The EU Referendum is nearly upon us.........23rd June.

[Daisyonthegreen]

I have been invited by other posters to start a new EU Referendum Thread as the EU thread "In out shake it all about what to vote in the EU referendum "is now closed.
Anyhow this vote is is pretty crucial for the good of the country and your family.
I make no secret of the fact I feel to vote to Leave is the best option.
On the "In out shake it all about,what to vote in the EU Referendum " Thread I posted many links and gave views on why I feel that way.
I feel we would flourish free of the beaucratic ,undemocratic organisation it has turned into.
A Trading block initially started up with 9 countries in the 1970s has become out of control,mammoth and unwieldy and frankly rather dangerous.
We need to wrest back control of our own country,our borders and our ability to broker our own Trade deals which the EU insists on doing for us.
Plus our own Judicial decisions.
We on leaving would still Trade with the EU,they need us more than we need them actually but the beauty of it we could be free to broker our own deals with the rest of the world on our terms.
In short we would flourish.
We can love/ like Europe but not be in the EU.

Lurked

If the EU is so unimportant Bronze's post about the UK, EU and US not printing money like China also shows a massive misunderstanding about what has driven Chinese economic growth since 2008

I never stated he EU was unimportant. I stated it is heavily in debt and shrinking compared to Asia and China which is a fact. The EU prints money to devalue its currency to mitigate its debt liability. Printing money also robs the population because it devalues the currency. It has even gone to the bonkers length of taking interest rates negative it is so broke. Negative interest rates are legalised theft. You get taxed for saving money. This is not the sort of regime I want to be hitched to.

Read about Singapore. That is the model of broken country now one of the strongest in the world after 25 years. Its a small island like us. If they can do it, so can we.

Lurked's flounce didn't last long

Flouncer's Corner doesn't seem particularly busy at the moment...

It saddens me to read many of the comments of the brexit campaigners. There are so many advantages to membership, ease of trade, a strengthened position during negotiations with other countries, a higher body to ensure basic human rights are respected, commonality in environmental legislation, increased security cooperation, the freedom to work and travel without hindrance. It has generally been accepted that almost half our exports are to the EU, resulting in a finantial knock on and increased regulation as UK manufacturers / exporters have to impliment UK and EU frameworks. There are many problems to resolve in the world today, unfortunately none will be addressed by leaving . Therefore it is critical we remain in the EU but also that we start focusing on solving the problems not isolating ourselves from them.

"You get taxed for saving money."

Ah, so you don't understand negative interest rates either then, you realise it hasn't been applied in a commercial bank yet don't you?

You bang on about exports, yet want to potentially damamge the trade with our biggest export consumer.

You compare the UK to Singapore, a low tax haven of 5 milllion people which can effectively outsource many of its lower paid jobs to Malaysia.

Really don't think you should argue economics any more really, you don't know what you are talking about.

I haven't decided which way to vote yet, there seems to be so many conflicting opinions, and yet so little real information that I personally feel can be trusted.
Reading this thread with interest, always good to hear others opinions.

It "saddens" you? Jesus wept.

That's my mind changed then - because you're sad. I'm crying into my coffee in solidarity.

Just listened to Michael Gove's big Brexit statement. The economic vagueness is astounding. He's basically refusing to choose between the Canada option (= Britain negotiating some form of regulated trade with the EU) and the Single Market option (= free trade but with all the EU rules).

By refusing to choose he's trying to pretend the UK can have the advantages of both options and none of the drawbacks. It's misleading and borderline dishonest.

If the Brexit campaign could just clearly state which exit strategy they favour, then we could have an honest debate about pros and cons.

Part 2 of Nick Robinson's programme "Europe: Them and Us?" is tonight, on BBC2 at 9pm.

The Voice of the People
"A look behind the closed doors of Whitehall and Brussels".

Part 1 was also very interesting, on the "troubled history of the UK's relationship with Europe" and is available on iPlayer.

