Brexit 23rd June..?

[Ekona]

Project LWOWTROATLATCTTOCEPAMARAATAMAIVA.

 

Sounds Lithuanian to me. Bloody Europeans!

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Project LWOWTROATLATCTTOCEPAMARAATAMAIVA.

 

Sounds Lithuanian to me. Bloody Europeans!

 

Sounds SriLankan to me?

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Have you guys seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26520836

 

Scrap 'on demand' postal voting to curb fraud, says judge.

 

Postal voting is open to fraud on an "industrial scale" and is "unviable" in its current form, a top judge has said.

Richard Mawrey QC, who tries cases of electoral fraud, told the BBC that people should not be able to apply for postal votes as a matter of course.

"On demand" postal voting had not boosted turnout or simplified the process for the vulnerable, he said.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Adrian@TORQEN

[coldel]

Saw a great video analysing the world based on 100 people - so representing the global population by 100 identical person stick men (stick people if you want to be politically correct).

 

Some interesting images included that just 6 people from the 100 earn more than $20 a day, the majority of people in the UK are in that group of 6 out of 100. 1 person out of 100 holds 50% of the worlds wealth.

[BobbyZ]

Saw a great video analysing the world based on 100 people - so representing the global population by 100 identical person stick men (stick people if you want to be politically correct).

 

Some interesting images included that just 6 people from the 100 earn more than $20 a day, the majority of people in the UK are in that group of 6 out of 100. 1 person out of 100 holds 50% of the worlds wealth.

 

Ultimately though, this type of thing is useless - particularly the $20 per day bit. Is that adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity? $20 in India is very different to $20 in the UK

[coldel]

Saw a great video analysing the world based on 100 people - so representing the global population by 100 identical person stick men (stick people if you want to be politically correct).

 

Some interesting images included that just 6 people from the 100 earn more than $20 a day, the majority of people in the UK are in that group of 6 out of 100. 1 person out of 100 holds 50% of the worlds wealth.

 

Ultimately though, this type of thing is useless - particularly the $20 per day bit. Is that adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity? $20 in India is very different to $20 in the UK

 

Aye fair point, it was a pretty basic video but I think highlights some important points.

 

A third of the world sleeps without a roof over their heads for instance. I think we forget sometimes just how lucky we are in the UK financially...

[Adrian@TORQEN]

"How might overall migration change?

 

Some EU citizens would still qualify to migrate to the UK if they faced the same immigration rules as non-EU citizens, but doing so would be much harder because of the skill and earnings requirements for both work-related and family migration.

These changes could have some second-order effects that are essentially impossible to quantify in advance. For example, many UK employers have become accustomed to the flexible supply of EU workers in low-wage jobs, and the removal of this migration route could increase the pressure for illegal migration and employment. It is also possible that immigration of EU citizens could increase in the short run in anticipation of EU exit, as people seize the opportunity to move before the rules change.

Nonetheless, it is difficult to argue that overall migration in the medium term would not be lower if significant new policy barriers were introduced. Would the reductions Brexit might bring be enough to enable the government to hit the “tens of thousands†net migration target? Not necessarily –the most recent data showed net migration of non-EU citizens at 196,000. At least under current economic conditions and policies, Brexit alone would not sufficient to bring the target within reach.

 

By Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory, University of Oxford"

 

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/would-leaving-the-eu-reduce-immigration-to-the-uk/

 

 

[Adrian@TORQEN]

"The British mass media market is dominated by Eurosceptic press titles. This has led to a scale and intensity of negative coverage about the EU that informed commentators have judged to be ‘unique’ in Europe as a whole. The central proposition advanced below is that this development – which began in the later 1980s and accelerated through the 1990s and beyond – has strongly influenced the ways in which UK politicians think about what is achievable in their European policies, as well as what is desirable in the first place.

A ‘climate of fear’ from press backlashes has meant that UK governments have been increasingly unwilling to devise, implement and publicise pro-European initiatives. In this context, David Cameron’s referendum gamble can in part be seen as a tactical response to the catalytic part the UK press has played in fomenting mass Euroscepticism in UK politics and public debate.

[...]

Currently only one national press title, debate the Daily Express, is firmly committed to UK withdrawal from the EU. It remains to be seen on which side of the debate its rivals will come down before the referendum. However, what can be ascertained at this stage is that a vote to remain inside the EU would go against a lot of what the opinion-forming segments of the UK press has been overtly or covertly pushing for some time. This should make journalists and owners wonder whether they really have been giving the UK public the stories about the EU it wants to hear.

 

Dr Oliver Daddow is Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Nottingham Trent University. "

 

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-uk-media-euroscepticism-and-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-membership/

Edited March 15, 2016 by Adrian@TORQEN

[Bockaaarck]

I take quite a keen interest in finance, markets, economics etc, have done increasingly so for the last 9-10 years. I don't lay claim to any great insight or learning but I try to pick up, understand and learn as I go along.

