How will you vote in the EU referendum-Leave or Stay?

[BritBrit]

How will you be voting? Can admin add a poll?

Lurked you make me laugh

Ok Bronze your point about trade "We will simply trade freely with the rest of the world", is almost pure fantasy. The liklihood is that if we don't agree an EEA style deal with the EU we will have WTO agreements which several bodies other than the treasury have analysed and found not to be as beneficial.

So no one knows what will happen with trade? But we can make pretty good predition based on the information we have now ( as provided by PWC, The LSE and so on) and the future is not this bright thing that you are making it out to be. If it will be so good, where is all the independent analysis backing it? It should be a foregone conclusion no?

On the Juncker quotes, I think Piglet John dealt with them and shown them to be taken out of context. The secrecy one certainly deals with meetings regarding Monetary policy for the Euro, you know our monetary policy meetings are reported after the fact right?

The MENA countries point Anna makes? There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people here from MENA countries already. Just take a look down the Edgeware Road, Green Lanes lots and lots of different places all over the country.
Do you feel threatened?

Still, telling me to actually travel was funny, I'd tell you to get an education but I think it might be wasted on you.

Oh and the "we get it back point" is easy to prove

From PWC and the CBI:

"The EU accounted for 47% of the UK’s stock of inward FDI at the end of 2011, with investments worth over $1.2 trillion."

"A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together."

"The EU is a springboard for trade with the rest of the world through its global clout: it accounted for 23% of the global economy in 2012 in dollar terms. Through 30 trade deals negotiated by the EU, including the Single Market itself, British firms have full access to a $24 trillion market. The recent deal with Canada and on-going discussions with Japan and the US could double this to $47 trillion - the UK would struggle to achieve the same quality of trade deals independently."

Especially on the FDI point, without EU membership that figure would certainly decline.

Well now Cameron has given up on the economics side because he could not convince us on that one, (but we'll hopefully have a proof from buttered soon enough which should be emailed to Dave as he could use a bit of help on this one) he's started on the war and genocide front.

I saw the vets on the news who fought for our country now saying we're safer in Europe. I am confused.

So now the UK has to be absorbed by the Euro state to save the world.

First we're told how insignificant we are and now we're told we can save the world from war and genocide by voting to stay in Europe.

So now we need some proof that if we exit, there will be wars and genocide.

Lurked, buttered proofs please.

Looking at the state of the world now, I would not be surprised if war breaks out most likely in the middle east (just ducking to avoid the R and X cards being thrown at me) irrespective of remain or exit.

I think the economics side is more than convincing sorry Bronze, the fact you nor anyone else comes up with anything other than: " we will trade freely with the rest of the world" shows it. You know you've had 3 years to prepare for this debate and still can't get anyone independent to verifiy this argument.

On economics I think the Remain side won ages ago.

The peace thing? Oh I think there is something there, going back to Churchill wanting a loose United States of Europe to stop more world wars, I think the economic intergration, cooperation has helped. But I think NATO ( which really means the USA) has been more important during the cold war.

The rest of your argument makes little sense really. We are more influential in Europe than out, we will not be absorbed.

Oh, and there are already wars going on in the middle east (Saudi/Yemen, Syria Iraq) I thought you might have noticed that both of them have significant British influence.

Lurked
""The EU accounted for 47% of the UK’s stock of inward FDI at the end of 2011, with investments worth over $1.2 trillion."

"A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together.""

That only tells us what the EU accounted for. Are you saying that if we were not in the EU none of that inward FDI would have occurred?

The CBI was wrong about the Euro big time so you'll need to do better than that. The CBI told us that the UK would be in dread if we didn't join the Euro how wrong they were. The UK would have been a wreck had we been in the Euro as its value against the pound has been as high as 1.73 and as low as 1.02 in that time.

The CBI president is pro-EU so it's not surprising that nearly all of the material available on their website is also pro-EU, such as the swathe of case studies of pro-EU businesses.

Lurked

"On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,” "

Junckers says there will be transfers of sovereignty and Lurked says there won't.

