Brexit 23rd June..?

[Irn Bru]

I'm an unashamedly pro independence voter, always have been and voted that way for the last 32 years of my life, I absolutely hate being ruled by Westminster. I know fine well what they think of the Scottish in that place..... I worked there, for my sins.

 

SNP are pro EU, I'm not, and will not vote for them again if they go against the majority of the Jocks, there's strong feeling up here to leave the EU. I haven't voted for independence for 32 years for to be ruled by a continent not even attached to my country, never mind Westminster.

 

Sure the EU have done some good over the years but there been a load of shite that's come out of it as well, I want Norway's way of life, that's my Nirvana.

 

Was reading a interesting article today about the strength of the EU's members and it made some valid points, but for me they were not as strong as the reasons to leave. Make no mistake, mass migration to this tiny Isle will finish us off in 20 years. Look what's happening in our major city's...........The locals can't get housed and buying is just not affordable.......why ?........ too much demand caused by too much migration. Same with hospital, doctors and dental appointments.......3 week wait anyone ??

 

Another thing that grinds me is this... Common wealth country residents can't just fly in here and set up home, but countries we've been at war with can ? How's that fair. Australian based points system for me on that front.

[Stutopia]

...Another thing that grinds me is this... Common wealth country residents can't just fly in here and set up home, but countries we've been at war with can ? ...

 

Of the 54 commonwealth nations, only one isn't a former colony, so we've been at war with nearly all of them too

[Ekona]

So who did you vote for in the European parliament?

Without checking, I believe it was David Campbell-something. I shall now Google to see how close (or far away!) I am.

[Ekona]

So who did you vote for in the European parliament?

Without checking, I believe it was David Campbell-something. I shall now Google to see how close (or far away!) I am.

Campbell-Bannerman, close! Ex-UKIP, ironically, now Tory.

[gsexr]

So on another point that no one has mentioned yet, do you think that as we are having a referendum it will affect the voting against us in the Euro vision Song Contest being as they all love us so much usually

[JetSet]

Same with hospital, doctors and dental appointments.......3 week wait anyone ??

 

 

 

Couldn't get a national health dentist for years around here, I had to go private.....but as it happens a Polish dentist has just setup in Mold and is accepting NHS patients, Caroline just signed up.

 

Pete

[Ekona]

Oh god, those two gimps who won need shooting! I liked blondey girly the best

Edited February 26, 2016 by Ekona

[Jetpilot]

So who did you vote for in the European parliament?

Without checking, I believe it was David Campbell-something. I shall now Google to see how close (or far away!) I am.

Campbell-Bannerman, close! Ex-UKIP, ironically, now Tory.

 

Excellent, did you manage to cast a vote for Herr Porsche a German candidate or Monsieur Michelin from France?

[Ekona]

No, but then I didn't cast a vote for Glasgow East or Cardiff North either.

[Stutopia]

No, but then I didn't cast a vote for Glasgow East or Cardiff North either.

 

If you won't engage in constituencies where you're not eligible to vote, then it's your own fault democracy isn't working.

[Ekona]

Yeah, I suck

[Fodder]

No, but then I didn't cast a vote for Glasgow East or Cardiff North either.

 

If you won't engage in constituencies where you're not eligible to vote, then it's your own fault democracy isn't working.

I genuinely lol'd at that

[Bockaaarck]

Here's a very real scenario for you, by August this year Boris Johnson is prime minister, the UK is out of Europe and sat in a transitional state of economy with the pound plummeting in value, major businesses are sitting in board rooms talking about where to relocate their industy and Scotland are campaigning hard for a second referendum to exit the UK. I admit David Cameron is hardly pulling up trees at the moment, but that scenario simply fills me with despair...

 

Boris Johnson is a charlatan, a wretched and nasty little man, who is very dangerous, IMO. God help us if he gets in as PM. Think Berlusconi was bad, think again if the mop haired sociopath holds power

[Ekona]

He's a genius. It'll be nice to have someone who's both very clever and with a personality in politics.

