Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

I'll be voting to remain as others have said; the "leave" campaign has done nothing [credible] to show why leaving would actually be a better option. I find the amount if disinformation and general outright dishonesty by the leave campaign & some of its supporters to be risible with much of it akin to listening to snake-oil merchants promising the earth, moon, and stars with little question as to the why, how, or when. I also think that the amount of hook, line, and sinker buy-in among the general population to leave is due in part to the fact that the leave campaign have had an incredibly long run-in to this. Even longer when you consider that the likes of UKIP and the media have been chipping away at this for a considerable number of years.

All that said, I do have to take heart in the fact that several friends who had spoken negatively regards the EU in the past have changed their tune with the realisation that their jobs (some very high-brow stuff) are very much at risk and likely to be pulled onto the continent in the event of a leave vote. And all of this before the "stay" campaign has really kicked into gear.

Most of my friends are staunchly Eurosceptic but stop at the point of throwing the European baby out with the bathwater. They see the EU as a mixed blessing with more positives than negatives and therefore advocate my voting to remain which was my original intention.

The Leave side seems entirely devoid of pragmatism with a few seemingly thinking the UK is still a superpower. I read a piece in The Sun by Tory MP Liam Fox who's response to the argument that the EU has an incentive to deal harshly with a post Brexit UK was something along the lines of "Are they going to stop selling us German cars, Italian clothes and French wine?" A trade deal will need ratification from the other EU member states and I don't see Poland giving two stuffs about Volkswagen's importing of Passats to the UK.

djpbarry wrote: »

Interesting piece from YouGov here: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/03/05/yougov-view-remain-ahead-support-fundamentals/

Essentially, the polls show voter opinion to be fairly evenly split between Leave and Remain at present.

However, what’s interesting is that voters are overwhelmingly of the opinion that leaving the EU would be bad for the economy, would result in the UK having less influence in the world and would have a negative effect on British jobs.

Is the UK prepared to bite off it’s nose to spite it’s face?

My worry is that, even though a lot of people might vote "remain" to preserve the status quo, it will leave a significant minority who wish to leave unsatisfied. There have been suggestions from the SNP that a vote to leave will trigger another Scottish independence referendum which will likely pass given the result last time and Scotland's relative Europhilia.

oscarBravo

Trompette wrote: »

@Lemming

Only for these few links, if I was you, I'd vote for "leave"

Let's see...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/650115/Britain-European-Union-war-Jean-Claude-Juncker-Brussels-peace-Brexit-David-Cameron

The Express in typical harrumphing indignant style claiming Juncker "bizarrely ordered eurosceptics to visit WAR GRAVES..."

In the sidebar, I see the headlines "BREXIT THREAT: Spain will ‘take control of Gibraltar as soon as Britain leaves EU’" and "France to hire FERRIES to send Calais migrants to Britain within HOURS of EU Out vote".

I think we can take all that with a typically Express-sized pinch of salt. Moving on:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4697891.ece

"Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, has drawn up strict rules forbidding civil servants from drafting speeches for pro-Brexit ministers or allowing them access to documents relating to the referendum."

This, of course, is the EU's fault.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker#2015

Not sure what the significance of this is.

http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-gmo-opt-out-2413905-Oct2015/

The directly-elected Parliament rejects a proposal from the appointed Commission. Quelle horreur!

https://www.citizen.org/documents/TAFTA-GMO-factsheet.pdf

TAFTA doesn't exist. Besides, what's with the anti-GMO woo? Next thing you'll be giving out about vaccines.

It seems you didn't understand that EU is a jail.

The links you've provided don't come remotely close to demonstrating that.

Lemming

Trompette wrote: »

It seems you didn't understand that EU is a jail.
Let me know if you want more, I even have a lot in French.

Your "informative" post would show that it is not I who does not understand how the EU works.

But on that note, you've just copied and pasted in links without comment as to their content which is a bit of a no-no around these parts. So ... care to synopsise those links, why they're valid and why I don't have a clue about the EU?

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's horrific scaremongering plain and simple with no nuance whatsoever though the Remain side can be just as bad.