 

In relation the EU In/Out Brexit vote discussions going on across the Internet land. A poster on one of the forums I dip in to now and then pretty much summed things up for me in the following post:

 

"I don't like the EU as it is today. It's undemocratic and corrupt, the best bits about it are being ruined and, like the Labour Party says, it needs reforming in favour of workers, but I can't see how that would happen.

 

And, Boris Johnson said recently: "If the “Leave†side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future."

 

Clueless.

 

The kind of "jolly hockey sticks" attitude you see from managers who think because they don't know anything about it, it must be easy. Trade deals consist of thousands of pages of minute detail. This does not happen just with a "can-do" attitude and optimism! They can take years to negotiate, and still be a pile of crap.

 

The "leave" group is probably strategically correct not to go into detail about what a Brexit would look like. Because if you think about the details, they're horrifying.

 

I can see at least 8 practical problems that could lead to carnage:

 

Problem 1: We have a limited number of trade negotiators. We will have many, many deals to negotiate. Unless you're negotiating the same deal, it's just not practical to try and negotiate them all in parallel. This means either delay, or cheating.

 

Problem 2: Anything done at great speed will contain potentially devastating mistakes and short-cuts. The mostly likely short-cut taken will be to copy and paste entire sections from existing trade-deals, many of which themselves are dodgy.

 

Problem 3: Since we're in a hurry and under pressure, other negotiating partners will assume we'd sign anything. And they might well be right. This puts us at a huge disadvantage in negotiations.

 

Problem 4: more different rules for dealing with different countries is a huge burden on business, especially small businesses who trade with Europe but who cannot keep up with what's bound to be a huge number of drastic changes over a short period of time.

 

Problem 5: the number of trade deals, their apparent urgency and MPs' inexperience with/reluctance to read trade deals means that most deals will be put through with minimal scrutiny, with again, potentially devastating consequences. It's a classic case of "We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it". And of course, anyone against any trade deal would be accused of being "unpatriotic" or "anti-trade".

 

Problem 6: If trade deals are copy/pasted, what will the template be? Given the Government is so keen on TTIP, why not rip bits out of that? Who would bet against it? The danger to institutions like the NHS from malign or incompetent legislation is immense.

 

Problem 7: even when the Government wasn't under pressure it's shown a great willingness to sell off the family silver. What would happen if it was under pressure with a greedy negotiating partner backed up by threats of legal action and persuasive lobbyists? We know from TTIP that consumer champions are let nowhere near trade deals while they're being written, but corporate lobbyists are given the red carpet treatment and the chance to "contribute".

 

Problem 8: where there's chaos, there's opportunists. Can you imagine the highly skilled lobbyists from banks and corporations being able to resist being able to meddle in a pool of trade agreements that no one is scrutinising? It's a corporate wet dream. They wouldn't even need TTIP. And the Government might even be grateful that they were getting all this free "support" to speed things up.

 

Now picture all of the above while dealing with a referendum in Scotland and with Boris Johnson in charge. As I said, I can't see this being anything but carnage. Boris said "we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future".

 

Boris, we can imagine it, but we shouldn't let nationalistic pride blind us to the fact that incompetence, greed and malice will find a way to make life worse for the little guy, and that everything we know about how the system works indicates that it will not go well for the British people.

 

But hey, politicians, civil servants, consultants, lobbyists, corporations and bankers will undoubtedly make out like bandits."

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Very well said.

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Another interesting article, when you think about such an important law debated by UK MPs, thinking that what we do here is better than EU wide legislation:

 

"The Government risks undermining civil liberties by trying to push through its ‘snoopers’ charter’ with little scrutiny from MPs, a pressure group has warned.

Big Brother Watch has voiced concerns that MPs will tomorrow spend just an afternoon debating a 245-page Investigatory Powers Bill, which will hand the authorities vast surveillance powers.

As well as the Bill itself, MPs have had to wrestle with a further 700 pages of supplementary documents that explain the legislation in detail - much of it complex legalese that many will struggle to understand it.

Renate Samson, chief executive of the civil liberties group, told The Huffington Post UK the expectation the Bill will be on the statute books by the end of the year is “too fastâ€."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/snoopers-charter-is-900-pages-long_uk_56e6e5dce4b05c52666ef427

[Adrian@TORQEN]

I'm going to blatantly steal some more opinions from other forums and post it here for debate

 

"Surprised how many of the "out" arguments are actually arguments against the effects of globalisation and our national government's policies. Ironically we will be more at the mercy of these forces if we leave. As for going with your gut, that's not a great way to decide anything but what to eat for dinner.

Question very carefully where the stories that shape your objections to the eu have come from and how wide and unbiased viewpoint that represents. Do the people propagating those ideas share you best interests in advocating a brexit?

