In,out,shake it all about,the EU ,what's best to vote.

[Daisyonthegreen]

Nothing on here,or am I wrong,I'm a newbie so be patient with me.
Anyhow here goes it's the Referendum on the European Union on the 23 June this year.
I'm voting Leave.
How's about you guys?

In no way is it a "dictatorship".

"Lurked, but at least you can vote them out. We cannot vote out the Eurocrats that make our laws. This is so important, I cant overstate it enough."

But we can vote out Governments who deal with the EU as well as the MEP's. It is very unlikely that we would be able to negotiate a trade deal that would involve complete freedom of trade and exemption from EU laws or regulations.

The FT ran a good article today about how the UK should not expect easy EU renegotiatns and this has also been stated by other EU countries.

BTW the UK has been on the winning side of 90% of all EU votes in the last 6 years.

fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/

As well as this the new "red card" allows the UK to raise issues and that they must be addressed in order for a law to pass.

Its not a dictaroship. Your argument is hyperbole.

In no way is it a "dictatorship".

"Lurked, but at least you can vote them out. We cannot vote out the Eurocrats that make our laws. This is so important, I cant overstate it enough."

But we can vote out Governments who deal with the EU as well as the MEP's. It is very unlikely that we would be able to negotiate a trade deal that would involve complete freedom of trade and exemption from EU laws or regulations.

The FT ran a good article today about how the UK should not expect easy EU renegotiatns and this has also been stated by other EU countries.

BTW the UK has been on the winning side of 90% of all EU votes in the last 6 years.

fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/

As well as this the new "red card" allows the UK to raise issues and that they must be addressed in order for a law to pass.

Its not a dictaroship. Your argument is hyperbole.

In no way is it a "dictatorship".

"Lurked, but at least you can vote them out. We cannot vote out the Eurocrats that make our laws. This is so important, I cant overstate it enough."

But we can vote out Governments who deal with the EU as well as the MEP's. It is very unlikely that we would be able to negotiate a trade deal that would involve complete freedom of trade and exemption from EU laws or regulations.

The FT ran a good article today about how the UK should not expect easy EU renegotiatns and this has also been stated by other EU countries.

BTW the UK has been on the winning side of 90% of all EU votes in the last 6 years.

fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/

As well as this the new "red card" allows the UK to raise issues and that they must be addressed in order for a law to pass.

Its not a dictaroship. Your argument is hyperbole.

Anna, they would be worse because we would be a little fish in a great big ocean. You only need to look at the comments the USA has made ("normally we just fax other countries our terms and tell them to sign") and the way we blocked the EU's proposed tariff on China because we didn't want to upset the Chinese to see how the negotiations would go. Being in the EU is what stops us from getting our arses handed to us by bigger and more powerful countries, and if we leave, that will quickly become apparent.

And your comments about the EU being a dictatorship are hyperbole - and bloody offensive to all the people in the world who do actually live in a dictatorship.

Thanks to the joys of first past the post, I am actually more democratically represented in the European Parliament than I am in Westminster.

But we can vote out Governments who deal with the EU as well as the MEP's.

The MEPs can't put forward any new laws. It's the unelected Commission that does that, and we can't vote them out.

We can't vote out governments who deal with the EU, because if we're in the EU our government has to deal with them. There aren't any anti-EU parties to vote for except UKIP, even though Brexit has supporters within nearly every political persuasion.

the UK has been on the winning side of 90% of all EU votes in the last 6 years.

That just means they were with the status quo. But when they actually wanted to see something different, they've been routinely outvoted. The UK has very little influence in the EU.

The EU parliament's Vice-President, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, has said of Cameron's proposed reforms "The whole thing is nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar".

If we wanted more influence in the EU we could always try working with the system rather than against it.

The U.K. is basically the kid who sits in a corner of the playground sulking while the other kids play, muttering about how "this isn't how we play this game at home".

"The MEPs can't put forward any new laws"

Yet they get to vote on things put forward by the commission.

"Even though Brexit has supporters within nearly every political persuasion."

So does Bremain and more importantly has more support from business.

Tell me what trade deals are going to replace the EU? Tell me how we are going to negotiate with all the countries, 54 of them, who are curently negoitating or have negotiated trade deals.

Every brexit idea on trade relies on getting access to the single market without paying any cost which we are told is not going to happen by other countries.

Where is independent analysis of all the benefits of brexit?

Britain will not get access to the single market without free movement in the EU. It's just not going to happen.

Which is probably why the Brexit camp is strangely silent regarding the EEA. They don't want to say Britain will stay in, because that would lose them the immigration talking point. They don't want to say Britain will leave it, because that would lose them the fiction of continued free trade with Europe post-Brexit.

Which is probably why the Brexit camp is strangely silent regarding the EEA. They don't want to say Britain will stay in, because that would lose them the immigration talking point. They don't want to say Britain will leave it, because that would lose them the fiction of continued free trade with Europe post-Brexit.

