EU Referendum Megathread (Brexit)

[-:Undertaker:-]

More on the Queen's views on the matter as The Sun says it is prepared to publish more evidence of her views on the matter.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...xit-story.html

Queen inspects a troop in Commonwealth country Uganda. She is believed to favour the Commonwealth over the EU.

THE Queen has been worried about Britain being sucked into a European superstate for decades – according to the Government’s official website.

In a major blow to David Cameron’s claims our revelation about her anti-EU views are not true, Her Majesty’s deep misgivings are clearly laid bare in an article by Oxford historian DR Thorpe.

The post on the GOV.UK site written in 2012 which sets out The Queen’s relationships with 12 different Prime Ministers said: “The relationship with Edward Heath was not always easy, as his world-view differed sharply from that of the Queen. European integration was Heath’s vision.

The Queen, however, saw her role as Head of the Commonwealth to be of supreme importance.”

The article is further proof of the Queen’s long-running Euroscepticism which was exposed by The Sun this week - leading to claims she wants Britain to leave in June’s In-Out referendum.

And The Sun has established it is backed up by several Royal biographies.

In Counting One’s Blessings, the selected letters of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, William Shawcross described how The Queen was quietly happy when the UK was turned down for membership of the Brussels club 53 years ago.

Mr Shawcross wrote: “When in January 1963 de Gaulle magisterially said ‘Non!’ to Britain’s application to join the European Economic Community (as it then was), Queen Elizabeth was not outraged. Her sympathies were with the Commonwealth and with individual European countries, not with a bureaucratic institution.”

Ben Pimlott, in his major biography The Queen, also described Her Majesty’s worries about the impact of hitching Britain to Europe.He wrote: “The debate over the Common Market, and Britain’s relations with it, became a matter of intimate concern to the Crown after the political decision was made in July 1961 to seek entry. Although the Government denied it, few doubted that a successful bit to join the European Six would be a turning point for the Commonwealth, not only ending preferential trading arrangements, but destroying the idea of a Brito-centric, mutually supportive, world-wide bloc.

”The Queen was bombarded with anger from Commonwealth leaders in 1962 despite then PM’s claims membership of the two associations would be “complementary”. Mr Pimlott writes: “Most were sceptical. So, perhaps, was the association’s Head. Before the Conference the Queen expressed herself ‘worried about Commonwealth feeling’ to Macmillian in his weekly audience.”

And when the UK eventually did join in 1973, The Queen publicly said “we are trying to create a wider family of nations”.

But, Mr Pimlott writes, “In retrospect, it can be seen as a cri de coeur. For if entry into Europe was a turning point for Britain and the Commonwealth, it was a moment of crisis for the Monarchy. The idea of the joining of families, even of the impregnation of one by the other, was political and economic nonsense, a desperate bid to evade the reality.”

Sarah Bradford, in her biography Queen Elizabeth II Her Life In Our Times, adds: “The Queen, according to some pro-European politicians, was not anti-Europe, but there is little doubt that she did not share Heath’s passion for the alliance to the detriment of two other important relationships which she cherished – with the Commonwealth and with the United States.”

Confirmation of The Queen’s long track record of Euroscepticism came after The Sun revealed earlier this week how she was said to have told former Deputy PM Nick Clegg at a Windsor Castle lunch that she believed the EU was heading in the wrong direction. We also revealed that at a Buckingham Palace function she was said to have snapped: “I don’t understand Europe.”

The story created a major furore as Buckingham Palace lodged a formal complaint to Press watchdog IPSO – but The Sun is standing by the story.

Today Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood refused demands for an inquiry into the source of the story as the Establishment closed ranks.

He told Labour MP Wes Streeting that because Buckingham Palace and Mr Clegg had denied the story, “I do not believe that there is anything I can usefully investigate here.”

[Thordenhime]

People who rely on the sun as an accurate source of information probally think horoscopes are accurate too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

People who rely on the sun as an accurate source of information probally think horoscopes are accurate too.

that's why whenever any newspaper or news source comes out with a story you research yourself and look at other sources, as has been done with this story.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Great short speech/talk by Boris today at a Vote Leave business rally which I have posted below the article snippet.

Basically putting forward the question of if we weren't already in the EU, would we vote to join it today given the complete mess it is in?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tensifies.html

Boris Johnson has accused David Cameron of not having the 'guts to get out' of the EU as he claimed the In campaign was 'hopelessly underestimating' what Britain could achieve if it quit the Brussels club. The Mayor of London appealed to voters to ignore the 'merchants of gloom' warning of the risks of Brexit as he attempted to set out a positive vision of life outside the EU.

