Any working class person who votes remain is literally self harming.

Housing will become more and more difficult.
Low and semi skilled jobs will continually become harder to get.
Service infrastructures will become continually less effective.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 May 2016 7.59am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I suppose working class people don't like

- strict workers rights

- entitled to paid holiday leave

- entitlement to paid sick leave

- fair maternity and paternity treatment

- ease of trade with the country's biggest export partner

- EU funding directly some of the most deprived parts of the UK

- health and safety in the workplace

- cheaper daily prices

- cheaper holidays

- not inevitably causing a recession which will disproportionately affect working class and lower income people

which are all guaranteed upon Remaining with the European Union.

VOTING OUT - Brexit will allow Britain to embrace the Commonwealth and be GREAT again

Herein lies the problem with the referendum: acute cases of confirmation bias like this, with the fantasy £4300 figures thrown in gleefully for good measure.

Tell me: where is the 2030 economic forecast for remaining in the EU. Did the treasury not produce one? Odd that. You would think, if a cost-benefit analysis were to be done, both referendum scenarios would receive the same treatment. So, um... the people can come to their own conclusions. Perhaps also to qualify a statement like "If we leave, we lose 10% GDP..." with "...but it we remain we lose 4%". But nope. Nothing there.

OK then. Next question. Where is the analysis that actually includes (unlike the treasury edition) the POSITIVES of Brexit? Odd. They would take all the potential negatives from leaving, but not include the positives? Why would they do that?

So let's recap the economic impact assessments as provided by the government and gleefully lorded by those on here:

EU-Remain
Benefits: Yes
Drawbacks: Not defined (& no projection of future EU trajectory)

Brexit
Benefits: Not defined
Drawbacks: Yes, considerable. Where to start?

Does anyone NOT have a problem with this? If you were selectively presenting a case for the above to a jury, cherrypicking the argument, would this be even remotely objective? Would a conviction be safe?

It is exactly this that causes the confirmation bias. You go out looking for the negatives in the press. You find them. Because there are no studies weighing the forecasted pros and cons for both sides.

"But why don't you go and do one then"? Well, I just heard from JohnnyBoy that only the treasury had the top-of-the-range tools, data, and analysis; using alternatives would imply you were "deranged" or something. We could certainly ask them, but it's a bit embarrassing that they didn't finish the cost/benefit matrix above. Perhaps they don't want to?

Still, this chap had a pretty good look at the treasury claims, and laid out his perspective:

[Link]

Sure, to our EUphiles on here it's "propaganda" as opposed to "treasury facts" - but then, given the seriously unbalanced treasury narrative above, it's interesting to see this Macroeconomics PhD (working for the EU Commission and producing the "essential theory" behind the UK govt deficit plan) effort. Even under the most pessimistic of conditions and assumptions, he cannot get even close to the treasury 6% GDP loss. Sexed up?

As for the OECD report, the assumptions that go into that (no trade deals, ever, with any other nation / bloc in the world, apart from the EU) again bear no relation to reality. When you have a computational model, there is a phrase: "GIGO" - If you put Garbage In, you get Garbage Out.....

...which is why we have claims that leaving the EU will be more devastating than WW1, the great depression and the recent economic crash. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Following the negative campaigning by the hot potch that is the 'Remain' campaign, plus the dawning realisation that the government simply has no control over immigration, the gap between Remain and Brexit is narrowing:

[Link]

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

1. Jobs

Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs.

“I think if we were to leave the European Union we would jeopardise up to three million jobs in this country.”
Nick Clegg, 07 May 2013

Equally, this is speculation. But there is no proof that jobs which depend on exports to EU countries would automatically be lost in large numbers in the event of a pull-out.

2. Exports & investment

The EU buys over 50 per cent of UK exports (54 per cent of goods, 40 per cent of services).
Over 300,000 British companies and 74 per cent of British exporters operate in other EU markets.
American and Asian EU firms build factories in Britain because it is in the single market.

Exports to the EU now make up just 36 per cent of the UK’s overseas trade, barely more than we sell to the Commonwealth.

3. Trade

The EU negotiates trade agreements with the rest of the world. Outside the EU Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals alone. While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal.

This is, again, dishonest. Plenty of countries with smaller economies than the UK have trade deals and free trade agreements with major powers. Crucially, we would not have to negotiate trade deals alone, we can flexibly form alliances and coalitions at the WTO level to secure better terms. Leaving the EU means regaining control of our trade policy, which is now an “exclusive power of the EU”. We could sign our own bilateral free trade agreements or negotiate participation in multilateral agreements in the future. Leaving the EU means we can choose with whom we trade, and on what terms, it means we can take the initiative in matters of trade, rather than taking a back seat and waiting for the cumbersome EU to lead the process, or go the EU cap in hand to ask for them to pursue an agreement to our benefit.