Are they though? I'm at a loss to see any hyperbole or excess from the remain side - most of it pointing out the extreme uncertainty of Brexit and that the UK cannot assume it will get all of its demands met the minute they leave. Can you show any examples of the remain side being "bad"? I appreciate the need to balance between the sides but I don't see that with the "euro-skeptics".

ancapailldorcha

micosoft wrote: »

Are they though? I'm at a loss to see any hyperbole or excess from the remain side - most of it pointing out the extreme uncertainty of Brexit and that the UK cannot assume it will get all of its demands met the minute they leave. Can you show any examples of the remain side being "bad"? I appreciate the need to balance between the sides but I don't see that the "euro-skeptics".

Perhaps "just as bad" was over the top on my part but I've read arguments going on and on about how we need the EU to tackle climate change, how Scotland will leave if we vote for Brexit, questions about the stability of Northern Ireland in a post Brexit UK and concerns over the safety of a UK outside the EU. I fully intend to vote to remain by the way.

oscarBravo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

...I've read arguments going on and on about how we need the EU to tackle climate change...

Maybe, maybe not. If the UK is as committed to tackling climate change inside or outside the EU, that's an easy argument to refute.

...how Scotland will leave if we vote for Brexit...

Brexit would certainly be a strong catalyst for another Scottish referendum, particularly if Scotland votes overwhelmingly to remain.

...questions about the stability of Northern Ireland in a post Brexit UK...

There certainly are valid questions about the possible need for border controls between the Republic and NI, given that it would be an EU frontier. The idea of a visible border crossing would be unsettling for many.

...and concerns over the safety of a UK outside the EU.

I haven't heard any of those concerns. There certainly are valid concerns regarding health and safety of workers, considering that one of the motivations to leave seems to be that the nasty EU keeps forcing employers to ensure their workers' safety and welfare.

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

There certainly are valid questions about the possible need for border controls between the Republic and NI, given that it would be an EU frontier. The idea of a visible border crossing would be unsettling for many.

That canard has been raised time and again. Neither of the two countries are in Schengen and we have a CTA. There is no border between Norway and Sweden when one is in the EU and one is not. If the UK leaves I imagine there will be a quick deal to continue the CTA.

Palmach

Lemming wrote: »

I changed their tune with the realisation that their jobs (some very high-brow stuff) are very much at risk and likely to be pulled onto the continent in the event of a leave vote. And all of this before the "stay" campaign has really kicked into gear.

More scaremongering. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the UK will lose jobs because of a Brexit. Most trade is now covered and will be more so in the future by the WTO. Furthermore the UK is the 5th biggest economy on the planet and no one will not sign a trade deal with the British.

ancapailldorcha

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. If the UK is as committed to tackling climate change inside or outside the EU, that's an easy argument to refute.

True. I'm not making it one way or the other. I'm just mentioning it. Then again, I follow the Green Party's Facebook page which likely lacks a wide readership.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Brexit would certainly be a strong catalyst for another Scottish referendum, particularly if Scotland votes overwhelmingly to remain.

Agreed. The fact that it was so close last time makes this a legitimate argument IMO.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There certainly are valid questions about the possible need for border controls between the Republic and NI, given that it would be an EU frontier. The idea of a visible border crossing would be unsettling for many.

Ireland and the UK seem to have a special relationship. We can vote in each other's elections and have close links as a result of our history. This would be uncharted territory after Brexit though. There's also the cost and responsibility to consider. Staffing the border with officers won't be cheap and will they be Gardaí or PSNI officers?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't heard any of those concerns. There certainly are valid concerns regarding health and safety of workers, considering that one of the motivations to leave seems to be that the nasty EU keeps forcing employers to ensure their workers' safety and welfare.

Nick Clegg mentioned this in a debate with Nigel Farage in 2014. It's been a while since I watched it but he made the point that UK security agencies has successfully cooperated with those of EU nations to effect the arrest of terrorists.

Palmach

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nick Clegg mentioned this in a debate with Nigel Farage in 2014. It's been a while since I watched it but he made the point that UK security agencies has successfully cooperated with those of EU nations to effect the arrest of terrorists.

Do you think they will stop co-operating with the UK after a Brexit? Do you have to be in a Union with other countries to co-operate on security matters? Don't you think NATO is far more important in this role than the EU?

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

Do you think they will stop co-operating with the UK after a Brexit?

The EU removes barriers to such cooperation though and makes it easier. Do you have anything to suggest that such cooperation will continue unimpeded post-Brexit?

Palmach wrote: »

Don't you think NATO is far more important in this role than the EU?

