Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Can anyone explain why the government and others are so desperate for us to stay?

273 replies

TwentyOneGuns · 15/06/2016 20:18

I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of politics and economics is not great but it seems to me there must be more to it than we are being told. If they are getting so scared of a Leave vote that they have to threaten us with Emergency budgets etc what are they really worrying about? I just can't believe they have only the interests of the country at heart. What do they get out of it if we vote Remain?

OP posts:
Ouriana · 16/06/2016 16:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

daisychicken · 16/06/2016 17:23

This is another FB post:

"Firstly, I haven't read much in the media debate about the mechanics of a UK exit. It's all a bit 'we have to leave to protect our borders'. Or 'we have to stay to protect the economy'. What I hadn't realised until this morning is that if we vote to leave, the mechanics of withdrawal are horrendously complicated (unsurprisingly). The mechanism under which we'd exit (Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union) is 17 words long (one of the people who drafted it was on the panel of speakers and he admitted that the drafts-people never expected it to be invoked). Once we've sent our letter to Europe saying that we're off, we'd have two years to negotiate our withdrawal. The problem (apart from the fact that two years is no time at all to unravel our participation in Europe), is that Article 50 is only an exit agreement. It doesn't make any provision AT ALL about how we then negotiate our new relationship with Europe from the outside. In fact, legally, Europe CANNOT negotiate a new relationship with us until we're a third country ie the two years have passed. So while we can have some informal, closed-door conversations during that two-year period, we can't begin to put anything formal in place until we're out on our own. When we've finally managed to negotiate our new deal with Europe after those 2 years, a lot of the terms of that deal will have to be ratified by all of the remaining 27 Member States. And experience tells us that ratification could take 7-8 years. So it struck me that we might be in a weird sort of limbo for a whole decade, which doesn't sound too good. Secondly, if we do end up having to negotiate a new relationship with Europe from the outside, we will obviously be pushing for it to include all the things we want - access to the single market, free trade etc (all that 'good stuff'). But we're not going to get that for free. We'll have to make concessions. And the things which we're most likely to have to concede on are going to be the things which seem to be driving the Leave campaign (primarily, 'close the borders'). There's a strong chance we'll have to concede on free movement of people. So we'd be in the same position we're in at the moment except that we'd be on the outside looking in, instead of having a seat at the table with the decision-makers. "

This kind of highlights how I feel - there isn't enough information about how we would proceed if we leave, I realise that it's a completely situation and we don't actually know what would happen but I feel that the leave gang are focussed on issues such as immigration but haven't offered (as far as I am aware) suggestions on how to move forward IF we leave the EU. I'm leaning towards remain because the thought of another recession and the insecurity of what would happen does worry me.

MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels · 16/06/2016 18:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SpringingIntoAction · 16/06/2016 19:22

No sneering there at all. Statement of fact. People paid for democracy with their lives. You seem happy to sell it for cheap roaming charges (not an EU initiative anyway) and budget air fares (not another EU initiative either).

But hey ho.

You're not observing the suspension of the campaign out of respect for the tragic death of Jo Cox then?

AnnaForbes · 16/06/2016 19:28

Good post going around facebook, with how after Manchester bombing there was a regeneration fund of £21 million pounds. UK only contributed £150,000 rest came from EU. Does the EU have a magic money tree? No! the EU funds come from my taxes and yours. We are one of the biggest contributors to the EU, all they are doing is giving us some of our money back.

MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels · 16/06/2016 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scaryteacher · 16/06/2016 19:53

As I said when I first saw that list, if you think I would be influenced by anything that Gerry Adams wants, you need your head examining.

I have already voted to leave, as I don't trust the EU, and I definitely want to know what they have on Cameron for him to suddenly advocate remaining. He smacks of desperation. The ECJ is interfering where it has no writ to do so, the Aquis is ratcheting up, and we won't have an escape route if we don't leave now.

We are safer outside the EU. I felt safer in London last week than I have done in Brussels since the lockdown before Christmas. I haven't been in to Brussels since November and I only live 25 minutes away on the tram and metro. I've been to London twice.

As for You can bet trident would be back on the agenda in a big way. Afaik, it was never off the agenda; and hopefully the contracts for the new boats will be placed soon.

