*scratches head* Why is the Remain campaign so rattled?

[TheABC]

I genuinely don't get it. They have already spent £9 million on leaflets, wheeled out everyone from the IMF to the American President and the telephone polls are putting them in the lead. Admittedly, the campaign feels a bit "meh" in that they are talking about potential losses instead of positive future plans, but they still seem to be doing OK.

So why does it feel like they are panicking? Could it just be the way it's reported?

Anna,

Do you think it was a coincidence that NATO forces shrivelled away after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Pigletjohn, as I understand it, NATO shifted its emphasis away from heavy military presence to new missions in Europe. Budgets were cut by around 30% after the Soviet Union fell. As I said upthread, NATO's intentions were threefold of which peace in Europe was one.

30%?

Count the tanks. Front-line Germany reduced the Leopards by 90% and sold them second-hand or for scrap.

British Challengers halved.

Pigletjohn, I am not denying the military presence surrounding the Soviet Union was a big part of NATO's remit. However, there are three areas of focus for NATO and two of them still exist.

My A Level history was a long time ago and I'm a bit rusty.However, I take my lead from current historians who credit NATO not the EU with being the peacekeepers of Europe. In fact, with the expansion plans to move the EU border to Syria and Iraq, I think the EU is seriously endangering peace in Europe.

Is that the Historians-against-the-EU you quoted before?

EU & NATO cooperate. NATO is the main guarantor of the security of European nations from external threat but the EU which has been the most important means of creating, ensuring & extending friendship, co-operation, democracy & the rule of law within Europe.

Eg in the 1990s the EU played a key role in arbitrating border disputes in a nonviolent manner & helped push former Soviet satellites & possessions toward democracy - democratic practices are a prerequisite of EU membership.

Lurked

" think its been made pretty clear what will happen on exit. It will take two uncertain years to sort out, but the EU will not offer us the deal the Brexiteers thing it will. There will be no freed trade deal with full access to the single market without concessions on contribution and freedoms of movement etc"

How can you make such a statement?

You have no more idea what will happen than the man in the moon.

Your speculation is as absurd as Osbourne predicting the state of the economy in 14 years time.

I have no idea what will happen. However, I am using risk to lead me to vote out.

I more fear the risk that the EU will become evermore powerful, bit by bit removing our ability to control our own country; being absorbed into a bloc of countries that represents a decaying bloc when compared to the rest of the first world and emerging economies.

No other trading bloc demands political union of its members. It is not necessary for a successful trading bloc. Thus one has to assume that political union was always on the agenda and I am not for that. How many countries that fought and won independence, then handed their freedom on a plate accompanied by billions of pounds (about 500 billion since we entered the common market) to an unelected and undemocratic federal regime?

To put £500bn into context, that is enough to build about 3 million homes. If nothing else, that would have eased our housing shortage

There is also the risk that by leaving the EU there may be a short term disruption.

However on balance I would rather be a it worse off in the short term and have the opportunity to flourish later on, than be shackled to the EU bloc of 28, 25 of which get subsides from the three richest countries of which we are one, well at the moment we are.

One does not have to a genius to work out what may likely happen. The actions of the EU is to redistribute wealth throughout the EU and impose evermore rules and regulations like some super nanny state.

The hypothesis we'll be richer or no worse off in the EU (which is not proven anyway) is challenged by the fact that the EU can surcharge us for performing better than the rest. They demanded £1.7bn not long ago and what is to stop them demanding ever more?

Lurked
"I'm sorry but that scenario doesn't work with any of the information available, it sounds perfectly fanciful to be honest and means that although there is data and lots of analysis supporting the fact that brexit would be very damaging, there is sod all supporting the happy clappy dreamworld that you and people like Daisy seem to think will happen."

Are you seriously suggesting that if we exit, the whole of the EU bloc will stop trading with us if we don't bend over and agree to their demands? We subsidise them. We buy more from them than they buy from us.