He claimed Britain would never back joining the 'woefully unreformed' EU if it was already outside - a direct rebuke to Mr Cameron after he said following his EU deal last month that he would 'certainly' sign up to the EU on the terms of his renegotiation. Mr Johnson - who arrived late for his speech in Dartford, Kent and joked that the Government needed to 'take back control of South East trains' - insisted Britain could 'prosper and thrive as never before' if voters opted to leave the EU in June's referendum. And he added that the growing German dominance of the EU project was dangerous.

[abc]

UK voting to leave the EU is listed as a GLOBAL RISK by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Basically putting forward the question of if we weren't already in the EU, would we vote to join it today given the complete mess it is in?

It is not a question which holds much substance, we do not know the real scenario of how UK would be without the EU. UK could have been in complete turmoil without the EU - you just do not know, or it could have been thriving. No one knows. So these kind of bullshit questions are only effective on those who are incapable of using their own thoughts and thus rely on other peoples ideas and opinions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ls-expect.html

Brexit to trigger revolution in better laws, officials expect

An exit from the European Union would be seized on by ministers as a golden opportunity to govern an "unshackled" Britain better, some senior officials believe

Ministers will use Brexit to tear up acres of existing law as 80,000 pages of EU regulation are examined, say officials

A British exit from the European Union could be seized upon by ministers as a liberating moment which would trigger a revolutionary shake-up of public policy, senior officials believe.

Mandarins are preparing for every corner of Whitehall to be uprooted in what is likely to be one of the most radical revisions of the British state since the Second World War. Decades of legislation on health, justice and agricultural policy will be called into question by ministers as the UK is released from the “shackles” of the European “corpse”, during a vast “de-accession” process in which the UK is unstitched from 80,000 pages of European law, it is suggested.

The ensuing flood of new legislation will dominate every Queen’s Speech for a decade, one British official said.

The Government’s official position is that a Brexit would trigger years of needless and economically damaging uncertainty.

But in an altogether sunnier analysis, some senior officials privately believe the process would be seized on by ministers in a new, Eurosceptic-dominated government as an unprecedented opportunity to regulate from scratch, rather than simply replicating the existing EU law.

One idea in contention is the creation of a new Ministry for Trade, staffed with hundreds of new negotiators, in order to conduct simultaneous deals with Japan, the United States and China. At present, Britain cannot conduct trade deals outside of the single market.

According to one analysis, developing a Britain-specific deal is likely to take five years, running way beyond the two-year period between a country triggering the Article 50 exit clause and it being released from the European treaties. As such, it is likely the UK would adopt a model similar to Norway’s as holding position, before gravitating to a more bespoke arrangement, according to one scenario under discussion.

The process would involve British and EU teams vastly larger than that used to conduct the renegotiation process. It would amount to a haggle between Britain’s desire to regulate differently, and demands from the EU to retain current standards if it wants access to the single market.

A Ministry of Trade to negotiate free trade deals with the world... sounds good to me.

UK voting to leave the EU is listed as a GLOBAL RISK by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

It is not a question which holds much substance, we do not know the real scenario of how UK would be without the EU. UK could have been in complete turmoil without the EU - you just do not know, or it could have been thriving. No one knows. So these kind of bullshit questions are only effective on those who are incapable of using their own thoughts and thus rely on other peoples ideas and opinions.

oh that's just so silly "complete turmoil" lmao yeah turmoil just like canada, australia, norway, switzerland

this is the REALITY and turmoil of the EU.

dangerous war games, border collapse, mass unemployment, terror attacks, nazi rallies and fostering hatred between european peoples

Warning: Contains inappropriate content Hide

Post edited by Empired (Forum Moderator): please remember to add BADSPOILER tags to images that may be upsetting to users

[-:Undertaker:-]

Seems apt and rather obvious given what has happened in Brussels yesterday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ns-anyway.html

Former MI6 chief says British exit would not damage national security because Britain's best intelligence isn't shared with 'leaky' EU institutions anyway

- Former top spook said most EU measures related to crime not security
- Richard Dearlove's claims appear to contrast with those of Theresa May
- Home Secretary backed the In campaign to protect Britain's security

Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove today backed Brexit as he insisted it would not damage the nation's security.

Sir Richard was Britain's top spook until 2004 and said getting out of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU's free movement could boost security. Home Secretary Theresa May surprised some in Westminster when she backed David Cameron's EU In campaign on the grounds of security.