SpringingIntoAction · 16/06/2016 19:59

Firstly, I haven't read much in the media debate about the mechanics of a UK exit.

Pity. Google Article 50 - that explains the formal exit process.

It's all a bit 'we have to leave to protect our borders'.

Not the message I am hearing. It's about sovereignty, self-determination and democracy. Making your own laws to suit the needs of your country. When you lose that ability, as we have done, you cannot protect your borders.

Or 'we have to stay to protect the economy'.

The economy will be OK - Cameron said we would be OK outside the EU before he went full on Project terror. Democracy is far more valuable than half a percent off interest rates. Democracy is priceless .

What I hadn't realised until this morning is that if we vote to leave, the mechanics of withdrawal are horrendously complicated (unsurprisingly). The mechanism under which we'd exit (Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union) is 17 words long (one of the people who drafted it was on the panel of speakers and he admitted that the drafts-people never expected it to be invoked).

17 words long is great. The EU regulations on cabbages run to many thousands of words. Article 50 is simple and sets out clearly the timescales and the fact that neither party can penalise the other for leaving. Greenland has already successfully eft an EU predecessor organization and so has Algeria. It is quite possible.

Once we've sent our letter to Europe saying that we're off, we'd have two years to negotiate our withdrawal.

Actually, up to 2 years and longer if both sides agree. or we could take less time.

The problem (apart from the fact that two years is no time at all to unravel our participation in Europe), is that Article 50 is only an exit agreement. It doesn't make any provision AT ALL about how we then negotiate our new relationship with Europe from the outside.

You're seeing problems where none exist. Traders carry on trading. Laws carry on being made by our Government rather than by the EU. There is no magic to this. We carry on belonging to all those international organizations we have belonged to long before we joined the EU: NATO, UN. WTO, etc

In fact, legally, Europe CANNOT negotiate a new relationship with us until we're a third country ie the two years have passed.

Untrue. See above. We remain In the EU until we have completed our exit arrangements. That can take one day or up to 2 years - or longer f both sides agree.

So while we can have some informal, closed-door conversations during that two-year period, we can't begin to put anything formal in place until we're out on our own.

It's not a 2 year period. We can be developing trade deals with other trading partners - something the EU prevents us from doing, and trading freely during that time.

When we've finally managed to negotiate our new deal with Europe after those 2 years, a lot of the terms of that deal will have to be ratified by all of the remaining 27 Member States.

Again - not 2 years. If 27 members states won't ratify then we exit without their agreement. Tell me exactly what you think they're agreeing to? They are deciding whether it's in their interests to continue trading with the UK - the worlds's 5th largest economy that employs many of their own citizens and who's wages to these people props up their own economies. It won;t take long for them to realise that we have clout and are prepared to use it.

And experience tells us that ratification could take 7-8 years.

No it doesn't. Experience tells you that the EU takes a very long time to make any deals when t is trying to make a one-size-fits-all trade deal and has to consult all 28 member countries all with their own vested interests. One to one deals are much quicker to make. The EU has failed to make a trade deal with China at all - yet little Iceland has managed it. We would manage it easily too

So it struck me that we might be in a weird sort of limbo for a whole decade, which doesn't sound too good.

Wrong (see above).

Secondly, if we do end up having to negotiate a new relationship with Europe from the outside, we will obviously be pushing for it to include all the things we want - access to the single market, free trade etc (all that 'good stuff').

No. We have the right to trade freely via our seat on the World Trade Council and will reoccupy it as soon as we Brexit. We don't need a new relationship with 'Europe' (you actually mean the EU) to achieve that. We can trade feely with the other 168 non-EU countries too, which we are currently prohibited from doing by the EU.

But we're not going to get that for free. We'll have to make concessions.

That is the essence of 'trade'. But when we have left the EU we can make mutually beneficial deals with countries that want to sell us things and which we ant to buy and vice versa, without having to pay the EU for the privilege of doing so - something that is frankly ridiculous.

And the things which we're most likely to have to concede on are going to be the things which seem to be driving the Leave campaign (primarily, 'close the borders').