I can only imagine the backlash from EU business leaders when the EU commission says to them, sorry guys, the UK has exited, you can't deal with them anymore until we take 10 years to broker a deal with them. That is if the EU would last another 10 years without our subsidy and business. The risk of that happening is very small however the way you pitch your argument, we'll somehow be left out in the cold with no repercussions for the EU is absurd. That would be like Marks & Spencer deciding not to sell any goods to men. Sure the men don't get to shop at Marks & Spencer but Marks & Spencer would reel from the lost revenue.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Lrked

" think a lot of people will vote remain on the day. In the end the brexit crowd rely on hyperbole and misinformation to make thier points, and have no real economic policy.

I fear people will vote in because they will be scared witless by speculation that millions of people will lose jobs and we'll be at the back of the American queue and the EU won't trade with us any longer, unless we agree to get rogered by them which we already are being.

I sincerely hope that more and more people will see the light and see what the EU's agenda is. It is documented they want a federal Europe. I can't envisage living under the EU regimented federal state of Europe would be preferable to an independent UK.

Oh and that misinformation you mention, is that the same type of misinformation in Camerons propaganda brochure and Osbourne's laughable economic prediction for the year 2030?

Curious that you introduce the idea "the whole EU bloc will stop trading with us"

and yet you suggest there is no need for us to agree terms which satisfy both sides. What you like to call "bend over and agree to their denands."

Of the whole of EU production, what proportion do you think is exported to the UK? About 8%?

And of UK production, what proportion do you think is exported to EU? About 44%?

And you say they need us more than we need them?

Do you think the EU would be greatly troubled if EU exports to Uk halved?

Do you think the UK would be greatly troubled if UK exports to EU halved?

Lurked

" dont't think DC would ever have envisioned it being so close so he took a risk, it may backfire spectacularly, which is why they are really working hard to get people to vote to stay."

Smacks of desperation to me. If being in the EU was such a brilliant proposition, I'd have thought that significantly more than half of voters would be for it specially coupled with the underhand tactics he's concocted to get this far.

Can you imagine what would have happened if he'd have done the honorable thing and sent out a balanced brochure? More chance of a Brexit. Cameron has a lot more money and ammo than leave campaign and has only managed to convince half of voters to stay. Says a lot doesn't it?

"The young haven't been crushed by immigration."

Try telling that to the the poor students leaving college that will have even more competition for jobs.

At this rate, we'll have the same youth unemployment as Spain, Italy, Greece etc.

I anticipate one of the results of the idealistic EU superstate; the spreading of poverty, misery and unrest equally among all EU states.

I'm no fan of Osbourne, but we do have to remember that some of the taxes we pay go toward maintaining the EU apparatus As it gets bigger and bigger, (EU army to pay for etc,), we'll need to pay more taxes to fund for it. We already have two levels of Government to pay for. Why on earth do we need to pay a third time? Actually, come to think of it, once we're absorbed into the EU superstate, local MPs will be redundant. Our Parliament building will make decent offices for even more Eurocrats to operate from.

A bit of a challenge for you. If we remain in the EU, how long do you think it will be before it's illegal to fly the Union Jack or George Cross and have to fly that hideous EU flag instead?

Every time the EU flag is seen and if you do too, have a vision of being ruled by unelected, disinterested Eurocrats that don't give a stuff about our country; leaving you chilled and wanting to vote out more every time the EU flag is seen.

No ones freedom and liberty should be sacrificed at any cost. Vote Leave.

'literally everyone I know bar a couple of very hardcore 'innies ' wants out?'

Oh bless. There's something slightly endearing about the blind belief of people who haven't recently gone through an (independence) referendum. There was a lot of 'I literally don't know anyone who's going to vote No' going on then too.

Except clearly they did know a lot of people who were planning to vote No, but those people just didn't want to get into a debate about it.

Piglet

I'm illustrating. I don't believe for one second that trade will cease. Everyone loses if it does. And if we leave, I'd hope that starts the ball rolling for others to leave too.

So it might take 10 years to come to a deal with the EU. Other countries manage to trade with the EU without being in political union or having a trade agreement so why can't we?

Irrespective, the EU with its political agenda fills me with dread. I want nothing to do with it. There is nil political benefit to us.

Yes we would agree terms with the EU, and they would involve free movement of people, and we would comply with EU legislation because

1. we would need to comply with EU legislation in order to trade with the EU.
2. Many aspects of 'EU' legislation eg protection of worker's rights are quite popular in the UK anyway.

