By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
When are the Brexiters going to be honest about the reason they want out? By any objective view business says stay in. Support from the IMF, CBI big businesses like BT vodaphone, Marks and Spencers, BAE, Easy Jet etc etc. World leader say stay in to protect our position as a world power, to hold the EU together, prevent conflict etc. Unions cite worker’s protection as a reason to stay in. All the main parties support in, the Treasury says in. There are warnings from EU leaders that if we are not part of the club we will have serious problems. I have not heard a single cogent reason, financially, to get out. Kate Hoey one of the Brexit leaders embarrassingly couldn’t site a single report saying why we would be better off. A few politicians led by Boris and Farage are for out. That’s it. There is no clear explanation of what happens next from them, they just don’t seem to know. Everything seems to point to the view that “remain” is right. So be honest, Brexiters, is it immigration?
Are you saying the UK wouldnt have those things outside of the EU?
The EU actually discourages and in some instances makes "free trade" illegal outside of the bloc.
Solidarity? Ermmm..
Jobs? There are many arguments for this both ways - it depends where you are! Im sure the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese and Italians would disagree.
Environmental Sustainability? Justice?
[Post edited 23 Apr 2016 21:35]
I don't know whether we would have them outside if the EU, but we do in the EU. That's the whole point. Yes environment, yes justice and yes jobs (we're talking about the UK). We'd still have rivers and beaches full of sewage if it wasn't for regulation imposed on us by the EU. The Tories couldn't care less about the environment or workers' rights - both would be easy pickings without the EU's safety net imo. Maybe they'd suddenly find a social conscience, but I doubt it.
The 1st PM I can recall was honest Harold ( 1st time around). Have they always spoken for me? No. Thats not how democracy works you are only confirming my original point.
Then you blame the media? Fair play,too much exposure to Fox News has obviously blunted your critical facilities.
As to your 3rd point I understand that perfectly. I'm just unsure as to whether you do.
Cheers!
PS it's Obama with a capital O.
O.K., you don't agree with me. I don't agree with you. So what?
The rest of your post consists of only negative personal opinions about me, as unfounded as they could possibly be.
When you know nothing about someone, try to disguise it by keeping silent. You may disagree all you want to without it.
I'll spell any word any way I want to, including the use or non-use of capital letters. Until oBUMa issues an Executive Order making it a federal offense.
"Cheers" is an inappropriate ending to a communication which is, or even borders on being, insulting, as yours above is. You have nothing to thank me for, so the only explanation of why you used it does not reflect well on you. So don't.
What are we going to do without the loyal support of the Latvians and Lithuanians? How could we ever survive without the Slovakians? Thank God Estonia has our best interests at heart!
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I know that unemployment rates are very high in some EU countries - Greece, Spain, Portugal etc. But I didn't say they weren't. I said the UK unemployment rate is low at the moment. And the high rates in those other countries is still a hangover from the Credit crunch which was a worldwide problem not an EU one.
Highjack was implying that it was the fault of the EU that the unemployment rate in the UK is high (it isn't) and that it's the fault of the EU that our steel industry jobs and the jobs at BHS are at risk. British people simply don't buy very much from BHS. That's why they are in trouble. And a major reason for the UK steel industry lack of competitiveness is the price of energy in the UK which is down to the UK government, not the EU.
I know that unemployment rates are very high in some EU countries - Greece, Spain, Portugal etc. But I didn't say they weren't. I said the UK unemployment rate is low at the moment. And the high rates in those other countries is still a hangover from the Credit crunch which was a worldwide problem not an EU one.
Highjack was implying that it was the fault of the EU that the unemployment rate in the UK is high (it isn't) and that it's the fault of the EU that our steel industry jobs and the jobs at BHS are at risk. British people simply don't buy very much from BHS. That's why they are in trouble. And a major reason for the UK steel industry lack of competitiveness is the price of energy in the UK which is down to the UK government, not the EU.
I wasn't implying it's the eu's fault at all. Was merely referencing the argument that an EU exit would cause a loss of jobs and lack of security is farcical because that's what we've got now.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
My only bug bear is that. 1) Cameron is a knob 2) He has just spent £6 million on leaflets from our taxes to help him save face 3)The deal he made with the EU has not been ratified so may not be ratified after our vote.
I'm voting OUT until I get very persuasive facts to remain in
I wasn't implying it's the eu's fault at all. Was merely referencing the argument that an EU exit would cause a loss of jobs and lack of security is farcical because that's what we've got now.
Fair enough. Apologies for misrepresenting you.