Eu Remain camp treating voters like children, says Gove

actually, my bad, the Gove interview I referred to was just a preview of the big speech later today. Awaiting further clarification on his economic plans with bated breath!

I would say that treating people like children is refusing to give them a proper analysis supported by facts and numbers. Rhetoric, sweeping generalizations and appeals to emotions don't quite cut it.

So, looking forward to hearing about the Brexit campaign's detailed exit strategy.

I would say that treating people like children is refusing to give them a proper analysis supported by facts and numbers.

Do you think the government's biased leaflet is a "proper analysis"?

Chalalala I don't think a specific "analysis" of the "facts" will work. Whenever either side tries to nail down some "facts" and model how a future path will look, it's ridiculous. Even my husband, a corporate banker in London who knows how his bread gets buttered and plans to vote IN, commented casually that the Treasury report was "nonsense."

There are too many unknowns either way to do much meaningful number crunching.

This situation requires broad philosophical thinking. What makes a "good life?" How much and what do we owe one another, and what are the limits of those obligations? What should be the balance between cooperation and freedom? What are the benefits of unity vs. diversity? Etc.

Ruslana

What gives you the right to better treatment than any other "stranger", as you call them? And why does "bad cultural behaviours" include racism and intolerance on the part of Muslims, but not your own blinkered views?

Double standards much?

Say what you will about the Treasury's projections, but at least they are trying to outline the specifics of Britain's options after a 'leave' vote. If you are going to ask people to vote for significant change, the least you could do is have a plan for an alternative future, or at least explain what your preferred economic and political option is and why.

It's not the same at all to ask people to vote for a post-Brexit future in the Single Market, and a post-Brexit future where we have to negociate a new trade deal from scratch.

This situation requires broad philosophical thinking. What makes a "good life?" How much and what do we owe one another, and what are the limits of those obligations? What should be the balance between cooperation and freedom? What are the benefits of unity vs. diversity? Etc.

Well, yes, actually I agree with this.

And in the end this is what people will vote on, they'll have a gut feeling shaped by their values and priorities. All this economic and political arguing is just white noise to the majority, I suspect.

And in the end this is what people will vote on, they'll have a gut feeling shaped by their values and priorities.

I think unfortunately a lot of people will vote on self-interest and guesswork, i.e. whether they think they'll have a little bit more or less money themselves in the next few years.

the least you could do is have a plan for an alternative future

No-one knows what would happen if we stay either. It works both ways. People are naturally risk-averse and tend to favour the status quo, even if it isn't actually the best option.

oh actually I think there was a study done on this Itinerary (but I can't remember the findings, hah)... hang on let me try and find it.

I think addressing those deeper issues are the only thing that will change anyone's mind. Everyone knows that the treasury, the IMF, and the bankers have been wrong before. Wrong rather recently, in fact. So, I think they pay little attention to it. The age of deference voting is probably over.

In the end, I think people will vote IN. If you are confused, voting for the status quo is attractive.

I'm not on this thread because of time constraints but have been dipping in and out with interest. Several observations: there will be changes whichever way the vote goes. It's an erroneous assumption to think that things will remain the same if we Remain. No-one can describe the changes that'll happen, and voters know this. We have 'best guess' models but anyone who works with statistics knows how easy it is to manipulate data to shine a spotlight on particular aspect of the data rather than another. The methodology that's used to decide what to include or exclude in a data sample is key - so looking to prospective statistical models from UCL, Oxford, LSE, etc. quoted above is actually futile without knowing the methodology that was used to select data categories (I also suspect that the current polls showing roughly 50:50 voting intention, and which have been showing this for months, are perhaps not as transparent as they could be). So, there will be changes whatever happens and nobody can predict what these will be. Where does that leave the ordinary voter? I think that in the absence of solid, definitive information, voters will be voting with their gut instinct and they will be looking to factual information, ie.., what's already happened (in the news, personal experience), in order to decide.