[Kev T]

TBF the campaign needs a big personality to counter Camerons Project Fear and bring balance back to the debate.

[sonic]

My most immediate interest in this debate relates to the fact I'm off to Fuerteventura in a week and thanks to Boris declaring his intentions the euro is now at a 10 year low.

I currently hate Boris.

[Ekona]

Don't worry, it's higher now than it will be if we leave Just be grateful you're off next week rather than in July

[coldel]

TBF the campaign needs a big personality to counter Camerons Project Fear and bring balance back to the debate.

 

Why do you call it Project Fear?

[Kev T]

This is an interesting short article from the Telegraph regarding Camerons' New Deal' with the EU :

 

What are we to make of David Cameron’s “deal†with the European Union? How does it affect the probability Britain will vote to leave the EU in the referendum now confirmed for June 23?

The Prime Minister achieved very little, to my mind, in his negotiation with other EU member states. In fact, he severely weakened his cause.

The chances of Britain leaving the EU have sharply risen, I’d say, since Downing Street last weekend revealed some rather threadbare concessions.

“Brexit†is now a very real possibility – and any UK-based business that thinks otherwise is probably ill-informed.

Weak in itself, Cameron’s deal was politically pungent. It prompted Lord Chancellor Michael Gove and London Mayor Boris Johnson to announce they’ll now campaign to leave. That buried the notion – always preposterous, yet assiduously promoted by the “in crowd†anyway – that “outers†can only be malcontents, racists or cranks.

 

 

 

The EU has in recent decades become a moribund, growth-sapping monolith

 

 

 

 

Cameron’s supporters argue that his efforts to “fundamentally reform†the UK’s relationship with the EU – as he said in his (in)famous 2013 Bloomberg speech – met with implacable opposition in Paris, Berlin and elsewhere.

That’s hardly surprising, given that the UK squandered much of its bargaining power after the Prime Minister made clear from the outset he would support staying in, whatever deal was struck. Desperate not to ruffle feathers, Number 10 then compounded its error by making few public demands for fear of failure.

This combination of reluctance and cowardice, which prevented us from negotiating hard and generating a Europe-wide popular head of steam behind a more realistic vision of the EU, is what happens when deal-making is driven by risk-averse Westminster-centric spin-doctors rather than people with genuine commercial nous.

The result was inevitable and, in my view, rather tragic. Britain got very little of not very much. Founded on noble intentions, the EU has in recent decades become a moribund, growth-sapping monolith, fast-losing what remains of its popular legitimacy.

Terribly run and grossly bureaucratic, it consistently demonstrates its incompetence – be it with regard to bank regulation or reining in agricultural over-production that warps global markets, exporting deprivation across some of the most unstable parts of the world.

The euro, the starkest example of European group-think, has been an unmitigated, self-inflicted disaster, sparking chronic unemployment and numerous debilitating sovereign debt crises. Yet, still, its creators press on, seeking to further extend the eurozone while moving towards a degree of fiscal and bank-reserve pooling that, all logic suggests, will eventually provoke a populist backlash.

Then, of course, there’s the failure to deal with – or, at least, agree on a coherent strategy to deal with – a migration crisis of near-biblical proportions. Had Cameron made tough demands, and stuck to his guns under an explicit and credible threat to leave, Britain could have begun to turn the integrationist tide, eventually spear-heading the major reforms the EU so desperately needs – reforms which, beyond the high-tables of self-serving diplomacy and the salons of Brussels, grassroots voters across Europe are crying out for.

Had our Prime Minister shown some genuine leadership, and historical perspective, he could have been the man who yanked the EU back into the real world, salvaging something positive and precious from the “European projectâ€, re-orienting it back towards a free trade zone, with broad co-operation across a range of areas – including counter-terrorism, international trade negotiation and the environment – and away from vainglorious nation-building.