The brexiters are always saying that the remain camp's arguments are simply scaremongering. With regard to trade, within the EU we have the current arrangement. That is free trade with the other 27 members with a market of 500 million people. Because of this there's no need for the remain camp to explain what will happen if we stay because we know but it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask the brexiters what they think will happen re trade if we leave. That is not scaremongering.
I'll put the jobs and trade argument in the way I understand it. Everyone reckons that 3 million jobs are directly linked with our membership of the EU because of the fact that 50% of our exports go to the EU. If we leave we'll have to negotiate a trade agreement with the remaining 27 members. The brexiters answer is usually that the EU will be anxious to do a deal with us because they sell us £60 billion more than we export to them.
The 27 members left will still be trading with each other under the current agreements with all the various EU rules and regulations that involves. They will quite reasonably say that they expect the UK to accept all those rules and regulations because not to do so would give UK industry an advantage. So we'd be in the same position as Norway. But the brexiters say there's no way we'd be like Norway because we are the 5th largest economy in the world. To them that means we've got the clout to dictate better terms.
This is how I see it panning out. Our UK rep is at the table negotiating the trade agreement. As we export 50% of our goods to the EU that equates to about 2% on average per country. They export more to us so let's say 3%. Each of those countries reps is thinking, if I don't sign this deal my country will lose 3% of it's exports whereas the UK will lose 50%. That puts the EU in a very strong position to get a good deal out of us. And on their terms. And, of course, if we do sign the agreement on the EU side's terms we'd also be signing up to free movement of EU citizens so the immigration situation, which so many complain about, would be unchanged.
It will be a number of deals not just one but, if any of those trade deals are not signed UK exports will be lost and jobs are certain to be lost in the process.
I put this scenario in another thread and asked people to tell me if my logic was flawed. I'd still be interested in how others see these negotiations going because trade is the single most important consideration in my opinion.
From oBUMa's personal claque, The Washington Post. ______________ Obamacare Disaster will be Obama’s Enduring Domestic Legacy By Marc A. Thiessen April 25 at 10:42 AM
Historian David Maraniss notes, in Sunday’s Post, that President Obama came to office with the goal of changing “the trajectory of America” and leaving “a legacy as a president of consequence, the liberal counter to [Ronald] Reagan.”
On the foreign-policy front, he is the anti-Reagan for certain. Reagan defeated Soviet communism and left us a safer world; Obama presided over the rise and metastasis of the Islamic State and left us a far more dangerous one.
Domestically, Ronald Reagan told the American people: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ” Obama wanted to convince Americans that they were not terrifying. And the way he was going to do it was through the only great liberal legislative achievement of his presidency: Obamacare.
He failed. Even before he leaves office, Obamacare has begun unraveling.
The law was passed over the objections of a majority of Americans, it is still opposed by a majority of Americans – and their opposition has been vindicated. Last week, UnitedHealth Group announced that, after estimated losses of more than $1 billion for 2015 and 2016 under Obamacare, the company was pulling out of most of its ill-fated exchanges.
In fact, commercial insurers across the country are hemorrhaging money on Obamacare at alarming rates. Health Care Service Corp. (which owns Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliates in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas) has lost “well north of $2 billion” in its first two years – twice as much as UnitedHealth. Highmark, the nation’s fourth-largest Blue Cross plan, lost nearly $600 million in 2015. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has projected it will lose more than $400 million in the first two years, and the company has said it may leave the exchanges entirely next year.
The president promised these insurers taxpayer bailouts if they lost money, but Congress in its wisdom passed legislation barring the use of taxpayer dollars to prop up the insurers. Without the bailouts, commercial insurers are being forced to eat their losses – while more than half of the Obamacare nonprofit insurance cooperatives created under the law failed.
So what happens now? Because commercial insurers are not going to keep bleeding cash to prop up Obamacare, they have three choices: 1) scale back coverage, 2) raise prices or 3) get out of the exchanges entirely. More and more are going to choose option 3.
Does this mean that Obamacare is finally entering its “death spiral”? Not exactly. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Scott Gottlieb explains, while commercial insurers are starting to leave Obamacare, they are being replaced by Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) offering skimpy plans that mirror what they offer in Medicaid – our nation’s emergency health insurance program for the poorest of the poor.
This is a catastrophe for people stuck in Obamacare. According to a 2014 McKinsey survey, about three-quarters of those in the exchanges were previously insured on commercial plans, either through their employers or the individual market. They were doing fine without taxpayer-subsidized insurance but were pushed into Obamacare. They now face rising premiums and smaller provider networks – and as commercial insurers flee, they will increasingly be stuck in horrible, Medicaid-style plans.
