To go, or not to go, that is the question.

[Ishmael]

Some polls indicate that the UK is possibly going to leave the EU. The core issues seem to boil down to the immigration policies ordained from on high in Brussels vs the economic considerations.

Me? It's difficult to consider a once proud and independent people subordinating themselves the the continental powers that over the centuries tried to conquer them. I understand the immigration issue, we here in the US are being subjected to the same onslaught.

It's the economic equation that I'm not in touch with. Obviously there is diplomatic extortion taking place, and just as obviously the politicians that are against the exit of the UK are all expounding the worst case scenario.

So perhaps one of you Brits of level mind might take a bit of time to educate me on just how severe the economic consequences may be without engaging in histrionics.

Ishmael

 

[Glenalk]

Brexit

Have a look at a You Tube video titled "Brexit The Movie".. It explains why we need to leave!

 

[Ishmael]

Have a look at a You Tube video titled "Brexit The Movie".. It explains why we need to leave!

Very well, I've watched enough to understand the point. And it's a point I opined on years ago. But specifically what are the economic consequences? Are they real? Are the people of the UK willing to sell their souls under the threat of their being real?

To be fair part of that question was answered, but only part. Fishing alone will not sustain your nation. But it is part of the equation. What other economic calamity is on the horizon?

And to be honest the very same reasons that the film goes into is precisely what is happening over here in the states. And Donald Trump is the result of government intrusion into every facet of the citizens life. But that's our problem to deal with, not relevant to the UK/EU issue.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I just started a thread wondering if this was going to kick down a playing-card economic structure. I'm thinking that the ripples will touch us this late summer/fall. Like Hari Seldon might have predicted, Hillary running as a woman might not suffice if the economic tides are swamping the party in power...



In short, hoping Trump takes her out is not a viable plan, because individuals do not matter much in the larger arc of history.

In other, more hilarious news, NRO is still full of fantasies of a dark horse coming to the rescue at the convention.

You Kant make this shit up!

 

[Sean]

I saw my first ever Brexit ad yesterday, I don't watch a lot of live TV. It was basically five minutes of lies and xenophobic fear mongering.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Of course, Sean has had to add his immediate $.02 worth in both threads knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that his idiotic antics have led to his ass being put on ignore...

[voice=Elton John]

Bitter fingers never swung from swingin' stars...​

[/voice]​

 

[Sean]

Of course, Sean has had to add his immediate $.02 worth in both threads knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that his idiotic antics have led to his ass being put on ignore...

[voice=Elton John]

Bitter fingers never swung from swingin' stars...

[/voice]​

No-one gives a fuck about who you have on ignore, you pathetic little cunt.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's so hard to write a song with bitter fingers...

 

[miles]

Of course, Sean has had to add his immediate $.02 worth in both threads knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that his idiotic antics have led to his ass being put on ignore...

He's right where he belongs.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

:agreed:

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm so sick of trallallas and ladi-das...

 

[Sean]

And here comes Miles to complete the RWCJ mutual cock sucking chain.

 

[hashtag45]

I'm so sick of trallallas and ladi-das...

lol...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No more long days hawking hunks of garbage!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

lo...

.... and behold?

​

 

[hashtag45]

You caught it before the edit

 

[miles]

Should I stay or should I go?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You caught it before the edit

I love The Clash...

Sharia don't like it, rawk the Casbah! Rawk the Casbah!

 

[oggbashan]

The EU is not the organisation the UK originally joined.

It is not the European Organisation that was originally set up.

What the UK, and most of Europe need, is a reformed and slimmed down EU that can control its budget and reduce the influence of unelected officials. That's what David Cameron went to Europe to try to achieve - a reformed EU.

What he got was smoke and mirrors. There are no substantial changes since he started the negotiation, and the changes he did get promises about are worthless. Why? Because they are not changing the Treaty (think US Constitution) that sets the rules - no amendments, no changes and not even a commitment to amendment and change in the future. The promises he was offered can be nullified by unelected officials and/or European court rulings (think US Supreme Court).

The EU Treaty still commits the EU to closer and closer political union (think Federal authorities taking powers away from US states) and that hasn't and won't change.

The EU has a bad track record on referenda. Ireland voted against a new Treaty - they were told to go back and vote again. Other countries have wanted changes and have been told by EU officials that the changes they want are impossible because they contravene the Treaty which WON'T be changed.

The EU organisation and management is a clusterfuck. Most European countries know that but they are unwilling or unable to change the Treaty.

IF we were offered a reformed EU, then voting Yes would be good.