This doesn't negate the EU's importance in this regard.

Palmach

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU removes barriers to such cooperation though and makes it easier. Do you have anything to suggest that such cooperation will continue unimpeded post-Brexit?
This doesn't negate the EU's importance in this regard.

The above is untrue. Britain co-operates far more with other countries than with countries in the EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

The above is untrue. Britain co-operates far more with other countries than with countries in the EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

This isn't a reason for erecting barriers to EU cooperation though.

Lemming

Palmach wrote: »

More scaremongering. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the UK will lose jobs because of a Brexit. Most trade is now covered and will be more so in the future by the WTO. Furthermore the UK is the 5th biggest economy on the planet and no one will not sign a trade deal with the British.

Actually for two of my mates it is a very, very real prospect. The company both work for has a strong base on the continent, one regularly travels to the continent, and the company deals in ITAR-controlled technology and with several other EU nations in that regard. Both work in different arms of the same company so two different sectors to be affected adversely.

So no, it's not scaremongering.

Edit: as for the rest of your guff, whilst yes the UK is the 5th largest economy on the planet, it's not the 5th largest trading block. And the important word is "Block". In an increasingly block-oriented world, nobody who is pro-leave has bothered to ask themselves WHY the next guy should run for a trade deal with the UK over say .... the EU, or Mercursor, etc. I'm sure they will get around to it, but how long will that take? US trade talks with the EU have been on-going for over ten years and the US have publicly stated that they have no appetite to negotiate a separate treaty for the UK. It comes down to simple numbers; which trade deal gives you the widest coverage? A single country, or a bloc?

Palmach

Lemming wrote: »

Actually for two of my mates it is a very, very real prospect. The company both work for has a strong base on the continent, one regularly travels to the continent, and the company deals in ITAR-controlled technology and with several other EU nations in that regard. Both work in different arms of the same company so two different sectors to be affected adversely.

So no, it's not scaremongering.

Edit: as for the rest of your guff, whilst yes the UK is the 5th largest economy on the planet, it's not the 5th largest trading block. And the important word is "Block". In an increasingly block-oriented world, nobody who is pro-leave has bothered to ask themselves WHY the next guy should run for a trade deal with the UK over say .... the EU, or Mercursor, etc. I'm sure they will get around to it, but how long will that take? US trade talks with the EU have been on-going for over ten years and the US have publicly stated that they have no appetite to negotiate a separate treaty for the UK. It comes down to simple numbers; which trade deal gives you the widest coverage? A single country, or a bloc?

There is no either or. One can trade with other countries whether in a bloc or not. Singapore, Switzerland and New Zealand are not in blocks and are doing just fine. We heard the scaremongering about the UK having to be in the Euro or else. How did that turn out?

Palmach

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't a reason for erecting barriers to EU cooperation though.

Eh you seem not to grasp my point. Nick Clegg bringing up the point was wrong. Security and defence are more in the NATO department and the UKs main allies are not int he EU. In short in or out won't make a whit of difference.

andrew

Palmach wrote: »

There is no either or. One can trade with other countries whether in a bloc or not. Singapore, Switzerland and New Zealand are not in blocks and are doing just fine. We heard the scaremongering about the UK having to be in the Euro or else. How did that turn out?

I think the point is more that

1. While the trade agreement is being negotiated there'll be uncertainty, which is bad.
2. The UK already has trade agreements via the EU, and wouldn't be able to improve upon them on its own, so why leave?

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

Eh you seem not to grasp my point. Nick Clegg bringing up the point was wrong. Security and defence are more in the NATO department and the UKs main allies are not int he EU. In short in or out won't make a whit of difference.

This doesn't mean that EU membership doesn't assist such cooperation though. I think it is a pertinent point.

andrew wrote: »

I think the point is more that

1. While the trade agreement is being negotiated there'll be uncertainty, which is bad.
2. The UK already has trade agreements via the EU, and wouldn't be able to improve upon them on its own, so why leave?

Indeed. The pound has already lost value and is becoming somewhat volatile.

Palmach

andrew wrote: »

I think the point is more that

1. While the trade agreement is being negotiated there'll be uncertainty, which is bad.
2. The UK already has trade agreements via the EU, and wouldn't be able to improve upon them on its own, so why leave?