THIS. 100 times this.

Why the remain campaign are not shouting this from the rooftops is beyond me.

the fiction of continued free trade with Europe post-Brexit.

The UK buys more from the EU than the EU buys from us. Fact. If we vote out of the EU and it does not allow us to trade with the other 27 nations everyone loses. Not just the UK, everyone.

Do you honestly think BMW, Mercedes, Renault, the French wine makers, the Spanish olive oil producers, Zara, and so on will be happy when they are told by the EU regime they are no longer allowed to sell their products to the UK? Every country will suffer and chaos will ensue. Within the 2 year divorce period we will have signed trade agreements that we have mutually beneficial trading with.

The EU parliament's Vice-President, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, has said of Cameron's proposed reforms "The whole thing is nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar"

I have just read that article. Even the feeble changes DC negotiated will not be delivered.

I'm not surprised but I am sure some in the Remain camp still think Dave got us a great deal. Another one of his desperate lies.

But not without agreeing to the 4 freedoms we won't. Also the UK would makes up 16% of the EU exports if it were a foriegn country. We export 44% to the EU.

"BMW, Mercedes, Renault, the French wine makers, the Spanish olive oil producers, Zara, and so on will be happy when they are told by the EU regime they are no longer allowed to sell their products to the UK?"

They will be even less happy if UK firms are given a preferential deal and competitive advantage in terms of trade as more of their markets will be covered by the EU terms of trade and regulation.

I'm off to bed. But first, a final note on democracy. Refering to the recent Dutch vote on Ukraine, the Luxemborg Foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, states that referendums are not part of parliamentary democracy. Pure arrogance and contempt for us from the dictatorial EU elite.

Vocabulary.com definition A dictatorship is a government or a social situation where one person makes all the rules and decisions without input from anyone else.

Wiki definition Dictatorships and totalitarianism generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems Does this sound familiar?

"where one person makes all the rules and decisions without input from anyone else."

Definately doesn't sound like the European Union, which has a council of ministers from elected governments which makes decisions, a parliament which does the same and has free elections from across the union.

"Dictatorships and totalitarianism generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems."

Could be employed either way couldn't it? However, non partisan sources tend to be more for Bremain or say that there is something to both arguments. Which leads me to:

"Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas."

Which as almost all of the sources posted by Brexiters here are from partisan sources could lead to further discussion.

Night !

So does Bremain and more importantly has more support from business.

I don't agree that money is more important than freedom. Big business is more likely to be pro-EU because it benefits them, not necessarily everyone else. Small businesses are less likely.

The predictions are that the economy won't really change very much either way.

*If we wanted more influence in the EU we could always try working with the system rather than against it.

The U.K. is basically the kid who sits in a corner of the playground sulking while the other kids play, muttering about how "this isn't how we play this game at home".*

What do you think "working with the system" means in practice? We have already attempted to work with the system as best we can. If "working with" the EU means having a very small percentage of the overall decision making power, and being routinely outvoted, then clearly they are not "working with" us in return.

The EU is basically the bully in the room who pretends to be reasonable but is actually fixed on its own path and makes this the priority instead of the wellbeing of its friends. Some of its cronies pour contempt on stronger countries out of jealousy. If anyone finally tires of this, and wants to leave and make their own way, they're accused of being uncollaborative. Once the bully has them back in its grasp it treats them with derision and often ignores them once again.

However, non partisan sources tend to be more for Bremain

Like the government leaflet you mean?

Where is independent analysis of all the benefits of brexit?

All over the internet for a start, and in debates such as Question Time or Newsnight which have expert panellists from opposing viewpoints.

However, the benefit I would most like to see is return of our sovereignty. Money just doesn't do it for me, and it seems that's what the pro-EU arguments always come back to.

Small businesses are less likely: the cbi says 71% of SMEs back remaining.

I wonder why people think the government have a vested interest in remaining.

Politically the tory voting based is euro sceptic so shouldn't they be voting that way not remainingoing if they want to keep their seats.

The lack of sovereignty argument isupplied problematic because in order to remain trading with the EU we would need to continue to follow EU regulation, it would be part of any agreement. Outside the EU we have less control .

I've still not seen independent analysis from a group or individual who wasn't either pro brexit prior to referendum or has vested interests that way. Where as PWC, the economist and others don't have agendas ando back remaining.

Anna

I did a long post in the other thread about what the single market is, how it works, and why leaving the EU will not get us a better deal than we have now. I'm reposting it here in case you're interested. Sorry in advance for the length.

What is the single market?

The single market is the foundation on which the EU is built. The idea is that there should be no barriers to trade between member states. If I want to sell goods or services to customers in Italy, I can do so under the same trading conditions as my Italian competitors. If I want to buy something, I can buy it just as easily from a German company as I can from a British company, giving me much greater choice. This opens up the entire market to much greater competition, resulting in better products and services and lower prices.