A “Europeâ€, in other words, that is coherent, sustainable and enjoys broad, popular support. As it is, Cameron has simply allowed the Brussels high-command defiantly to demonstrate its entrenched power and resolve to avoid reform at all costs.

Now Britain has failed, passing up a unique opportunity to alter the course of the EU, it strikes me this increasingly overbearing, power-hungry institution is doomed to continue on its anti-democratic integrationist path until it cracks apart amidst huge popular discontent.

 

 

 

 

The danger then is that chauvinism and suspicion reigns, and relations across Europe take a serious turn for the worse. The government’s failure to even attempt to secure a game-changing deal stems from a failure to understand modern Britain. Back in 2010, Cameron gave a “no ifs, no buts†pledge to reduce UK net immigration below 100,000.

Figures out last week show that during the year to September 2015 the figure was 323,000, many from Eastern Europe, up from 292,000 during the same period the year before. When it comes to immigration, the vast majority of Brits are tolerant and fair – recognising we need new skills and energy, not least as so many of us (like me) are immigrant stock ourselves. With the best will in the world, though, huge wage differentials, open borders and relatively generous non-contributory welfare provision – the reality of today’s EU – was never going to work.

Mindful that Ukip won 13pc of the vote at the last general election, Cameron presented a new “emergency brake†on in-work benefits for EU migrants as the centrepiece of the UK’s new deal.

But what does this brake actually do? Rather than imposing a five-year in-work benefits ban for migrants, as Downing Street wanted, it allows partial payment from year one, rising to full payment by year four. It will apply not to EU migrants already in the UK, only new arrivals.

Triggering this measure also depends on the UK being able formally to convince the majority of the 28 EU member states our public services are “under strain†due to immigration. Even if we do manage to do that – a big if – the measure will only apply for seven years.

As a method to reassure the British public, this is risible. Very few EU migrants claim in-work benefits during their early years here anyway, as they tend to be young, single and childless, so don’t qualify. And all the evidence suggests that East Europeans don’t move to the UK for benefits, they move here for the work and wages. The UK’s minimum wage – around £240 a week – is twice the average wage in Poland and over four times the same in Bulgaria.

There are six EU countries, in fact, where the average wage is less than a third of the UK’s minimum wage and a further eight where it is less than half, according to figures cited in a recent speech by David Davis MP, the once-time Tory leadership contender, who will likely play a high-profile role in campaigning to quit the EU.

“This has consistently been a top issue for voters for over a decade,†he says. Yet the Prime Minister has emerged with an illusory emergency brake, aimed at the wrong problem. British people, in the main, don’t mind immigration – as long as it is manageable. What they really do not like, at all, is the loss of control and democratic accountability represented by EU rules governing the free movement of labour – rules that didn’t even feature in Cameron’s renegotiation.

Other parts of “the deal†also fall apart when you touch them. The “red card†apparently allowing our parliament to veto European legislation actually requires the agreement of the majority of other EU Parliaments – the securing of which is practically a logistic impossibility.

Our opt-out from “ever closer union†– just words on a document – will do nothing to check or even question the EU’s ongoing, potentially explosive drive towards a “superstateâ€.

There are credible economic arguments on both sides of the great Brexit debate. Based on the Prime Minister’s prolonged re-negotiation, though, announced with great fanfare, the Government deserves to lose.

 

 

 

 

The danger then is that chauvinism and suspicion reigns, and relations across Europe take a serious turn for the worse. The government’s failure to even attempt to secure a game-changing deal stems from a failure to understand modern Britain. Back in 2010, Cameron gave a “no ifs, no buts†pledge to reduce UK net immigration below 100,000.

Figures out last week show that during the year to September 2015 the figure was 323,000, many from Eastern Europe, up from 292,000 during the same period the year before. When it comes to immigration, the vast majority of Brits are tolerant and fair – recognising we need new skills and energy, not least as so many of us (like me) are immigrant stock ourselves. With the best will in the world, though, huge wage differentials, open borders and relatively generous non-contributory welfare provision – the reality of today’s EU – was never going to work.