The argument is not just about trade. There will be uncertainty for a while but business will adjust quickly. As important is the right to control your borders and bring in laws approved by the Commons and being able to decide your own countries destiny.

oscarBravo

Palmach wrote: »

That canard has been raised time and again. Neither of the two countries are in Schengen and we have a CTA. There is no border between Norway and Sweden when one is in the EU and one is not. If the UK leaves I imagine there will be a quick deal to continue the CTA.

Norway is in the EEA.

Nobody's claiming that there couldn't possibly be a CTA after Brexit; the point is that we don't know how it will work, and merely hand-waving and telling people not to worry about it doesn't address those concerns.

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

The argument is not just about trade. There will be uncertainty for a while but business will adjust quickly. As important is the right to control your borders and bring in laws approved by the Commons and being able to decide your own countries destiny.

How long will a while be? One source claims a minimum of 10 years. Meanwhile, Mark Carney, president of the Bank of England claims that Brexit is the biggest risk to the UK's financial stability (Source). In any case, uncertainty of any kind is a strong disincentive to any kind of long term investment in the UK which is bad for all concerned. Also, HSBC is considering moving its headquarters to Hong Kong. Many other firms may follow suit. Especially tempting will be Ireland with its low rate of corporation tax and full access to the single market.

andrew

Palmach wrote: »

The argument is not just about trade. There will be uncertainty for a while but business will adjust quickly. As important is the right to control your borders and bring in laws approved by the Commons and being able to decide your own countries destiny.

Are there any particular laws which aren't in place which you feel should be? In relation to border control, what's happening now that you'd rather not happen?

Palmach

andrew wrote: »

Are there any particular laws which aren't in place which you feel should be? In relation to border control, what's happening now that you'd rather not happen?

I have no idea as I am not in the UK. From speaking to people in the UK and reading the papers and online control of borders is one of the main driving factors that cause people to support the Leave camp. Not the only one but the main one. Therefore I would think these people want and end to the unrestricted free movement of people.

Palmach

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How long will a while be? One source claims a minimum of 10 years. Meanwhile, Mark Carney, president of the Bank of England claims that Brexit is the biggest risk to the UK's financial stability (Source). In any case, uncertainty of any kind is a strong disincentive to any kind of long term investment in the UK which is bad for all concerned. Also, HSBC is considering moving its headquarters to Hong Kong. Many other firms may follow suit. Especially tempting will be Ireland with its low rate of corporation tax and full access to the single market.

The same guff was spouted when the UK refused to join the Euro. The City would be decimated banks would leave etc. Turned out to be nonsense.

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

The same guff was spouted when the UK refused to join the Euro. The City would be decimated banks would leave etc. Turned out to be nonsense.

So you don't think loss of access to the world's largest single market regarding financial services is worth considering?

Palmach

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you don't think loss of access to the world's largest single market regarding financial services is worth considering?

http://www.economicvoice.com/the-city-has-everything-to-gain-and-nothing-to-fear-from-brexit/

Hot off the presses. The City does more trade with people outside the EU than inside so loss of access won't be an issue. Furthermore as I have repeatedly said countries trade with each other all the time even if they are not politically in any union.

Lemming

Palmach wrote: »

I have no idea as I am not in the UK. From speaking to people in the UK and reading the papers and online control of borders is one of the main driving factors that cause people to support the Leave camp. Not the only one but the main one. Therefore I would think these people want and end to the unrestricted free movement of people.

I am in the UK. I live here. And I would take what gets put up in media circles with an incredibly large grain of salt particularly where the EU is concerned. The 'perceived' border thing is a red-herring. It's populist sh*te that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What gets moaned about is invariably some sort of poster-child family of 17 Romanians in social housing on $55k in benefits whilst demanding a larger house. That's not a border issue. That's a social welfare system abuse issue. And if you went into any deprived area in the UK, you'd no doubt find large native-born families of 3rd generation career welfare-recipients doing similar.

Further, anyone who is not an EU citizen is subject to UK sovereign border controls anyway. I've had Indian & Pakistani work-colleagues who had to get visas to travel elsewhere within the EU because their visas only allowed entrance to the UK on specifcally stated terms. The UK border control force was lampooned - I think last year, or possibly the year before - for failing spectacularly in its job. I recall the term "not fit for purpose" being used. But no, instead of actually recognising that home-grown people can f*ck up, the popular narrative is to blame someone else.