It would suit our enemies (economic and ideological) nicely to divide the eu along nationalistic lines. That may even be a prime goal. Clearly the Syria/Iraq refugee flow is a useful lever.

It's like we are a slightly autistic nation, confused and troubled by the world around us, lashing out blindly at our own family."

 

"Our UN membership should't be affected by Brexit and neither should information sharing. Again, ironically the UN weren't behind the Iraq invasion and the legitimacy of that, in fact, to be blunt that war was in every respect illegal and imho Bush and Blair should both stand trial for that. Everytime something like this happens there are consequences. Look at the escalation in Syria once larger powers get involved and the resulting fall out.

So we go all out pre-emptively striking any 'lunatic' by our 'standards', who pose a threat! Who are the lunatics with weapons then? Maybe we need to be and feel weaker, a bit more humility would be welcome after years of tiny dog (island) syndrome trying to bark and force our way on others. I agree that national policies are a huge problem, but with EU standing behind us, perhaps we think we have more international standing and 'might' than we deserve.

Wars fuelled ultimately on control of oil reserves, if we spent the money we did on military campaigns on research and development, alternative energies and the like we'd be in a far better state than we're in now. The last 2 decades of war have achieved nothing, we've lost respect and created a whole new generations of enemies which we can thank Blair for.

I'm not blaming the EU for this of course, but we need to concentrate and take a long hard look at ourselves and how representative of our people we have been. There is a lot of blame that gets unecessarily heaped on the EU, but all the time it is there its a convenient scapegoat for not getting our affairs in order."

 

"I voted and will be voting to stay in, without any doubt we are better in the EU. We already have a special position within the EU anyway and that won't change. The migrant discussion herein is moot anyway, doesn't negatively affect the UK in the slightest, unless you believe the @*!# printed by Mail or other rags lol."

Edited March 15, 2016 by Adrian@TORQEN

[Adrian@TORQEN]

One more:

 

"Europe has called an end to the era of mass bank bail-outs as new rules to stop taxpayers from footing the cost of financial rescues come into force.

Private sector creditors will be forced to take the hit for bank failures as the EU seeks to end the age of "too big to fail", which has cost member states more than €1.5 trillion since 2008.

The measures - which will come into force on January 1 and apply to eurozone states - are designed to break the vicious cycle between lenders and governments that bought the single currency to its knees four years ago.

Senior bondholders and depositors over €100,000 will be in line to be "bailed-in" if a bank goes bust, a departure from the mass government-funded rescues seen in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece in the wake of the financial crisis.

Brussels' tough new Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) will require creditors to incur losses of at least 8pc of their total liabilities before receiving official sector aid.

Britain will not be subject to the rules."

 

http://www.telegraph...s-are-over.html

[Jetpilot]

So what are the implications for Europe if we leave?

 

Where will they find the missing £30 million a day etc

[coldel]

So what are the implications for Europe if we leave?

 

Where will they find the missing £30 million a day etc

 

I think the Stay campaign would simply point towards the extra tariffs the UK will have to pay into Europe to trade which would easily cover it.

 

However, they might not, but until we know what business model the Leave campaign want to adopt its hard to say.

[Jetpilot]

So you dont think leaving will affect Europe at all?

[coldel]

It will but until there is something on the table that resembles a strategy from us who knows what will happen.

 

This is fundamentally an issue, the Stay campaign are literally saying it is what it is. The onus is on the Leave campaign to prove that they have a strategy I can trust and believe in to vote for, like a political manifesto, how can I possibly vote for something that has no basis or plan?

Edited March 15, 2016 by coldel

[Jetpilot]

So why do you think they are so keen for us to stay if its us who will loose out in the long run, as per bmw emailing their staff asking us to stay and the French making threats, yes i am kind of playing devils advocate, but appreciate your views

[coldel]

The EU will always be stronger with economies like ours, the UK is leading the EU out of a global recession in terms of growth.

 

The EU could well lose out in terms of stability of the bloc and a number of other ways economics work - ultimately though it will have significant trading capability with the rest of the world including the states and China etc.

[Jetpilot]

Could it be the catalyst for other countries to have referendums, i am thinking it might. Thanks for your views.

[JetSet]

Could it be the catalyst for other countries to have referendums, i am thinking it might. Thanks for your views.

 

Maybe, there's already been a few to remain/leave like in Denmark and Ireland.

 

Pete

[Adrian@TORQEN]

Some more interesting views, this time from the LEAVE camp

 

http://capx.co/ten-euro-myths-debunked/

 

and this video:

 

[glrnet]

If we leave and that means sucking up to the USA even more that we currently do with our "special relationship" let's hope it doesn't all end in tears on Nov 8th

 

 

Sent from my Zed using Nangkang tyres front, RE040's rear

[Ekona]

I so hope Trump wins, I really do.

[350 Russ]

I so hope Trump wins, I really do.

 

I can't take that seriously