I meant WW3 might start in the middle east whether we are in our out.

If the economic debate was won, how come it is neck and neck in the polls? I'd expect a clear vote in majority had the economics debate been won. Now we're onto the war to try and frighten some more people in.

Although Cameron is desperate, I think he'll have enough time and money to really frighten and wear down enough people to vote in.

One of the reasons I don't believe him is if he really thought our country would be in such peril by voting out, we would never have been given the opportunity to vote on the EU in the first place.

Second, don't you think he'd have emblazoned his propaganda leaflet in huge red letters with this very important fact as a reason to vote in?

I still have never had a satisfactory answer to the simple question. Why do we need to be ruled by the EU to be in a trading agreement with them? Unless of course the trading agreement is the cover for the real objective - to create a super state. Jean Monnet said as such when he created the idea of the Eurostate. To sell the idea of a superstate, they had to sell positive economic benefits to get people to subscribe to it, even if there were none.

Winter

And PWC have the interests of all their huge clients who benefit from the EU at heart, so anything they produce is also likely dubious.

Oh right bronze, so PWC, the LSE, and the list that I have kept putting here are all have vested interests, so the only people "telling it like it is" are the exit side.

What a load of rubbish, yesterday the majority of the IOD came out in favour of remaining in Europe.

And no not all of that FDI would have happened if we weren't in the EU, one of the reasons it was able to happen is because of the freedom of capital movement which we have at the minute.

"If the economic debate was won, how come it is neck and neck in the polls?"

Because this debate isn't about economics, it never was, its about immigration, its why we have the refurendum. If it had still been blue rinse Tories in the shires calling for one it wouldn't have happened. It's only because of UKIP that it has.

If it had been about economics then the leave campaign would be beaten already, thats maybe why the remain crowd are rattled, because it isn't about economics. Its about the fact that for years immigration has been blamed for everything, from social housing shortages, to benefits scrounging, to NHS pressure. All of which has been shown here to be untrue of EU immigration.

I find it funny that you question every source used and then link repeatedly to Daniel Hannan. The CBI took advice on its stance about the Euro as it has about the referendum, however the Treasury and the BOE accurately warned against it, they've both come out against leaving, yet you question them too because they don't agree with you. What about the LSE< Oxford Economics, the IMF, the OECD? Are they all wrong and a very small number of pro exit economists right?

You know your Juncker quotes are 9 years old right?

Also, on Sovreignty the argeement Cameron got, the parts of which are to do with international law, are to do with Sovreignty and being able to avoid ever closer union etc etc. It would be hard to overturn these.

I still have never had a satisfactory answer to the simple question. Why do we need to be ruled by the EU to be in a trading agreement with them?

Britain could get a trading agreement with the EU, while being outside of the EU.

There are two options: to stay in the EEA, which Leave have ruled out, presumably because of the free movement clause.

The second option is a trade agreement outside the EEA. Possible, but it wouldn't be a good one. The EU will not give out all the benefits of the common market, with none of the costs for Britain. If they did everyone one else would want the same deal and the EU would disintegrate, which none of the EU country leaders want to see happen.

So it'd be a protectionist deal, with Britain still having to follow the stricter EU rules and regulations to be allowed to sell to the EU market. Lose/lose.

What is happening in your Europe is so much more than you realise. You are in the first steps of the end of Europe and democracy as you know it. This is more than a migrant crisis, or a Brexit. It is so serious that some cannot see the situation for what it is.

Germany is the largest of the EU members and quite patriotic. It is not an accident that it is Germany that invited the migration, because it has a strong national identity, has a sense of itself, a distinct culture and history and if the German people knew what was really going on there would be massive resistance to the ending of sovereignty. So the erosion has to begin there.

The transformation of Germany and Austria is being justified by lies, i.e. Germany needs more people, or taking 1 million is an act of altruism. Challenge the narrative, challenge the lie, connect the dots.

Similar has already been done by Blair-Campbell-Mandelson in UK. One of their apparatchiks even owned up to it fairly recently that the reason Labour allowed unfettered migration was not to help the immigrants but to “change the face of British society to a point it could never come back from.” And also – if required – they would have pro-EU voters.