Mindful that Ukip won 13pc of the vote at the last general election, Cameron presented a new “emergency brake†on in-work benefits for EU migrants as the centrepiece of the UK’s new deal.

But what does this brake actually do? Rather than imposing a five-year in-work benefits ban for migrants, as Downing Street wanted, it allows partial payment from year one, rising to full payment by year four. It will apply not to EU migrants already in the UK, only new arrivals.

Triggering this measure also depends on the UK being able formally to convince the majority of the 28 EU member states our public services are “under strain†due to immigration. Even if we do manage to do that – a big if – the measure will only apply for seven years.

As a method to reassure the British public, this is risible. Very few EU migrants claim in-work benefits during their early years here anyway, as they tend to be young, single and childless, so don’t qualify. And all the evidence suggests that East Europeans don’t move to the UK for benefits, they move here for the work and wages. The UK’s minimum wage – around £240 a week – is twice the average wage in Poland and over four times the same in Bulgaria.

There are six EU countries, in fact, where the average wage is less than a third of the UK’s minimum wage and a further eight where it is less than half, according to figures cited in a recent speech by David Davis MP, the once-time Tory leadership contender, who will likely play a high-profile role in campaigning to quit the EU.

“This has consistently been a top issue for voters for over a decade,†he says. Yet the Prime Minister has emerged with an illusory emergency brake, aimed at the wrong problem. British people, in the main, don’t mind immigration – as long as it is manageable. What they really do not like, at all, is the loss of control and democratic accountability represented by EU rules governing the free movement of labour – rules that didn’t even feature in Cameron’s renegotiation.

Other parts of “the deal†also fall apart when you touch them. The “red card†apparently allowing our parliament to veto European legislation actually requires the agreement of the majority of other EU Parliaments – the securing of which is practically a logistic impossibility.

Our opt-out from “ever closer union†– just words on a document – will do nothing to check or even question the EU’s ongoing, potentially explosive drive towards a “superstateâ€.

There are credible economic arguments on both sides of the great Brexit debate. Based on the Prime Minister’s prolonged re-negotiation, though, announced with great fanfare, the Government deserves to lose.

[Flex]

I dont know how anyone can be expected to vote with the scarse amount of facts available for what will happen if we leave.

 

My main concern would be the impact on businesses.

 

I just fear that the majority of Joe Public will vote with their hearts and I think that's very dangerous.

[Flex]

 

Just so you know there's a big copy and paste duplication in there, I thought I was having deja vu.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Flex

[choptop]

There are pros and cons for both sides.

Getting out of the EU,in my opinion, outweighs staying in.

Imagine where we would be if we had decided to go with the Euro?

 

 

[Ekona]

But we didn't, so the point is moot.

[choptop]

But we didn't, so the point is moot.

 

.....not really Dan. You miss my point. We as a country need to be in control of our own destiny. We are in a global economy now I know, but the more beurocrats we have the more complex it gets in doing what is right for our country and our citizens. Just look at Greece.

[coldel]

Greece is slightly different, somewhat ironically that their local polices (such as pensionable age) are what are causing them so many problems. They want to exit the EU so they can effectively print drachmas for fun to pay back money they have borrowed to try and sustain an unsustainable local economy. I actually feel for Greece, yes they happily slide into a spiral of unsustainable debt but the IMF etc. quite happily lent them the money to carry on that way before trying to reign it in before it was too late.

 

There is a belief that being outside of the EU trading bloc you can make up many of your own local laws, which isn't true. The key ones which people are voting leave on for instance such as immigration, will become part of any future trade negotiation between the UK and the EU. We won't know how much control we will have on these issues until the Leave campaign actually come out and say what type of trade deal they want with the EU - this is why I feel like I have to keep shouting this out, the trade deal is pretty much EVERYTHING in this decision to stay or leave in my opinion as it has such wide reaching influences.