The fundamental rule of the single market is that there should be no barriers to the free movement of goods, services, people or capital. At the most basic level, this means no tariffs or customs duties when something crosses an internal border. It also means member states have to agree the terms on which they trade with countries which are not in the single market. If France has better trading terms with Venezuela than Denmark does, a French company who wants to import goods from Venezuela and sell them in the EU will have a competitive advantage over a Danish company wanting to do the same thing. This is why individual member states cannot negotiate their own free trade agreements with other countries independently of the EU.

Why do we have so much EU law?

Tariffs and customs duties are not the only barriers to trade. If Swedish businesses are subject to stricter environmental protection regulations than Polish businesses, the Polish businesses have a competitive advantage because their operating costs are lower, allowing them to undercut their Swedish competitors. This is why we have EU directives and regulations to harmonise laws relating to environmental protection, health and safety, consumer protection, employment rights and so on. By setting minimum standards which everyone has to comply with, we maintain a level playing field for businesses wanting to compete with each other without creating a “race to the bottom” in terms of standards. This is where all the “Brussels bureaucracy” and “red tape” comes from.

EU law also covers competition law. Broadly, this means it is illegal for companies to engage in collusive behaviour (such as price fixing), or for big companies to abuse their dominant position by behaving in a way which could force their smaller competitors out of business (such as selling at a loss). It also means that governments have to advertise opportunities for public contracts and give all interested suppliers an opportunity to bid for them (rather than favouring suppliers in their own country), and that they cannot prop up failing businesses or make their own national industries artificially competitive by giving them large subsidies. (This is very topical at the moment due to the steel crisis.)

Can we leave the EU and still have access to the single market?

Probably. Several European countries are not in the EU but have agreements with the EU which give them access to the single market without being full EU members.

What would that mean for us?

No one knows exactly what sort of deal we would get, but the most helpful example to look at is probably Norway. Norway is a prosperous, successful country which is not in the EU, but has access to the single market. It is, if you like, an “associate member” of the EU.

Norway contributes roughly the same amount to the EU budget per person as we do. They have to accept free movement of people, because this is one of the fundamental principles of the single market. They also comply with the majority of EU laws because these are all designed to eliminate barriers to trade, which is fundamental to the internal market. The rules which apply to Norway are a little more fluid than the rules which apply to full EU member states, but they are broadly subject to the same rules as everyone else.

How is that different to being a full member of the EU?

The main difference is that they do not have MEPs, they do not have a position on the Council and they are not really represented in the European Commission. They work closely with the EU on many issues, but when the EU is passing new legislation or negotiating on major issues like treaty change, Norway is essentially excluded from that process.

What is the point of that?

Damned if I know.

So what sort of deal could the UK get?

The likes of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson believe that we can negotiate a special deal, under which we will still have full access to the single market but we will be able to control our borders and have full sovereignty over our own laws.

Do you believe that?

Nope.

Why not?

Because it would require the remaining 27 member states to unanimously agree to completely re-write the rules of the single market, just for the UK.

Please believe me when I say that if we want to leave the EU but retain full access to the single market, the very best we could hope for would be the deal that Norway currently has. And that would not address any of the issues that people who want to leave the EU are unhappy about.

That sounds a bit pointless.

Yup.

OK, so what can we do to regain full control over our borders and full sovereignty over our own laws?

We have to leave the single market. Completely.

In my view, this is the only coherent position for someone who thinks we should leave the EU, for the reasons I have outlined above.

What would leaving the single market mean?

The short answer is, no one knows.

Most economists seem to agree that it would have a negative effect on our economy in the short to medium term, and after that, it’s anyone’s guess. We might be more successful in the long run. We might not.

What free trade agreements could we have?

Initially, none. We would lose the benefit of free trade with the EU, and also all the other free trade agreements that the EU currently has with other countries. We would have to start again from scratch.

We can do that, right?

Yes, of course we can.

So what’s the problem?

Well, most of the countries we are very keen to trade with are much bigger, richer and more powerful than we are. (Yes, OK, we’re the 5th largest economy in the world. At the moment. As members of the EU.)

Countries such as the USA are not very good at negotiating. They are used to wielding all the bargaining power, which is why smaller countries trade with the USA on the USA’s terms. The reason why TTIP is such a massive ballache is because the EU is an equally powerful negotiating partner, and the USA isn’t used to that.

Another thing to bear in mind is that none of these other countries will be in a hurry to negotiate a free trade agreement with us, as they will still be able to trade freely with the remaining 27 member states under the terms of their existing agreements with the EU. Can you think of anything people need to buy from the UK which they cannot get from any other country in the EU?

OK, what are the other issues?