Nope. We trade with many countries in the world that are not in the EU, Us, Japan, China, Australia but their citizens don't have an absolute right o come and live in the Uk and we don't have an absolute right to live in their countries either. It's only the EU /EEA that insists on that bizarre situation.

There's a strong chance we'll have to concede on free movement of people.

No. Wrong. Show me the Japanese who are claiming the right to live here because we buy their electronic goods. It doesn't happen.

So we'd be in the same position we're in at the moment except that we'd be on the outside looking in, instead of having a seat at the table with the decision-makers. "

Now you really are kidding yourself. we are not 'decision-makers' in the EU. We are not even bit players as we have to ask the EU nicely if we can remove the VAT on Tampax. Countries with clout do not need to ask for basics like that. we have 17% of influence in Council of Ministers and that will decline as new countries join and we have to reduce our number of MEPS to allow them to have some.

This kind of highlights how I feel - there isn't enough information about how we would proceed if we leave, I realise that it's a completely situation and we don't actually know what would happen but I feel that the leave gang are focussed on issues such as immigration but haven't offered (as far as I am aware) suggestions on how to move forward IF we leave the EU. I'm leaning towards remain because the thought of another recession and the insecurity of what would happen does worry me.

There is plenty of information.
That Facebok thing was ewritten by someone who is determined to keep as many people in the EU as they can by playing up fears and promoting incorrect information. If the EU really had a compelling raeson to amke you want to stay it would not have to scare the population into doing so -we would all naturally recognose the ebenfors of being in - but there are none.

If you Remain in the EU you are surrendering your sovereignty and right to make your own laws and the rights of your children to live in a country where they can elect a Parliament to make their laws and can dismiss that perliment and replace it when they want to. That's democracy.
The EU is an undemocratic bureiacracy and signing away your rights is like handing it a big stick to brat you with. Why would anyone want to do that? For what? I find it quite shocking that people treat their democarcy in such a cavaleer manner - people died to gain that for you (althogh that seems to be a very unfashionale fact to bring up).

Iceland withdrew it's EU membership recently. Tiny Iceland that has negotiated a trade deal with China - something the E has failed to do.

Yesterday Switzerland officially withdrew its EU membership.

Listen to these countries. They are moving away from the EU not remaining in the sinking ship.

If you want to stay in because you think the EU is pink and cuddly and you like being in a club and you don't like Nigel Farage then fine - but don't sign away your rights because you believe in a lot of inaccurate nonsense written by a pro-EU Facebook user.

lljkk · 16/06/2016 20:00

I can't believe that people have to make up paranoid sinister conspiracy theory reasons why politicians want something (sigh).

SpringingIntoAction · 16/06/2016 20:00

The ECJ is interfering where it has no writ to do so, the Aquis is ratcheting up, and we won't have an escape route if we don't leave now.

That sums it up for me too.

SpringingIntoAction · 16/06/2016 20:01

I can't believe that people have to make up paranoid sinister conspiracy theory reasons why politicians want something (sigh).

Don't need to. The EU is scary enough.

lljkk · 16/06/2016 20:06

That's why I'm confused about Remain being dubbed "Project Fear". Euroskeptics have been running their own Project Fear for decades!

MyLlamasGoneBananas · 16/06/2016 20:10

I think cit ting through the nitty gritty lots of people are voting to stay simply because it's better the devil you know. Too many uncertainties about exactly what will happen to pretty much everything if we leave.

SpringingIntoAction · 16/06/2016 20:17

That's why I'm confused about Remain being dubbed "Project Fear". Euroskeptics have been running their own Project Fear for decades!

Remain owns Project Fear utterly. They like it so much they've upgraded it to Project Terror.

SpringingIntoAction · 16/06/2016 20:24

I think cit ting through the nitty gritty lots of people are voting to stay simply because it's better the devil you know. Too many uncertainties about exactly what will happen to pretty much everything if we leave

Perhos uneduacted people feel that way but people with knowledge and vision can see exactly what's on the horizon and they are voting to Leave the ship before it sinks.