This is not what the president promised when he sold Obamacare to the American people.
The president promised Obamacare would provide “more choice, more competition, lower costs.” Instead, Americans have less choice, less competition and higher costs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, if UnitedHealth “were to leave the exchange market overall, 1.8 million Marketplace enrollees would be left with two insurers, and another 1.1 million would be left with one insurer.” As more commercial insurers do the same, there will be even less competition – and higher premiums.
The president promised “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But commercial insurers who stay in Obamacare are responding to massive losses by narrowing provider networks, with fewer doctors and hospitals to choose from. And those that quit are being replaced by Medicaid HMOs with even less doctor choice.
The president promised Obamacare would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” But insurers are raising premiums instead to cover the massive losses, and even Marilyn Tavenner – the former Obama administration official who ran Obamacare – has predicted premiums will rise even further next year.
As they do, young, healthy individuals will be priced out of the exchanges – and the only people who will be able to afford Obamacare will be high-risk patients who qualify for federal subsidies. Without enough healthy people in the exchanges to pay for the sick ones, taxpayers will be stuck with more and more of the costs over time – a situation that is unsustainable in the long run.
With Obamacare, Obama wanted to restore America’s faith in big government. Instead, the opposite has happened. Today, 69 percent of Americans say big government is “the biggest threat to the country in the future” (ahead of big business or big labor). That figure, which is slightly down from 72 percent in 2013, is higher under Obama than it has been since Gallup began asking the question about 50 years ago. Obamacare has done more to discredit big government than 1,000 Reagan speeches ever did.
From oBUMa's personal claque, The Washington Post. ______________ Obamacare Disaster will be Obama’s Enduring Domestic Legacy By Marc A. Thiessen April 25 at 10:42 AM
Historian David Maraniss notes, in Sunday’s Post, that President Obama came to office with the goal of changing “the trajectory of America” and leaving “a legacy as a president of consequence, the liberal counter to [Ronald] Reagan.”
On the foreign-policy front, he is the anti-Reagan for certain. Reagan defeated Soviet communism and left us a safer world; Obama presided over the rise and metastasis of the Islamic State and left us a far more dangerous one.
Domestically, Ronald Reagan told the American people: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’ ” Obama wanted to convince Americans that they were not terrifying. And the way he was going to do it was through the only great liberal legislative achievement of his presidency: Obamacare.
He failed. Even before he leaves office, Obamacare has begun unraveling.
The law was passed over the objections of a majority of Americans, it is still opposed by a majority of Americans – and their opposition has been vindicated. Last week, UnitedHealth Group announced that, after estimated losses of more than $1 billion for 2015 and 2016 under Obamacare, the company was pulling out of most of its ill-fated exchanges.
In fact, commercial insurers across the country are hemorrhaging money on Obamacare at alarming rates. Health Care Service Corp. (which owns Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliates in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas) has lost “well north of $2 billion” in its first two years – twice as much as UnitedHealth. Highmark, the nation’s fourth-largest Blue Cross plan, lost nearly $600 million in 2015. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina has projected it will lose more than $400 million in the first two years, and the company has said it may leave the exchanges entirely next year.
The president promised these insurers taxpayer bailouts if they lost money, but Congress in its wisdom passed legislation barring the use of taxpayer dollars to prop up the insurers. Without the bailouts, commercial insurers are being forced to eat their losses – while more than half of the Obamacare nonprofit insurance cooperatives created under the law failed.
So what happens now? Because commercial insurers are not going to keep bleeding cash to prop up Obamacare, they have three choices: 1) scale back coverage, 2) raise prices or 3) get out of the exchanges entirely. More and more are going to choose option 3.
Does this mean that Obamacare is finally entering its “death spiral”? Not exactly. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Scott Gottlieb explains, while commercial insurers are starting to leave Obamacare, they are being replaced by Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) offering skimpy plans that mirror what they offer in Medicaid – our nation’s emergency health insurance program for the poorest of the poor.
This is a catastrophe for people stuck in Obamacare. According to a 2014 McKinsey survey, about three-quarters of those in the exchanges were previously insured on commercial plans, either through their employers or the individual market. They were doing fine without taxpayer-subsidized insurance but were pushed into Obamacare. They now face rising premiums and smaller provider networks – and as commercial insurers flee, they will increasingly be stuck in horrible, Medicaid-style plans.
This is not what the president promised when he sold Obamacare to the American people.
The president promised Obamacare would provide “more choice, more competition, lower costs.” Instead, Americans have less choice, less competition and higher costs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, if UnitedHealth “were to leave the exchange market overall, 1.8 million Marketplace enrollees would be left with two insurers, and another 1.1 million would be left with one insurer.” As more commercial insurers do the same, there will be even less competition – and higher premiums.