We need to think about the effect Brexit would have on the value of our currency. The pound has already fallen sharply against all other major currencies since the referendum was announced.

In November 2015, £1 was worth just under €1.43, making one euro worth just under 70p. Yesterday, £1 was worth just under €1.24, making one euro worth just over 80p. This means the pound has fallen more than 13% against the euro in that period. Most of that fall took place in the days following the announcement of the referendum date.

If the announcement of a referendum everybody already knew was happening caused the pound to fall so sharply in such a short space of time, what do you think the impact of an actual Brexit vote would be?

So what happens if the pound falls even more?

Everything we import will be more expensive, regardless of where it comes from or whether there are any tariffs, and the effects of this would be felt very quickly. (Long before we actually left the EU.)

On the plus side, it could make our exports cheaper and therefore more competitive. However, we import more than we export, so the net effect would be negative. The benefits of a weaker pound would be felt by UK exporters. The disadvantages would be felt by anyone wanting to buy anything which is not produced in the UK, i.e. the rest of us.

Can’t we just buy things which are produced in the UK?

Not really.

Take cars, for example. We manufacture cars in Britain. Really expensive cars like Aston Martins and Rolls Royces. The kind of cars people like you and I drive are generally imported. But most people don’t buy cars very often, and when we do, we tend to buy used cars, so the effects of this would not be felt straight away.

What about food? Well, the last time the UK had to rely on domestically produced food to support our entire population was during the second world war, when ships bringing food in from abroad were liable to be torpedoed by German submarines. I expect your granny remembers what rationing was like, why don’t you ask her how much fun that was?

You’re just being silly now.

Yes. Sorry.

We can’t produce all our food domestically, so we would still have to import a lot of food, and it would probably be more expensive.

What about jobs?

Some people say that freedom from EU regulations would encourage businesses to invest in the UK. Other people say that being positioned outside the single market would discourage investment in the UK. Nobody really knows what the impact would be in the longer term. What is pretty certain is that companies which currently have their EU headquarters in the UK would need to relocate the EU part of its business to a country which is, well, still in the EU.

What about sovereignty?

Well, since we would no longer have to comply with any EU law, in theory the government could repeal all of our laws which are based on EU law and re-write the rule book. They might choose to maintain or even improve upon the employment rights we currently enjoy. They might not. They might choose to maintain or improve upon existing standards of environmental protection and health and safety. They might not. No one knows.

What about immigration?

We could control our borders. Sort of.

We could make up our own rules about who is allowed to come and live here, and who is not. We probably couldn’t stop France from sticking all the Calais migrants on boats and sending them here. So we could make our own rules, but we couldn’t rely on anybody else to help us enforce them.

Anything else?

Yes. We’re not actually being asked to vote on whether to stay in the single market or not. David Cameron hasn’t given us that option on the ballot paper, because he doesn’t have the power to make that offer. So if we do leave the EU, the end result will probably be something along the lines of one of the above scenarios, but we won’t get to choose which one.

If you’re planning on voting for Brexit, you should really have an opinion on whether we should leave the single market or not. But you should also be aware of the risk that what we end up with will not be what you are hoping for.

One final thought:

The single market only functions if all its members are subject to the same rules. That's why there will be no special deal for us whereby we get access to the single market but don't have to contribute to the budget, accept free movement or comply with EU law. If we were allowed to do that, the single market would fall apart completely, because all the other member states would take the view that if the UK can have all the benefits without having to follow any of the rules, why should they follow the rules either?

This is why the other member states want us to stay. (Let's face it, it's not because we're particularly nice or easy to get along with.)

Of course they want to be able to sell us BMWs and Audis without tariffs. But if it's a choice between that and saving the union, they won't hesitate to throw us under a bus, "pour encourager les autres".

Donald Trump. He has poor presentation, and he tends to make un-PC statements but have any of you considered why Trump chose to run in the elections this year? I think Trump is one of the few high-profile people in USA that is trying to prevent his country going down the same sewer that Europe is. Do not underestimate his intelligence and how well informed he is politically-speaking.

He understands (though it would not be sensible for him to say this) but there is a very powerful powerful move towards a One World Govt. THIS is the con that is being perpetrated on Europe and N. America.

There is a circle of very influential activists - the man who runs Hungary, for example, is on to them. This is a long term global governance plan that has been in existence from before the European Union was formed. The European Union is just another brick in the wall. It is nothing to do with xenophobia. Trump knows this and is trying to get them off at the pass insofar as America is concerned.

meant to type " ..... is trying to cut them off at the pass ..."

I love your tinfoil hat, where did you get it?

You are one of the educated but nevertheless Useful Idiots. You do not know your Modern History and come across as a complete twat. Your comment was expected, because of the clappers you are wearing. Go back to your gardening leave and let people consider the bigger picture. There are worlds within worlds, girlie, so take your snearing elsewhere and do one.