by not being a member.
(I am guessing "no shutup, dont bring that up" is probably the answer but they wont say it out loud.)

Why should there be any money saved? Every country that has access to the Single Market pays into the EU budget. The logic is the same as regulations (any country participating in the Single Market needs to adopt all its regulations), that the Single Market is a level playing field and countries should not be able to join and gain advantage because they have fewer regulations, lower VAT rates or pay a smaller contribution.

You might ask “why would any country sign up to this?” Norway and Switzerland, the two countries in the Single Market but not in the EU, are small (or small population) rich countries. They can afford to trade at a disadvantage in the EU. Norway has its oil and other natural resources. Switzerland its financial sector. Switzerland’s deal is not a good model for us anyway as they are outside the Single Market for services, preferring to keep their banks outside of the reach of EU regulations.

[Harlequin]

The rules are the rules, they need to be acted on, and they need to be acted on now. Otherwise that poor girl is going to have to carry on going down the supermarket to get her shit eggs rather than seeing Farmer John.

There were rules? Where were they written? They don't seem to have been coded in law and the best we seem to have got from the Government was that Article 50 would be invoked immediately if Remain won, with only vague implications as to what the winning conditions were supposed to be. Has it come down to "winning" just being taking Cameron's word for it?

What really has annoyed me in this whole debate are the people who voted for a joke, didn't think their vote counted, didn't vote or worse still used the vote to show dislike of the current government. The remain campaign, which included the political leaders really should have stressed this is not a vote for how much you like the current government its a vote on the future of the country.

Would Leavers have believed the Remain campaign in that any more than they believed its refutations of the Leave campaigns falsehoods? Vote Leave suggested that Remain was the (even more) elite (than themselves) and hinted that a vote for Leave was a blow against the establishment. Just more seeming propaganda in a foggy battle where any truth or factual evidence was considered irrelevant opinion.

But for as many people as regret their leave vote, there's going to be an equal number who regret voting remain now they see how great it is, though they're not going to make as much fuss as it all worked out well for them in the end. It all cancels out.

Please describe how great it is in two hundred words or less.

Anyone on Facebook finding that the popular "compilation of hundreds of racist incidents" album has disappeared? I shared it and now it's gone. Wondering where it went and why.

There are more albums like that (possibly along with the original) at https://www.facebook.com/Post-Ref-Racis ... 1743181923.

[(o)(o)]

Another disgusting example of media bias from the Guardian :



"I suspect that Jeremy may have voted to leave!" Bryant said, pathetically, earlier in the day.

However Corbyn's spokesman immediately corrected the wanker, pointing out that Corbyn tweeted :



There was no "damage" it's just another cooked up story which the Guardian repeats hours later, without correction.

Rowena Mason, Jessica Elgot and Anushka Asthana
Monday 27 June 2016 22.06 BST

[Little stoned kiwi]

Many specifics could be decided on the UK side though, and should of already.
ie. Will places that previously got EU funding get equivalent funding from the money saved by not being a member.
(I am guessing "no shutup, dont bring that up" is probably the answer but they wont say it out loud.)

Why should there be any money saved? Every country that has access to the Single Market pays into the EU budget. The logic is the same as regulations (any country participating in the Single Market needs to adopt all its regulations), that the Single Market is a level playing field and countries should not be able to join and gain advantage because they have fewer regulations, lower VAT rates or pay a smaller contribution.

It's a simple question. There's money that will no longer be paid to the EU: where will it be redistributed?
You seem to take offense at use of the word 'savings', as though the UK gets more than it contributes. Does it? Access to the EU market isn't restricted by anything but the EU itself with quotas and tariffs. Do you believe the UK should be coerced into paying for access to the market which also comes at the expense of the EU controlling local production and development with grants and subsidies (that could be considered as coming from the UK in the first place)?

It's really a question of control. Can the UK govern itself or will it not function without the EU saying what's what?

[pogo]

My point is we have a fairly simple binary choice, if we leave the EU. Either we stay in the Single Market, but that means adopting EU regulations, continuing with free movement of people, and paying into the budget. This is the only option that makes sense, as then we are still able to trade, to travel, to do business freely.

The alternative, outside the Single Market, would be disastrous. That’s why no-one is suggesting it. No-one is suggesting we give up access to EU markets, to Brits travelling freely throughout Europe, to the City still being a major financial centre for Europe. E.g.:

I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe – and always will be

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

The problem is, if you want access to the Single Market you also need to accept free movement of people, EU regulations and paying into the EU budget. They really are inseparable.

[tufty]

There were rules? Where were they written?

European Union Referendum Act 2015, and PPERA 2000

[venusian]

I know, just making the point that there's a valid moral case for this. The barrier is process rather than anything inherently wrong in having another look when more information is available.

You and Jeremy Hunt. Sitting in a tree. Ha ha ha.

Jeremy Hunt tells the Today programme people want "a vision for what our life is going to be like outside the EU and a plan to get there".

He says the best option is for "a Norway-plus model" - "we want the access to the single market Norway has but with some sensible controls on movement".

He says that deal is not currently on the table and it's going to be "tough" to get it - and Article 50 shouldn't be triggered until it is.