But we are offered more and more of the same mess, so voting No might be better.

The arguments about economics and immigration are red herrings. No one knows what might happen if Britain stays in, nor what would happen if Britain votes to leave.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Those old die-hards in Denmark Street start laughing
At the keyboard player's hollow haunted eyes

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Thanks Ogg...

 

[Ishmael]

The EU is not the organisation the UK originally joined.

It is not the European Organisation that was originally set up.

What the UK, and most of Europe need, is a reformed and slimmed down EU that can control its budget and reduce the influence of unelected officials. That's what David Cameron went to Europe to try to achieve - a reformed EU.

What he got was smoke and mirrors. There are no substantial changes since he started the negotiation, and the changes he did get promises about are worthless. Why? Because they are not changing the Treaty (think US Constitution) that sets the rules - no amendments, no changes and not even a commitment to amendment and change in the future. The promises he was offered can be nullified by unelected officials and/or European court rulings (think US Supreme Court).

The EU Treaty still commits the EU to closer and closer political union (think Federal authorities taking powers away from US states) and that hasn't and won't change.

The EU has a bad track record on referenda. Ireland voted against a new Treaty - they were told to go back and vote again. Other countries have wanted changes and have been told by EU officials that the changes they want are impossible because they contravene the Treaty which WON'T be changed.

The EU organisation and management is a clusterfuck. Most European countries know that but they are unwilling or unable to change the Treaty.

IF we were offered a reformed EU, then voting Yes would be good.

But we are offered more and more of the same mess, so voting No might be better.

The arguments about economics and immigration are red herrings. No one knows what might happen if Britain stays in, nor what would happen if Britain votes to leave.

I was thinking that there was a lot of crystal ball gazing going on.

The unelected, unaccountable, bureaucratic nightmare in Brussels is all to real though. I had a thread on that back about the time the Euro was being rolled out and more than a few UK posters were saying, "no problama amigo."

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I can think of a couple of countries who also might decide to dissolve the union in the wake of Brexit in order to go back to and inflate their prior currencies...

 

[butters]

when the leader of the conservatives, the leader of the labour party, the bank of england, most of europe, obama AND stephen hawking are all telling us the same thing i.e economically it would be a bad move for the uk to leave, then i can't help but think it'd be a good idea to listen. there are pros and cons to both sides, but on this seesaw, all the weight's on the side of remaining.

the campaign to leave throws figures of something like 33o million paid into europe each week - but mention nothing what is spent of that in the uk first, or of all the subsidies we receive from europe, the benefits of being in a 'power block' when it comes to trade both within and beyond eu borders, and that uk citizens are as free to move around europe to work where they choose, often for better wages, as their fellow europeans.

the uk's net contribution to the eu (figures based on 2013-2014) was less than 1.5% of total gov't spending.

Review

Peter Holmes, Reader in Economics, University of Sussex

The fact check broadly supports the claim that in the past, the UK has received £1 for every £2 sent to Brussels. But most other analysts have concluded that this – and the claim that the UK sends £350m a week to Brussels – is not the best way to present the figures.

The £19 billion figure used to make these calculations does not take account of the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. As the Daily Telegraph put it: “In fact, the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all.” Therefore, the UK actual transfer to Brussels in 2014 was not £19.234 billion but £14.346 billion, according to a House of Commons briefing published in February 2016.

Even if one accepts that the receipts from the EU were around £9.2 billion (which excludes some payments not passing through the Treasury) the UK receives £1 for every £1.55 it actually pays.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-how-much-does-the-uk-actually-pay-to-the-eu-58120

 

[Sean]

when the leader of the conservatives, the leader of the labour party, the bank of england, most of europe, obama AND stephen hawking are all telling us the same thing i.e economically it would be a bad move for the uk to leave, then i can't help but think it'd be a good idea to listen. there are pros and cons to both sides, but on this seesaw, all the weight's on the side of remaining.

the campaign to leave throws figures of something like 33o million paid into europe each week - but mention nothing what is spent of that in the uk first, or of all the subsidies we receive from europe, the benefits of being in a 'power block' when it comes to trade both within and beyond eu borders, and that uk citizens are as free to move around europe to work where they choose, often for better wages, as their fellow europeans.

the uk's net contribution to the eu (figures based on 2013-2014) was less than 1.5% of total gov't spending.


http://theconversation.com/fact-check-how-much-does-the-uk-actually-pay-to-the-eu-58120

But, but, FOREIGNERS!!! IMMIGRANTS!!!