Lemming

Palmach wrote: »

http://www.economicvoice.com/the-city-has-everything-to-gain-and-nothing-to-fear-from-brexit/

Hot off the presses. The City does more trade with people outside the EU than inside so loss of access won't be an issue. Furthermore as I have repeatedly said countries trade with each other all the time even if they are not politically in any union.

So, the loss of access to your single biggest trading market - by almost half of all trade - is no big deal eh?

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

There is not one scintilla of evidence that the UK will lose jobs because of a Brexit.

The research lab I work in is partly funded by a European Research Council grant. My job is specifically tied to this grant. If the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer have access to ERC funding. Unless the UK government increases funding for science to make up the shortfall (which seems unlikely given the cost-cutting that’s taking place at present), jobs in the industry will be lost.

Palmach wrote: »

Do you think they will stop co-operating with the UK after a Brexit? Do you have to be in a Union with other countries to co-operate on security matters?

Well, the UK already has several opt-outs pertaining to security and justice matters, so…

Palmach wrote: »

As important is the right to control your borders and bring in laws approved by the Commons and being able to decide your own countries destiny.

Perhaps you could give an example of a piece of UK legislation that was not approved by the Commons?

Palmach wrote: »

From speaking to people in the UK and reading the papers and online control of borders is one of the main driving factors that cause people to support the Leave camp. Not the only one but the main one. Therefore I would think these people want and end to the unrestricted free movement of people.

No, they just want to stop immigrants arriving in Britain. I doubt they have any issue with Brits moving freely to other EU states.

View

Palmach wrote: »

There is no either or. One can trade with other countries whether in a bloc or not. Singapore, Switzerland and New Zealand are not in blocks and are doing just fine. We heard the scaremongering about the UK having to be in the Euro or else. How did that turn out?

Both Singapore and Switzerland ARE members of trade blocks. New Zealand isn't but has a myriad of agreements with ASEAN much like Norway & Switzerland have with the EU.

And the comparison with the U.K. debate over the Euro is false. The U.K. remainded a member of the EU irrespective of that decision. That is totally different to opting to leave the EU and subjecting themselves to tariffs on their exports to the EU and those non-EU countries they trade with using EU agreements (a total just shy of 2/3s of all UK exports).

Palmach

View wrote: »

Both Singapore and Switzerland ARE members of trade blocks. New Zealand isn't but has a myriad of agreements with ASEAN much like Norway & Switzerland have with the EU.

Exactly my point. Small economies like NZ can negotiate agreements you can be sure they'll be queuing up to sign ones with the UK. Also the trade blocks like ASEAN are far far weaker than the EU.

And the comparison with the U.K. debate over the Euro is false. The U.K. remainded a member of the EU irrespective of that decision. That is totally different to opting to leave the EU and subjecting themselves to tariffs on their exports to the EU and those non-EU countries they trade with using EU agreements (a total just shy of 2/3s of all UK exports).

Again I have little doubt tariffs will not be imposed and a deal will be done. Remember trade with the UK is in the rest of the EU's favour by several billion. My point on the Euro stands. Dire warnings were issued and nothing happened.

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

Again I have little doubt tariffs will not be imposed and a deal will be done. Remember trade with the UK is in the rest of the EU's favour by several billion. My point on the Euro stands. Dire warnings were issued and nothing happened.

Well, it's certainly in everyone's interest to continue trading. However, there is a very real prospect of losing access to the single market for services which is a vital part of the UK economy. In addition, only about 6.5% of EU exports go to the UK but a trade deal will require ratification, something which many EU countries, especially those in Eastern Europe will have little incentive to look favorably upon.

Palmach

djpbarry wrote: »

The research lab I work in is partly funded by a European Research Council grant. My job is specifically tied to this grant. If the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer have access to ERC funding. Unless the UK government increases funding for science to make up the shortfall (which seems unlikely given the cost-cutting that’s taking place at present), jobs in the industry will be lost.

Not wishing to minimalise your situation but I'd say very few jobs overall rely entirely on EU funding. Yes they may be affected but overall on the macro level most companies will still do what they have always doen and export to the EU and those on the other side of the Channel will export to the UK..

Well, the UK already has several opt-outs pertaining to security and justice matters, so…

So for some people it is not enough which is one of the things that is driving this issue. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/17/immigration-british-attitudes-harden-benefits That right wing xenophobic rag the Guardian.