The health secretary says any deal would then "need some kind of democratic endorsement" - and his preference would be for it to be part of the Conservative manifesto for the 2020 general election - although he says a second referendum is also an option.

[gravy]

You and Jeremy Hunt. Sitting in a tree. Ha ha ha.

Come on now, there's been some harsh words on this forum from time to time but that's going a bit far

[Darkflame]

Many specifics could be decided on the UK side though, and should of already.
ie. Will places that previously got EU funding get equivalent funding from the money saved by not being a member.
(I am guessing "no shutup, dont bring that up" is probably the answer but they wont say it out loud.)

Why should there be any money saved? Every country that has access to the Single Market pays into the EU budget.

I guessed there would be a fee, but is it really the same? I assumed it would be quite a bit less - what with not getting any EU subs and grants back etc.

[Cloudane]

If only we'd listened to Clegg eh?
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/wil ... ote-leave/

[KlaxonCow]

He says that deal is not currently on the table and it's going to be "tough" to get it - and Article 50 shouldn't be triggered until it is.

Then Article 50 will simply never be triggered in that case.

Because negotiations for leaving the EU may not occur before Article 50 is invoked.

It's a protection mechanism for the EU. You have to state you're leaving before you can negotiate the terms of your departure, and once you officially state that, Article 50 is invoked and it's a one-way street to being out, as all EU treaties will cease within 2 years, whether a deal is struck or not.

It's designed that way deliberately. There is no taking a sneaky peek. No testing the waters to see if you could get a good deal and then only jumping in the waters when it's agreeable to you. Otherwise, you could have, for example, Greece perpetually saying "we're thinking of leaving... what are you going to give us to stop that?" over and over, blackmailing the EU with a "we're going to leave" bluff constantly.

You know, like the angry girlfriend. "I'm going to leave you... I'm going to leave you... If you don't do this then I'm going to leave you...", threatening you to do what she wants. Until you call her bluff and say "go on, then, leave" and she's got nothing.

The rules are worked to prevent that.

You're either in or you're out. If you say you're out then you're out. Then we sort out how to divide up the CD collection. But no negotiations beforehand, where you keep perpetually testing the waters to see if you can get all the Pink Floyd CDs before you jump.

So if you want to wait to see what you can get before invoking Article 50, then Article 50 will never be invoked.

[Cloudane]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/im-so-scared-now-g ... ars-132971

That was hard to listen to

[gilesgoat]

Ok the "N millions pounds question" .. but surely economists/statisticians/etc. must have been studying all this stuff "since ages" ( ? ) ...

Suppose 2 scenarios :

1. "everyone gives up about EU", EU disappears, all nations become again "closed nations" and let's say with "closed" I mean "with the freedom to impose taxes on import/export and limit the circulation of people in/out looking for asylum/jobs/jobs applications".

2. SOME but NOT ALL become like '1', the rest remain "open".

The question is, "can it be proven or dis-proven that any of those scenario 1. / 2. are capable to create better economic situation(s) for the nation(s) employing them VS a totally open market ?".

OR the answer is "they both lead to chaotic regimes where it's totally impossible to say 'this is going to be stable good/worse for any amount of time" leading to an oscillatory totally chaotic system alternating "good" to "bad" ?

It's ever been any serious study leading to any "proof" about "what would be the best system to apply that would give the best results" and under what circumstances ?

I think "anyone is choosing by feelings" but "none sit down and made the homework properly" to figure out or try to figure out "what really happens" ?

Sure this kind of stuff should have been studied, theorized, analyzed, "with all the fraking computer simulations we can run today" has anyone ever commissioned "a real study" about "what would create the better outcome" ?

[Harlequin]

There were rules? Where were they written?

European Union Referendum Act 2015, and PPERA 2000

Neither of those set out any rules as to what the criteria or margins would be for a preference to be determined as having definitively won, or what actions should be taken in the event that one preference does win. By contrast, for the 2011 referendum on PR, these rules were clearly set out in Section 8 of Part 1 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. I would like to also make a comparison with the Referendum Act 1975 but I have not found a copy online, not even at legislation.gov.uk.

[pogo]

Sure this kind of stuff should have been studied, theorized, analyzed, "with all the fraking computer simulations we can run today" has anyone ever commissioned "a real study" about "what would create the better outcome" ?

The most compelling argument, for me, is that more trade/free trade is overwhelmingly positive. This is obvious when countries have different things to export. Germany has manufactured goods, France has agricultural products. Every country has something they want to sell, something else they want to buy.

Counterintuitively though it is true that even if a country has nothing worth selling it is still worth trading. I.e. suppose a country joined the EU after decades of economic mismanagement, so it was good at nothing. Everything it could make the EU already made better and cheaper. Still it can trade to it and the EU’s advantage. This is comparative advantage, and is one of the strongest arguments for free trade, even though at first glance it is counterintuitive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

So even if we were outside the EU we would want to be part of the Single Market, trading freely with the EU. Ask Norway, or Switzerland, or Iceland. Every country in Europe is either in the Single Market or wants to join it.

It’s also worth highlighting how Canada is not a good model for us. Canada is outside the EU, and does not have access to the Single Market. But it instead has its own free trade area with its main trading partner, NAFTA. It is also like Norway a large, sparsely populated country, well endowed with natural resources.