We would definitely be able to make trade deals with the rest of the world. Whether they would be good trade deals is another matter.

A bit of a challenge for you. If we remain in the EU, how long do you think it will be before it's illegal to fly the Union Jack or George Cross and have to fly that hideous EU flag instead?

Ah, the mad dystopian future argument..,

Bronze. I can make such statements cause the vast majority of economic analysis agrees with me.

You need to stop making statements about the fact that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU too. For starters UK exports 45% to the EU , the eu exports are around 15% here.

No one has said trade will stop, what we have said is that full access to the single market will.jot be granted without contributions and the four freedoms. Which you don't want to hear cause they are the main reason you are voting out.

Now the liklihood is that as wto tariffs are very small that being out won't make that much difference on the agricultural products and food stuffs that we bring in from Europe, but it may have an impact on the high grade exports we take over there.

We haven't even considered yet what it would be like if our financial services sector didn't have he right to trade in the EU. There would be a massive reduction in our ability to trade the euro too. That is responsible for a lot of business.

about 500 billion since we entered the common market

The rebate is deducted from the £500bn before it is paid. Applying the discount reduces the figure to about £380bn. Then we get some of the money back mainly for farming & development in poorer areas, the EU makes direct payments such as research grants & some of the money we pay is part of our commitment to foreign aid. See independent analysis;

fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Costs/benefit analysis of EU membership is fraught with difficulties because some of the costs & benefits are difficult to quantify. Eg about 50% of the foreign direct investment we receive comes from the EU, worth £496bn. According to UKTI has brought 64k new jobs & safeguarded another 65k jobs in the UK during the last 3 years.

Thanks for that, I'm tired of trying to argue the 55 million a day rubbish.

Brexiters mangle the data and willfully misrepresent the facts, all to suit their POV.

Brexiters mangle the data and willfully misrepresent the facts, all to suit their POV.

I didn't know George Osborne was a Brexiter

Are you seriously suggesting that if we exit, the whole of the EU bloc will stop trading with us if we don't bend over and agree to their demands? We subsidise them. We buy more from them than they buy from us.

We need the EU as much if not more than they need us. Britain’s exports to the EU represent 13%of our GDP. The rest of the EU’s exports to Britain represent just 3%of its GDP. So although neither side would win from a trade war we would be hit proportionately much harder.

Ah but Osborne's data isn't wrong is it, its just projected levels of growth on different deals, have you read the report? Do you understand how they came to their conclusions?

I'll agree that any forecasts to 2030 are unlikely to be entirely accurate, however, Osborne's figures broadly agree with independent research by PWC, HSBC, Bank of England, IFS, OECD, IMF, LSE and Oxford University.

Even your much vaunted economists for brexit group consists of about 8 people who haven't done anywhere near the amount of work that the institutions listed above have, they just make statements. The only other group you've got making economic forecasts is Vote leave, whose are based on the trade deal that we've been told is not going to happen.

So Osborne's data is wrong, yet Brexiters can repeat ad nauseam the £350 million a week stuff, despite being told repeatedly by many posters and lots of other sources that its woefully inaccurate, and had it proved?

I'd say that was far more wilfully misrepresenting than Osborne.

It is documented they want a federal Europe

But much of the documentation is based on highly selective out of context quotes, misquotes or misinterpretations going back 50+ years & conflating it to fit assumptions. In at least one case a famous quote in wide circulation was made up & another the quote originated from adding something a person shouted in anger to something they had written 20 years or so earlier.

Federalism isn’t the bogeyman its made out to be. In the UK we tend to think of of a federal system like the the heavily centralised one in the US whereas European federalism is looser like the Swiss model where decisions are made at the lowest level. In any event as soon as Britain & Denmark joined (not to mention Ireland with it’s specific constitutional requirements) the likelihood of EEC/EU ever becoming a unified state diminished.

The economist had a good piece on "ever closer union" that said much the same as your post, its been in documents and treaties for ages and is taken out of context by many on the brexit side.

Remainer here.
Nicholas Soames (who incidentally h as lost about half his body weight - no longer Fatty Soames), grandson of Churchill is intereviewed in the Telegraph - wants us to remain. Good for him and has the usual good reasons to stay.

Vote to stay on Thursday.