The president promised “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But commercial insurers who stay in Obamacare are responding to massive losses by narrowing provider networks, with fewer doctors and hospitals to choose from. And those that quit are being replaced by Medicaid HMOs with even less doctor choice.
The president promised Obamacare would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” But insurers are raising premiums instead to cover the massive losses, and even Marilyn Tavenner – the former Obama administration official who ran Obamacare – has predicted premiums will rise even further next year.
As they do, young, healthy individuals will be priced out of the exchanges – and the only people who will be able to afford Obamacare will be high-risk patients who qualify for federal subsidies. Without enough healthy people in the exchanges to pay for the sick ones, taxpayers will be stuck with more and more of the costs over time – a situation that is unsustainable in the long run.
With Obamacare, Obama wanted to restore America’s faith in big government. Instead, the opposite has happened. Today, 69 percent of Americans say big government is “the biggest threat to the country in the future” (ahead of big business or big labor). That figure, which is slightly down from 72 percent in 2013, is higher under Obama than it has been since Gallup began asking the question about 50 years ago. Obamacare has done more to discredit big government than 1,000 Reagan speeches ever did.
Hang on a minute. The previous administration is to blame for the rise of I.S. by marginalising sunni Iraqi's and putting them uder the Yoke of Shi'ite Muslims.
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
Hang on a minute. The previous administration is to blame for the rise of I.S. by marginalising sunni Iraqi's and putting them uder the Yoke of Shi'ite Muslims.
That is the meme of the obama administration and its lapdog media.
You may, of course, believe what you want to believe. Just as I may. Neither makes our belief fact.
That is the meme of the obama administration and its lapdog media.
You may, of course, believe what you want to believe. Just as I may. Neither makes our belief fact.
The truth however is that Brynmill beleives in the historical truth of the events and you appear to suffering from some form of psychosis possibly brought on by overexposure to Fox News.
Brit Nats did not complain during the Scottish independence referendum vote about disingenuous media coverage but they are complaining in the Euro referendum vote build up because it does not suit their agenda. Some seem to think that the powers that be deployed the Queen in one instance and the President of America in the other.
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
The brexiters are always saying that the remain camp's arguments are simply scaremongering. With regard to trade, within the EU we have the current arrangement. That is free trade with the other 27 members with a market of 500 million people. Because of this there's no need for the remain camp to explain what will happen if we stay because we know but it's perfectly reasonable for them to ask the brexiters what they think will happen re trade if we leave. That is not scaremongering.
I'll put the jobs and trade argument in the way I understand it. Everyone reckons that 3 million jobs are directly linked with our membership of the EU because of the fact that 50% of our exports go to the EU. If we leave we'll have to negotiate a trade agreement with the remaining 27 members. The brexiters answer is usually that the EU will be anxious to do a deal with us because they sell us £60 billion more than we export to them.
The 27 members left will still be trading with each other under the current agreements with all the various EU rules and regulations that involves. They will quite reasonably say that they expect the UK to accept all those rules and regulations because not to do so would give UK industry an advantage. So we'd be in the same position as Norway. But the brexiters say there's no way we'd be like Norway because we are the 5th largest economy in the world. To them that means we've got the clout to dictate better terms.
This is how I see it panning out. Our UK rep is at the table negotiating the trade agreement. As we export 50% of our goods to the EU that equates to about 2% on average per country. They export more to us so let's say 3%. Each of those countries reps is thinking, if I don't sign this deal my country will lose 3% of it's exports whereas the UK will lose 50%. That puts the EU in a very strong position to get a good deal out of us. And on their terms. And, of course, if we do sign the agreement on the EU side's terms we'd also be signing up to free movement of EU citizens so the immigration situation, which so many complain about, would be unchanged.
It will be a number of deals not just one but, if any of those trade deals are not signed UK exports will be lost and jobs are certain to be lost in the process.
I put this scenario in another thread and asked people to tell me if my logic was flawed. I'd still be interested in how others see these negotiations going because trade is the single most important consideration in my opinion.
This is a great post, John. Very well thought-out. The Norway agreement regarding fee movement of EU citizens is interesting. I had no idea about that.
EDIT - Saying that, a lot of people wanting out would be more concerned about non EU muslims coming over to bomb us.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2016 12:53]
Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
The truth however is that Brynmill beleives in the historical truth of the events and you appear to suffering from some form of psychosis possibly brought on by overexposure to Fox News.
