Fratton Fred wrote: » Two very long posts, yet other than attacking the posters, no actual comment on the points raised. Bravo sir.
gallag wrote: » exactly, still waiting for a sensible explanation of how we will suffer if divorced from the EU? Benefits to the U.K. 1. save €10 billion per year in direct payments alone 2. limit free moment of EU workers and reduce our own youth employment. 3. no more Health tourism over burdening the NHS 4. No more benefit tourism and paying child benefit to minimum wage workers to send back to there native country where the children live. 5. Bring an end to wage deflation due to the ridiculous notion that countries with vastly differing economies can all operate as a single entity. Madness. 6. No more rules and fines making us non competitive compared to the BRIKS nations, no more dumping good fish to make stupid daily quotas instead of flexibility to keep the fish and take the next day of! cut carbon taxes etc 7. Bring back the 115000 fishing jobs lost to our costal towns etc etc etc Negatives? ??? 1. no access to EU markets. Laughable really, we have a massive trade deficit with the EU. -"The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2009 there was a trade deficit of £34.9bn; in 2011, it was nearly £50bn. In the very worst case scenario if trade stopped with the EU, the UK would lost 3 million jobs which are dependent on trade with the EU. The EU however, would lost 4 millions jobs, so it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer. -Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU." 2. BRITAIN WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM TRADE WITH THE EU BY TARIFF BARRIERS -The EU has free trade agreements with 53 countries to overcome such tariffs, and is negotiating a further 74 such agreements. -EU now exempts services and many goods from duties anyway. In 2009 UK charged customs duty of just 1.76% on non-EU imports. This is so low that the EU Common Market is basically redundant as a customs union with tariff walls. How about instead of calling me a xenophobic racist you deal with the points at hand?
gallag wrote: » and what about the negatives of a Brit exit for the EU? 1. lose there second largest economy (soon to be) 2. lose the most strategically important partner and see the security of the EU massively diminished overnight. 3. lose the fastest growing economy of the important economies. 4. lose the highest contributer to eu funds per capita forcing Germany to pick up the slack and fuel the conversation of what's actually in it for them at this point? 5. potential cash the EU markets overnight. 6. lose the financial capital of the world.
gallag wrote: » exactly, still waiting for a sensible explanation of how we will suffer if divorced from the EU? Benefits to the U.K. 1. save €10 billion per year in direct payments alone 2. limit free moment of EU workers and reduce our own youth employment. 3. no more Health tourism over burdening the NHS 4. No more benefit tourism and paying child benefit to minimum wage workers to send back to there native country where the children live. 5. Bring an end to wage deflation due to the ridiculous notion that countries with vastly differing economies can all operate as a single entity. Madness. 6. No more rules and fines making us non competitive compared to the BRIKS nations, no more dumping good fish to make stupid daily quotas instead of flexibility to keep the fish and take the next day of! cut carbon taxes etc 7. Bring back the 115000 fishing jobs lost to our costal towns etc etc etc
gallag wrote: » fine rebuttals again mcdave! you seem angry?
McDave wrote: » If you want meaningful discussion, you're going to have to do better than raising crypto-racist straw men. For instance, what on earth does 'examples' of 'contributions from the smaller economies in the eu' mean? What kind of inane nonsense is that? What precisely does 'What does Greece contribute? Or Ireland?' mean? I'm reminded by your contributions of that obnoxious little Englander, Nigel Farage's racist insult directed in the EP at Van Rompuy for not being from a proper country. Ah yes, Nigel Farage's UKIP represents the values of a superior race, doesn't he Fred. In somebody's dreams anyway. If you want discussion, raise meaningful points, not wish lists of petty hates and trivial obsessions.
McDave wrote: » 2. Many would argue that EU immigration has benefitted the UK economy. 3 and 4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation within the EU. 5. Nonsense. EU countries don't operate as a single entity. 6 and 7. Sounds like a party political puff piece that. Regional unemployment is more down to the focus of the UK economy in the south east than the EU. So, apart from your etc etc etc, it looks like your argument is down to saving net contributions to the EU. If you don't want to pay your way in the EU, and help develop the more disadvantaged or peripheral regions, good for you. I hope the UK electorate in general has more foresight than you have.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Petty hates and trivial obsessions? Questioning why €56bn of the eu budget is given away as farm subsidies, which included for some reason a Bulgarian bank and the Portuguese water authority. Is that trivial? Maybe you could explain why, in the 21st century is this going on? Why should companies, such as Kerry foods, or billionaire land owners receive millions a year in subsidies? Maybe you could also explain the debacle with government buildings and the rules that mean the entire eu parliament has to pick up everything, MEP s, assistants, the army of interpreters and go to Strasbourg once a month? Could you also explain how questioning this is xenophobic?
gallag wrote: » Laughable really, we have a massive trade deficit with the EU. -"The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2009 there was a trade deficit of £34.9bn; in 2011, it was nearly £50bn. In the very worst case scenario if trade stopped with the EU, the UK would lost 3 million jobs which are dependent on trade with the EU. The EU however, would lost 4 millions jobs, so it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer.
gallag wrote: » I don't think you have made a very good job with your rebuttals but I appreciate the effort instead of a post filled with nothing and insults! just as an example, you say 3&4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation but do you understand any limitations put on non British EU citizens to access NHS and benefits would by EU law also have to apply to British citizens?