Perhaps you could give an example of a piece of UK legislation that was not approved by the Commons?

None. Can you give me examples of EU directives or regulations approved by the Commons?

oscarBravo

Palmach wrote: »

Again I have little doubt tariffs will not be imposed and a deal will be done.

This, to be honest, strikes me as the archetypal response to any concerns expressed about the possible ramifications of Brexit. It's never "here's my detailed analysis based on carefully-researched investigation into the facts pertaining to the argument you've made"; it's always "it'll be fine, don't worry about it".

Trompette

djpbarry wrote: »

The research lab I work in is partly funded by a European Research Council grant. My job is specifically tied to this grant. If the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer have access to ERC funding. Unless the UK government increases funding for science to make up the shortfall (which seems unlikely given the cost-cutting that’s taking place at present), jobs in the industry will be lost.

Hi djpbarry, do you think ERC funding "make/print" the euro banknotes your UK lab get?
This money is from UK state but maybe you don't know that and no one pro-EU will tell you that.
In France we have the same argument for the farmers. All pro-EU say they will loose the founding...Ha, ha, ha.

Have a look at this post I wrote
You will find out that UK paid more than receive, around 5 billions in 2014 and I think the same every year. If the lab you work in is necessary, UK state will give it the money and the state will still have 5 billions to spend in what UK citizen want.

If I can give you an advice djpbarry, please don't blame me, if you didn't know the above, please read other media than pro-EU, you have 4 small months to understand how works EU and you will vote "leave".

andrew

Palmach wrote: »

I have no idea as I am not in the UK. From speaking to people in the UK and reading the papers and online control of borders is one of the main driving factors that cause people to support the Leave camp. Not the only one but the main one. Therefore I would think these people want and end to the unrestricted free movement of people.

I don't understand this reason, as there's no evidence that this has been bad economically for the UK (that I know of).

Scofflaw

andrew wrote: »

I don't understand this reason, as there's no evidence that this has been bad economically for the UK (that I know of).

The available evidence points the other way - but then the Leave campaign has a tendency to say that while it will allow the UK to take full control of its borders it wouldn't mean that the UK would close its doors to European immigrants (or Commonwealth ones, although that wouldn't be affected by leaving the EU anyway), even though immigration is a major factor driving Leave voters.

Which may seem somewhat contradictory, but there you go.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

The research lab I work in is partly funded by a European Research Council grant. My job is specifically tied to this grant. If the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer have access to ERC funding. Unless the UK government increases funding for science to make up the shortfall (which seems unlikely given the cost-cutting that’s taking place at present), jobs in the industry will be lost.

Just to reinforce this point further:

Stephen Hawking is among more than 150 fellows of the Royal Society who have come out in favour of staying in the European Union, arguing that Brexit could be a “disaster for science”.

The scientists, including three Nobel laureates and the Astronomer Royal, warn that any threat to freedom of movement could severely affect research in Britain.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4709730.ece

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

Exactly my point. Small economies like NZ can negotiate agreements you can be sure they'll be queuing up to sign ones with the UK. Also the trade blocks like ASEAN are far far weaker than the EU.

You think that by leaving the EU, the UK can negotiate a better trade deal with the EU than the one it currently has?

Palmach wrote: »

Again I have little doubt tariffs will not be imposed and a deal will be done. Remember trade with the UK is in the rest of the EU's favour by several billion.

Trade is in everyone’s interest, yes. But, like all Leave campaigners, you are vastly overstating the importance of UK trade to the rest of the EU. Access to the EU market is far more important to the UK than access to the UK market is to the EU.

Palmach wrote: »

Not wishing to minimalise your situation but I'd say very few jobs overall rely entirely on EU funding.

Commence shifting of goalposts.

You said “there is not one scintilla of evidence that the UK will lose jobs because of a Brexit”. Now you’re saying only “very few” jobs will be lost? Care to put a number on “very few”?

Palmach wrote: »

So for some people it is not enough which is one of the things that is driving this issue.

But you said that the UK will continue to cooperate with EU states on security matters – now you’re saying they will not?

Palmach wrote: »

None. Can you give me examples of EU directives or regulations approved by the Commons?