Imagine what the UK (with a GDP of $2.989 Trillion) could achieve if it regained control over its trade policy. We have a flourishing automotive, aerospace and pharmaceutical industry and growing creative industries and a tradition of facilitating free trade by breaking down barriers. Now we are compelled to adopt a common EU position, and wait years while the EU lumbers through negotiations for vast, bundled “big bang” trade deals – with other Member States quibbling over issues related to their own interests and holding back, or even preventing agreement – and we have to go to the EU to ask them to pursue agreements beneficial to our industries. If we leave we’d be able to act independently, and have the agility and flexibility necessary to prosper in the modern era of globalisation, this freedom to act is a fundamental strength befitting of a major modern economy.

4. Consumer clout

British families enjoy lower mobile phone roaming charges, lower credit card fees, cheaper flights and proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. These sorts of benefits could not be achieved by Britain alone.


So much of what we assume to be – and are encouraged to believe – benefits of being in the EU are in-fact the result of agreements at a global level. It is not a coincidence that Africa and China have recently dropped their roaming charges. It originates from a convention agreed through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation(OECD). The OECD has for some time been making recommendations regarding the telecommunications industry seeking to curb roaming charges – this is an international issue best dealt with on a global level – if anything the EU had delayed the process. The EU often delays or dilutes global agreements; we should be involved directly at an international level rather than going through the EU middleman. In this case, like others, the EU is dishonestly taking credit for a global agreement.

5. Clean environment

Through commonly agreed EU standards, national Governments have achieved improvements to the quality of air, rivers and beaches. Good for Britain and good for Britons holidaying or living abroad!
WE could do all that alone, we do not need the EU to do it..

6. Power to curb the multinationals

The EU has taken on multinational giants like Microsoft, Samsung and Toshiba for unfair competition. The UK would not be able to do this alone.

Another desperate attempt at scaremongering. Outside the EU challenging situations like that would be swifter and surer.

7. Freedom to work and study abroad – and easy travel

1.4 million British people live abroad in the EU. More than 14,500 UK students took part in the European Union’s Erasmus student exchange scheme in 2012-13. Driving licences issued in the UK are valid throughout the EU.

Although opinions vary on freedom of movement, it is generally a good thing in need of reform. Freedom to move across borders with relative ease is another beneficial effect of globalisation, and freedom of movement in Europe is – despite well known anxieties and concerns – a liberty that Britons would loath to lose. As participants in the Single Market we would retain freedom of movement with the EU, although we would gain an “emergency brake” safeguard measure if the levels are deemed too high, as set out in Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement.

The concerns about high levels of immigration are widespread and need addressing in the long term. However, the fact of the matter is that mass migration is a global issue that cannot simply be managed at a national level, it has complex and multi-layered causes, and the majority of immigration to the UK is from outside the EU. Leaving the EU will however give us the freedom to initiate reforms to the global asylum rules that tarnish the reputation of free movement. The best way forward is, again, intergovernmental cooperation.

8. Peace and democracy

The EU has helped secure peace among previously warring western European nations. It helped to consolidate democracy in Spain, Portugal, Greece and former Soviet bloc countries and helped preserve peace in the Balkans since the end of the Balkans War. With the UN it now plays a leading role in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and democracy building.

Even now, the EU is only 28 nations of the 47 European nations listed as national members of the Council of Europe.

-The break up of Yugoslavia was a major test of the EU’s ability to keep the peace. It was EU interference that helped trigger a major civil war and its dithering contributed to deaths of some 100,000 people. It was only decisive action by the US/NATO forces that stopped the violence. Peace was established by the US-brokered Dayton Agreement.

9. Equal pay and non-discrimination

Equal pay for men and women is enshrined in EU law, as are bans on discrimination by age, race or sexual orientation. This benefits Britain and British people who live in other EU countries.

More proof that the EU is a redundant middleman taking credit for the work of global organisations. The International Labour Organisation operates at the global level and has carried out much of the work to achieve better conditions for workers. Most of the EU regulations and human rights provisions mention ILO conventions and rules by name. In most instances, the EU is a law taker, not a law maker. The international process is concealed by this extra layer of complex governance and our media barely reports on it. Britain needs to be dealing direct and bringing more transparency to the process. The EU causes delays as it struggles to adopt a common position. The law we adopt is often weaker due compromise of the common position.

10. Influence in the world

As 28 democracies, and as the world’s biggest market, we are strong when we work together.
Britain is represented in many international organisations in joint EU delegations – giving Britain more influence than it would have alone. The EU has played a major role in climate, world trade and development.

The EU is the world’s biggest market, but it’s not going to stay that way. We need move past this parochialism; the world is our market! In the global marketplace, it is better for countries with common interests to meet at a time of their choosing and work to remove tariffs and technical barriers to trade.