Lifeboat is alongside for one day only - jump in or regret it when -

we have to bail out Greece and other Eurozone countries
we have an EU Army
Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia complete their EU membership and have the right to live and work here
the EU's TTIP opens the NHS to be sued by American corporations
Turkey's eventual membership giving them the right o live and work in the UK
EU centralised tax collection - allows them to withhold tax to us
EU property rights controlling the house market
loss of UK seat on Un security council
massive increase inEU membership fees when our rebate is renogiated
loss of our democratic rights as EU courts meddle in more and more areas of our lives.

And before you say 'these things can't happen' remember Cameron's 'special deal' is not legally binding and the EU gets what the EU wants.

So I think that Leaving is the safer option

scaryteacher · 16/06/2016 20:29

I agree with you about most things Springing, (but not the EU army), but I dont understand why if we stayed in, it would be us, and not France who gave up their seat on the UN Security Council. After all, France is an EU member state as well, and could just as easily cede her seat.

claig · 16/06/2016 20:32

"Outrage over EU plot to kick UK out of UN Security Council

BRITAIN and France are being pressured to give up their seats on the UN Security Council and hand them over to the EU instead. "

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/622814/EU-plot-to-kick-UK-out-UN-security-council-Nigel-Farage-Theresa-May

claig · 16/06/2016 20:35

"SECRET PLOT EXPOSED: EU in stealth plan to set up ARMY by merging German and Dutch forces

AN EU armed forces is being set up "by stealth" with the merger of the German and Dutch armies and navies, it has emerged.

The plan is for the two countries to create a nucleus of an EU armed forces to fulfil the long term goal spelt out by German defence minister last year of having an EU army.

Ukip defence spokesman Mike Hookem is to ask the Commission what role it has played in talks to bring the new German/ Dutch force together as a nucleus for an EU military.

He pointed out that the developments are part of the centralisation by stealth going on in the EU which Britain will be dragged into if it votes to remain in the EU.

He warned that the move is aimed at beginning a merger without going through the council of ministers and other EU bodies and then creating an EU military by stealth by adding other countries.

And it has also emerged that the Czech Republic has also started talks to have its army become part of the Germany’s army.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/662472/EU-federal-europe-European-army-merging-German-Dutch-forces

SpringingIntoAction · 16/06/2016 20:41

Old news Claig

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

Junckers has been calling for an EU army for a long time. He says he needs one " to protect EU foreign policy"

Those words should send a chill down our spines. A multinational EU army to increase the size of the EU empire.

Who's it going to fight? Russia..

I'm OUT

claig · 16/06/2016 20:41

I heard a good political analyst say today that an EU Army is how the EU will bind countries into its project and make it very difficult for them to leave, because as they work in cooperation and increasingly depend on each other rather than having independent capability, then as the EU begins to project force, it will then be very difficult for any country to leave the EU for security reasons.

claig · 16/06/2016 20:43

Yes, definitely Russia, but also in Africa and the Middle East as the objectives of the EU leaders spread to require force to be used beyond European shores.

claig · 16/06/2016 20:53

Spring, you probably already know this as you are very clued up about it, more than me and most others, and you have probably already seen this article by Col Richard Kemp. He goes into a lot of detail. I have only skimmed it but there is a hell of a lot there.

"It is an EU army that could bring about war
...
A German defence white paper, leaked last week but supposed to be kept under wraps until after the referendum, leaves no doubt of Germany’s intention to drive through the merger of Europe’s armed forces “and embark on permanent cooperation under common structures”. Germany has begun to combine substantial elements of the Dutch forces with their own.

A centralised army is an indispensable component of the superstate"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/it-is-an-eu-army-that-could-bring-about-war/

scaryteacher · 16/06/2016 21:50

Claig The German/Dutch bit is to do with the Dutch keeping their ability to maintain and train on tanks, as they don't have any atm. It's a bit like us sending pilots to train on US carriers to maintain skills as our carriers are still in build.

Under the BeNeLux agreements the Dutch and Belgian navies pool resources.

claig · 16/06/2016 21:53

Thanks, scary, I didn't know that.

GoodLoveShinesBrightly · 16/06/2016 22:01

Because we'd be totally fucked economically outside of Europe, we could no more control borders than we can now and the thing about paying in 350m to the EU is proved to be bollocks.
I cannot believe anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would believe brexit s a good diea. You only have to read a tiny bit of the information out there to see it's obviously a totally batshit idea. I despair I really do.