All of them. All British legislation is passed in the Commons. All of it.

djpbarry

Trompette wrote: »

Hi djpbarry, do you think ERC funding "make/print" the euro banknotes your UK lab get?
This money is from UK state but maybe you don't know that and no one pro-EU will tell you that.

The UK covers the ERC’s entire budget? Really?

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

This, to be honest, strikes me as the archetypal response to any concerns expressed about the possible ramifications of Brexit. It's never "here's my detailed analysis based on carefully-researched investigation into the facts pertaining to the argument you've made"; it's always "it'll be fine, don't worry about it".

Is there detailed analysis that contravenes what I am saying? No. No one knows for sure what will happen. What we can say is that dire warning re the ESM and the Euro have been heard and proven to be false. People are not going to refuse to sign up to trade deals with the worlds 5th, soon possibly to be 4th, largest economy on the planet.

andrew wrote: »

I don't understand this reason, as there's no evidence that this has been bad economically for the UK (that I know of).

I agree but to me it seems other factors also carry wieght like border controls etc.

djpbarry wrote: »

You think that by leaving the EU, the UK can negotiate a better trade deal with the EU than the one it currently has?
Trade is in everyone’s interest, yes. But, like all Leave campaigners, you are vastly overstating the importance of UK trade to the rest of the EU. Access to the EU market is far more important to the UK than access to the UK market is to the EU.

Next time you head down to your local hardware/diy shop see how many things are made in China. Not in the EU but has extensive trade links. Even better take Taiwan. Much much smaller and more ostracised yet manages to trade with the EU. Hans and Pierre are buying widgets from John Bull Ltd in Slough. If the UK leaves a deal will be signed like that with Norway and Switzerland and they will continue to trade.

Commence shifting of goalposts.

You said “there is not one scintilla of evidence that the UK will lose jobs because of a Brexit”. Now you’re saying only “very few” jobs will be lost? Care to put a number on “very few”?

Ok that is a direct Union paid job which compose a small minority, tiny I'd say of jobs in the UK. The vast vast majority jobs are private sector and I have seen no evidence that jobs will be lost in this sector or in the Uk government funded sector.

But you said that the UK will continue to cooperate with EU states on security matters – now you’re saying they will not?.

Oh FFS! Stop being ridiculous. If, post Brexit, police in the UK pick up the phone to Polish police about a gang operating in both countries a with a view to exchange of information joint operation will the Poles say "sorry chaps you are not in the EU" and put the phone down? Likewise the UK co-operates with many middle eastern countries and Israel, very closely with Israel, on Islamic terrorism. EU membership has zilch to do with it.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote:

Is there detailed analysis that contravenes what I am saying? No. No one knows for sure what will happen

This has become something of a go-to dismissal of any suggested negative consequence of Brexit. The same logic mysteriously doesn't apply to benefits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lemming

Palmach wrote: »

I agree but to me it seems other factors also carry wieght like border controls etc.

And I've already responded to that. The border controls thing is a red-herring by media looking for click-bait, xenophobic sorts, and the gullible who accept whatever they read on facebook as gospel.

Ok that is a direct Union paid job which compose a small minority, tiny I'd say of jobs in the UK. The vast vast majority jobs are private sector and I have seen no evidence that jobs will be lost in this sector or in the Uk government funded sector.

You'd say? You've personally seen no evidence of jobs likely to be lost? Right... whatever you're having yourself so.

Have youever stopped to have a a cursory moment of reflection on the UK car industry (such as it exists now) and just who the major players are? Or Rolls Royce and BAE who are heavily involved in partnerships with continental companies? Or the employer of several friends whom I shall not name. These are BIG employers with actual revenue generation, not services industry jobs. We're talking tens of thousands of jobs and skillsets that are not readily replacable. They are very much at risk. The likes of RR and BAE I have no doubt will survive, but at what cost after they've been forced to rationalise?

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

No one knows for sure what will happen.

If the Leave campaign were in any way honest, that would be their slogan.

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

Next time you head down to your local hardware/diy shop see how many things are made in China. Not in the EU but has extensive trade links. Even better take Taiwan. Much much smaller and more ostracised yet manages to trade with the EU.

But in neither case is the trade “free”.

You, and others, keep missing this fundamental point. Absolutely nobody is suggesting that trade between the UK and EU will cease in the event of Brexit. However, what is being argued is that a trade deal negotiated between the UK and the EU post-Brexit could not possibly be more beneficial to the UK than that which currently exists.