Jim2007 wrote: » This paragraph begs the question: if the UK has faired so poorly in a market where they have had unrestricted access, how can they expect to do better when access starts to be come restricted? Will their industry suddenly be come more dynamic, more competitive..... And as for this idea of doing independent trade deals in Asia and so on, the problem there is that the UK cost structure is much higher than in Asia and the price of such agreements will be cheap goods flowing into the UK, resulting in job losses or poor working conditions since workers will have lost their protections under EU law.
McDave wrote: » I don't think you made a very good job with your list of rent-a-phobie bolt-on gripes. They don't in the round really merit detailed rebuttal. On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.
McDave wrote: » On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.
gallag wrote: » just as an example, you say 3&4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation but do you understand any limitations put on non British EU citizens to access NHS and benefits would by EU law also have to apply to British citizens?
gallag wrote: » So what your saying is that if the NHS becomes non viable and overstretched by serving non Brits we should just end it for everyone and not prioritise British people? do you think it's sustainable to have a system where free health care to over 400m people as long as they come and take 16 hrs a week in tesco?
gallag wrote: » But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change.
gallag wrote: » That's pretty laughable, I made a list of genuine points but you would rather ignore them and continue ranting about xenophobic, racist rent-a-phobie etc what about the list of negatives for the EU on a Brit exit? no doubt more xenophobic flag waving little Englander nonsense?
meglome wrote: » What happened that is of issue to you? I won't speak for the Danish vote but I seem to recall we initially voted no for reasons that were, almost entirely, not in the treaty. So I for one had no issue voting again on the actual issues rather that some made up scaremongering.
meglome wrote: » Do you really think after what we've seen here that giving complex treaties to the ordinary joe soap is a good idea?
meglome wrote: » They did a survey after the first Lisbon vote here and as I said above it showed that most concerns were not even in the treaty. It basically allows small fringe groups to scaremonger the populous into making poor decisions.
porsche959 wrote: » Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets? It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party a better chance?
Whatever way I read this, it sounds like ugly elitism.
Incidentally, you seem to assume that the UK would be denied access, overnight, to a 450 million market in the event of opting out of certain EU treaties.
There is a recognised system whereby the referendum commission have the remit and responsibility of informing the electorate of arguments for and against any proposed amendment. If you feel they did a poor job, take it up with them.
gallag wrote: » But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change. still waiting on someone pointing out a negative for the UK on exit?
porsche959 wrote: » Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?
gallag wrote: » I suppose the UK could remain in a EU military pact for access to a free market, that would save the EU a fortune, On a Brit exit the remaining EU countries would have to up spending in this area massively and that's a fact, or else that Bear would feel a lot more comfortable around the polish border!
gallag wrote: » Also iv yet to here anyone explain in a coherent manner why on a Brit exit Germany, who will already be suffering from recession and paying far more into the EU than now will not want to sell BMW'S to there third largest market, just close the factory's I suppose and watch the shares collapse? Yes yes Iceland, Norway blah blah but do they have a €50-€70 billion trade deficit with the EU?
Peregrinus wrote: » I think you may be confusing the EU and NATO. A UK withdrawal from the EU does not imply any reduced commitment to NATO. Or, if you think it does, you probably need to make that clear, and to explain why you think that. Again, I think you’re a bit confused here. Whether or not the UK is in the EU, the Germans will be delighted to sell BMWs to the UK. The question is, will the UK be equally delighted to buy them? That would be a decision for the UK. I would have thought that was the whole point of their leaving the UK. I think what you at trying to suggest, without offering any coherent argument for it, is the UK is such a vewy special pwincess that if they want to participate in the single market without accepting any of the associated commitments, the other 30 states involved will gladly agree. Dream on, but while dreaming on you would be wise to refrain from accusing other boardies of making posts with “very little substance”. It can only expose you to ridicule.
gallag wrote: » Again just fluff with no points dealt with, will the EU have to increase military spending on a Brit exit? will the Germans impose trade restrictions on the UK? will they accept a free market with someone who buys more from them and their loss would crash their economy? what do you think about how ireland would be fairing now if the first vote was respected? what about the EU spending money for viral marketing etc?