Britain is a major technological and intellectual innovator and needs to be taking a leading role on the global stage, convening meetings of nations and non-state actors who have an interest in nurturing industries and emerging economies as well as exploring new ideas. We cannot do that in the EU. The level of influence you exert on the regulatory process is proportionate to the level of technical expertise you can offer, this is an area in which Britain punches well above its weight in the world. We will have a big say in this process after we leave. We need an independent voice at the top table, and a veto, and the ability to choose our alliances according to the situation.

11. Cutting red tape

Common rules for the common market make it unnecessary to have 28 sets of national regulations.

Companies don’t like regulations for an obvious reason – they cost them money. And as the regulatory empire of Brussels has spread, it shouldn’t be surprising that many in the corporate world have become Eurosceptic. James Dyson, for example, wants to leave the EU over vacuum cleaner energy standards. Captains of industry tend to think that what is bad for them is bad for the economy as a whole, and this leads some to assume – mistakenly – that EU red tape drags Britain down. Here are four reasons why they are wrong.

Fourth, many in business complain that Brussels does not do enough to test whether its regulations impose unnecessary costs. But the OECD tested the European Commission’s rule-making process alongside other countries, and found that it is of better quality than the OECD average – and similar to that of UK and Australia, which the OECD ranks highest. There can be little doubt that some proposals are forced through the EU’s legislative machine without being properly scrutinised, but it is far from clear, on the basis of the OECD’s index at least, that the EU does this more than the UK itself.
It appears, then, that a post-Brexit bonfire of EU rules would hardly provide enough heat to warm a pot of tea.

12. Fighting crime

The European Arrest Warrant replaced long extradition procedures and enables the UK to extradite criminals wanted in other EU countries, and bring to justice criminals wanted in the UK who are hiding in other EU countries.

Eurojust helps UK authorities work with other EU countries’ to tackle international organised crime such as drug smuggling, people trafficking and money laundering.


IN 2011 5,832 European arrest warrants were issued to the UK
In 2010 , one third of all EAW’s issued across the EU were sent to the UK
Each EAW issued costs £20,170 of taxpayer’s money to process, including the cost of legal aid, police an court time, translation and transport costs to the subject.
In 2009 4,431 EAW’s were successfully executed across the EU with suspects being handed over.
The cost of processing the EAW’s received in 2010 was at least £27 million
Extradition between countries is a good thing because it is in the interests of justice that someone suspected of committing a crime in another country can be sent to that country to face trial, thereby upholding the rule of law and tackling cross border crime. However, it is surely only right and correct that before the suspect is extradited a court should consider if there is a case to answer?

The European Arrest Warrant is an essential element of this and a great stride forward to the ultimate goal. Subordinating our legal system makes us an enfeebled nation , happy to have the mere vestiges of an independent country. Allowing us to have our own legal system within, but subordinate to, the EU is simply allowing us the window dressing to save face and uphold a pretence.

13. Research funding

The UK is the second largest beneficiary of EU research funds, and the British Government expects future EU research funding to constitute a vital source of income for our world-leading universities and companies.

Also, let’s not forget that although the EU says it funds our universities, we are a net contributor… it is in-fact our own money!

VOTING OUT - Brexit will allow Britain to embrace the Commonwealth and be GREAT again

Dave.... stop it now.... Kermit must be fed up to the back teeth of you taking down his trousers and pants and giving him a spanking!

Is it worth reading all hundred pages of this thread or is it about as enlightening as the guff in the mainstream media?

I sent off my ballot yesterday. I voted 'Leave'.

Remain will win.

In a fit of pique I put a slightly-too-large amount of cash on 'Bremain' to get over 55% of the vote. Got 13/5, now it's down to 2/1. Just to make smug Cameron's face slightly more tolerable on June 24th when he squeaks through to victory once again.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

It makes me laugh just how much emphasis the Brexit campaign have put on the Remain's negative campaign.

Both campaigns have been woeful. Neither side with a remotely compelling reason to vote for them.

I started off as a remain, now not sure (due to the non deal Cameron negotiated) but likely not to vote.

I'm out.

I've flitted back and forth and changed my mind more often than Cucking at a greased buttock presentation, but I think I'm staying with out. For a few reason (the leave side are winning the argument for me and it's the remain side that are using the most snide tactics (& I'm deeply untrustworthy of all the remain figureheads)). But as I'm overjoyed to see Johnny Eagles back posting, I think I'll let him tell me how to vote as a welcome back pressie.

Over to you Johnny

ps I agree with Diving I.N.G. (on most things) and Cucking. We could all vote out and it would be fiddled. The lack of panic/comment from the large corporations says to me that they already know the outcome. As if WE would ever get a say in anything that could impact HSBC's profits!

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]