Palmach wrote: »

If the UK leaves a deal will be signed like that with Norway and Switzerland and they will continue to trade.

Will it be better than the status quo?

Palmach wrote: »

Ok that is a direct Union paid job which compose a small minority, tiny I'd say of jobs in the UK.

“I’d say”?

Palmach wrote: »

The vast vast majority jobs are private sector and I have seen no evidence that jobs will be lost in this sector or in the Uk government funded sector.

I’ve just provided you with evidence that jobs will be lost and you dismissed it.

Palmach wrote: »

If, post Brexit, police in the UK pick up the phone to Polish police about a gang operating in both countries a with a view to exchange of information joint operation will the Poles say "sorry chaps you are not in the EU" and put the phone down?

No, but the UK will no longer be able to issue a European Arrest Warrant, for example.

Palmach

Lemming wrote: »

And I've already responded to that. The border controls thing is a red-herring by media looking for click-bait, xenophobic sorts, and the gullible who accept whatever they read on facebook as gospel.

It really isn't. If you leave the EU you can re-impose border controls. So can other countries with your citizens as well if that is a chance you are willing to take. Also you can set limits on welfare and entitlements outside the EU

Have youever stopped to have a a cursory moment of reflection on the UK car industry (such as it exists now) and just who the major players are? Or Rolls Royce and BAE who are heavily involved in partnerships with continental companies? Or the employer of several friends whom I shall not name. These are BIG employers with actual revenue generation, not services industry jobs. We're talking tens of thousands of jobs and skillsets that are not readily replacable. They are very much at risk. The likes of RR and BAE I have no doubt will survive, but at what cost after they've been forced to rationalise?

I am glad you brought up the car industry. John Redwood was asked this question on an Irish radio programme. He state all four of the big car producers had publicly said that a Brexit would not change their plans for further investment in the UK.

Palmach

djpbarry wrote: »

You, and others, keep missing this fundamental point. Absolutely nobody is suggesting that trade between the UK and EU will cease in the event of Brexit. However, what is being argued is that a trade deal negotiated between the UK and the EU post-Brexit could not possibly be more beneficial to the UK than that which currently exists.

It is not all about trade. There are benefits to choosing what you accept from the EC and you don't. That has been the Euroscepics point for a long while

“I’d say”?
I’ve just provided you with evidence that jobs will be lost and you dismissed it.
.

Well exactly how many jobs are directly funded by the EU in the UK that will be lost if there is a Brexit?

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

It really isn't. If you leave the EU you can re-impose border controls. So can other countries with your citizens as well if that is a chance you are willing to take. Also you can set limits on welfare and entitlements outside the EU

Except most EU immigrants are here to work and contribute, not drain benefits.

Palmach wrote: »

I am glad you brought up the car industry. John Redwood was asked this question on an Irish radio programme. He state all four of the big car producers had publicly said that a Brexit would not change their plans for further investment in the UK.

What about the heads of major Universities? Service providers? Banks? Major manufacturers? Pharmaceutical firms?

Palmach wrote: »

It is not all about trade. There are benefits to choosing what you accept from the EC and you don't. That has been the Euroscepics point for a long while

What imports from the EU are undesirable?

Palmach wrote: »

Well exactly how many jobs are directly funded by the EU in the UK that will be lost if there is a Brexit?

Have you a source to substantiate the claim that only a few will be lost?

Palmach

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-three-million-uk-jobs-rely-directly-our-place-eu/

From the link...................

Another report published in 2000 by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research concluded that "detailed estimates from input-output tables suggest that up to 3.2 million UK jobs are now associated directly with exports of goods and services to other EU countries." However this report acknowledges that:

"there is no a priori reason to suppose that many of these [jobs], if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU."

and...................

The most recent report Full Fact could find was conducted by Civitas in 2004. This provided an assessment of all the previous reports and concluded that "the economic impact of British withdrawal from the EU would be marginal—less than one per cent of GDP. Putting it another way, these three studies find that, for the UK, the net economic benefits of EU membership are at best marginal."

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-three-million-uk-jobs-rely-directly-our-place-eu/

From the link...................

and...................

Don't have time to read that at the moment but a report from 2004 and no reason to assume that these jobs would be lost is not the sort of guarantee someone working for an EU migrant would need.