All of this was preplanned, Merkel is following a script that was laid down before she was born. The endgame is indeed a European superstate, which will not be a simple membership of countries but will be broken up into regions under one government with one currency, bank, army, outlook. The plans for a superstate have been under the radar for a long time but they are breaking the surface now and more of us can see a global fascistic state on the horizon.

Resentment of the newcomers has been deliberately created by the invitation because it is an opportunity to bring in tight control on expression (German social media has been deleting posts that criticise Merkel), and Germany is prosecuting comedians. Bewilderment, anger, chaos are precursors to introducing a police state and to eventually bringing about a particular world view in all peoples; there will be few original thoughts, everybody’s outlook will be conformist – far easier to govern by a global elite. The bank crash has also served a purpose, which is to impoverish more working people so that if ever a country demanded a referendum, the majority would be swayed by economics economics economics, because you have been sensitised deliberately to think only in those terms.

At the moment UK can still extricate herself from this madness; if you do, Denmark will follow. Do not underestimate how fearful the globalists currently are, and they will become more draconian as their actions and decisions become less intelligible (to the public) and that may be when more people begin to see through events that make no sense to them.

A North American superstate is also in the pipeline (USA-Canada-Mexico); that is why Obama was so keen to plant a seed of fright in his recent statement.

Well for a start the way that you present that argument:" Why do we need to be ruled by the EU in order to trade with them" is erroneous.

We are not "ruled" by the EU , about 12 % of our laws are mirrors of EU laws in order to make sure that all countries are operating from the same point.

The way you present it is like we have no say in what goes on in Europe, we do, and that it is always against British interests, we vote on the winning side 90% of the time.

You also seem to fail to understand that signing up to the WTO would require some waiving of sovreignty, the WTO can over rule congress in the USA and other parliaments in other countries. It will lower standards of what can be brought into the country and sold ( one of the reasons you lot object to TTIP) etc etc.

Turkeys and Christmas springs to mind.

Tin foil hats on people....

Mine's a lovely three cornered affair.

We are more influential in Europe than out, we will not be absorbed.

I think Mr Lurked needs a white stick and a poultice of figs for his ailments.

Apologies Bronzed, our posts must have crossed. That was directed at Spring, who was being goady and irritating, but no doubt she would have run crying to MNHQ if I had said anything which could even remotely be described as "bullying", so I thought it was probably best I quit and went to bed. MNHQ have deleted some very innocuous posts at Spring's request, which weren't against the Talk Guidelines at all. It's all very tedious.

Unscientific data alert:
(Adding the grand sum of fuck all to the thread, but just a general observation)

On this thread, Remain advocates post a lot of faces.

That puts me off.
Posters who constantly irritate me.
It's passive aggressive and has a sneery, superior tone.

If the economic debate was won, how come it is neck and neck in the polls?

The economy is not the only topic in the debate. Immigration is also a big one. And democracy and sovereignty.

Did you notice the 5 questions Boris said yesterday the "Leave" campaign must now be asking relentlessly of the "Remain" side? The first three were about immigration.

I wouldn't count on "Remain" giving up on the economic argument, because it is the best one they have. It's "Leave" that is now trying to shift the discussion away from economics, and trying to scare people with immigration.

One of the reasons I don't believe him is if he really thought our country would be in such peril by voting out, we would never have been given the opportunity to vote on the EU in the first place.

Why do you think Cameron had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming by the Brexit Tories? In the end he only agreed to it to save his political skin, and because he thought the campaign promise would get blocked by the Lib Dems anyway (bad calculation there). At the time his advisers were also confident of a "Remain" vote.

Sorry Mango, there isn't a wide enough selection of emojis on Mumsnet to represent all my different "wtf" faces. I'll try to tone it down a bit!

Personally it's the use of that I find sneery and superior. That's why I try to only use it when making fun of myself, not directed at other posters.

Buttered
I did actual lol !

I too have a massive selection of WTF faces, so I feel your pain!