And you don't know what you're talking about. Butt the f**k out.
This is a great post, John. Very well thought-out. The Norway agreement regarding fee movement of EU citizens is interesting. I had no idea about that.
EDIT - Saying that, a lot of people wanting out would be more concerned about non EU muslims coming over to bomb us.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2016 12:53]
Thanks Dev.
By way of a bit more info which you and others may not be aware of, Norway also have to make contributions to the EU budget in a similar way to it's member states. The criticism of the possibility of ending up with a Norway style agreement is that we'd end up in the same situation regarding trade as we have now, we'd also be making contributions as we do now but we won't be part of the EU so we'll have no input into how the rules and regs of the EU are changed.
We may not end up with a Norway type agreement but that's exactly the reason for asking the brexiters how they see things panning out.
And, once again, that's not scaremongering. It's a crucially important consideration.
And you don't know what you're talking about. Butt the f**k out.
I find this part of the discussion very interesting. You have a few UK/Welsh? fans arguing about the USA with a Resident of the USA. So on one side we have a guy that has and is experiencing what the obama administration has done to America and their foreign policy. On the other side you have a bunch of guys who only appear to know what they know from the MSM and they believe what they have read. Then you have one poster accusing Dav of being a Republican without having a clue about his actual political position and also calling them "funny". Is this person an American citizen? Is he a Democrat, because that is how they treat any opposition?
This is a great post, John. Very well thought-out. The Norway agreement regarding fee movement of EU citizens is interesting. I had no idea about that.
EDIT - Saying that, a lot of people wanting out would be more concerned about non EU muslims coming over to bomb us.
[Post edited 26 Apr 2016 12:53]
Also, re the second part of your post Dev, we have control of our borders to all non EU migrants whether they be muslims or not. So that doesn't change if we stay in the EU.
I find this part of the discussion very interesting. You have a few UK/Welsh? fans arguing about the USA with a Resident of the USA. So on one side we have a guy that has and is experiencing what the obama administration has done to America and their foreign policy. On the other side you have a bunch of guys who only appear to know what they know from the MSM and they believe what they have read. Then you have one poster accusing Dav of being a Republican without having a clue about his actual political position and also calling them "funny". Is this person an American citizen? Is he a Democrat, because that is how they treat any opposition?
And vice versa.
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
Next time the ‘Remainers ‘ trot out their line about ‘being better off in a reformed EU’ ask yourself ‘what reform?’ This was Boris in yesterday's Telegraph:
"The Prime Minister asked to restore social and employment legislation to national control; for a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental rights; to stop the European court adjudicating on UK criminal law; to ensure that immigrants have a job offer before entering the UK; to revise the Working Time directive to protect the NHS; to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and the structural funds; and full-on Treaty change. "
What did we get? Two thirds of diddly squat. "
He continues:
"We need to talk about that deal in the weeks ahead, because it shows how contemptuously we will be treated if we vote to remain. This is the last chance, in our lifetimes, to take back control — of £350m a week (and use some of that cash to deliver a seven-day NHS) — and the last chance to take back control of our democracy. "
Screw Obama —neither he nor any other US President would countenance subjugating their power to a supra-national government like the EU. Bloody hypocrite.
More grist to the mill: Charles Moore in the same paper.
"One of the most important features of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy is that it allows voters to throw out one lot and put another in. This can never happen in the EU system. So the careers of the well-educated, unelected, “civilised” people who run the show are unimpeded by the will of the people.
Perhaps because I come from that class, I agree that a high education is a good thing and accept that societies must have their elites, but I also believe that the British genius has been to create a political system in which the common interest of the whole nation can be represented politically. This is impossible in the EU, where there is a ruling class on the one hand, and a sweaty mob (as the ruling class sees it), on the other. If you like that sort of system, when you contemplate your navel, you will vote to Remain.
Why should euro-officials pay less tax?
By far the best book setting out all European issues in topical form, is Why Leave? by Daniel Hannan, well known to readers of this paper. Hannan is crisp about how the interests of the above class are looked after in the Brussels set-up. More than a thousand EU officials earn more than David Cameron, and all officials working in EU institutions are exempt from national taxation. They pay a special EU income tax of 21 per cent. This rate is flat, so the richer you are, the better. British euro-officials who would have a top rate of 45 per cent here therefore pay less than half that. "
Theresa May also let this slip as well. "Unlike David Cameron and George Osborne, she refrained from issuing apocalyptic warnings that the sky will fall in if we vote to leave.
Instead Mrs May quite rightly dismissed as 'nonsense' the suggestion that this country is too small to survive unshackled from Brussels."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