But Sir Richard insisted the only benefits related to crime - adding on the European Arrest Warrant that 'few would notice its passing'. In an article for Prospect Magazine, Sir Richard said national security was served by international cooperation but only with trusted allies and not the entire EU as this leaked information like a 'colander'.

He said: 'Though the UK participates in various European and Brussels-based security bodies, they are of little consequence. 'The Club de Berne, made up of European Security Services; the Club de Madrid, made up of European Intelligence Services; Europol; and the Situation Centre in the European Commission are generally speaking little more than forums for the exchange of analysis and views. 'With the exception of Europol, these bodies have no operational capacity and with 28 members of vastly varying levels of professionalism in intelligence and security, the convoy must accommodate the slowest and leakiest of the ships of state.'

Sir Richard warned: 'The larger powers cannot put their best intelligence material into such colanders.'

Sir Richard said counter terrorism work was usually conducted bilaterally or occasionally trilaterally. He said: 'Brussels has little or nothing to do with them, in large part due to what is known as the ''Third Party Rule,'' a notion that is little understood outside the intelligence fraternity but which is essential to intelligence liaison worldwide. 'This rule states that the recipient of intelligence from one nation cannot pass it on to a third without the originator's agreement.'

Sir Richard insisted this meant security cooperation with the United States would not be damaged by a Brexit.

[A]

More than 250 business leaders have officially announced that they support the exit of Britain to leave the European Union and the list keeps growing? However, leaders have now started a battle and have been signing paperwork that says we should stick in the EU. This list however only consists of 36 leaders. What does this mean? Will Britain finally end up leaving the EU and are we strong enough to do so? Find out more by reading below!

Click here to read more of the article over at Habbox.COM!

[abc]

The business leaders who are supporting it are doing so in personal capacity and many of them are former leaders but current CEO's etc.

I think given the situation the country currently is in, we will end up leaving the EU. There has been a significant increase in the last three months in application for British Citienship by those from the EU who have been living here for longer than five years. Secondly people will not like the restrictions UK is facing in helping it's own industry. These matters coming up just a few months before the referendum will make people think twice which way to vote.

In other news, New Zealand has said if it was in Europe and had the option to join EU then it would.

I am not significantly bothered whether or not our country stays or leaves but I wouldn't be surprised if we leave.

There are many benefits to staying in the EU, considering more than 50 per cent of our exports go to EU countries, allows us to have a say over how trading rules are drawn up. The say might be small but it is better than no voice if we leave the EU.

According tot he BBC, the EU is currently negotiating with the US to create the world's biggest free trade area, something that will be highly beneficial to British business.

It is difficult to predict how leaving the EU will affect foreign investment. UK's status as one of the world's biggest financial centres will be diminished if it is no longer seen as a gateway to the EU for the likes of US banks however if done correctly, UK could become like Singapore but many laws would have to be changed to attract the financial sector.

I hope both sides inform the public honestly of the facts rather than trying to scare the public with claims they cannot backup. I hate to say it but a large portion of the British public know very little about EU or it's impact on our country. If their current position is poor (in terms of job or finance etc) then they need someone to blame and EU becomes a easy target - so someone who is unemployed would find it very easy to blame Europeans for "stealing their job" and would thus be more likely to vote to leave.

The outlook of UK's manufacturing industry looks poor, and the steel industry is just an example of how it will get worse as cheap imports from the East continues to kill off our manufacturing. Therefore if EU accounts for 50% of our exports, leaving could significantly damage our manufacturing industry and therefore lead to more job losses.

The way the world is moving, the manufacturing in western countries as a whole will reduce and EU really needs to change it's laws. China has extremely high tariffs on it's steel imports hence it is cheaper for Chinese companies to buy Steel locally. Further Chinese steel is so cheap than importing it is cheaper for us than buying it locally. Hence EU needs to look at these regulations and consider putting in high tariffs on Chinese imports to help the local industries. However this would negatively impact the companies here who would then be paying more for local steel and therefore this would lead to price increases which would therefore disadvantage the local public.

There is a lot to think about and this EU in or out question is not easy. No one knows how staying in or leaving will turn out. Anything anyone says is purely prediction and nothing is set in stone. If we stay, the EU could collapse tomorrow or alternatively it could flourish and help us a lot. In the same way, leaving could be a disaster and it may damage our economy quite significantly, or alternatively it could benefit us and save our economy. No one knows.

We will hear more on both sides as we nearer the referendum so it will be interesting to see what both sides come out with. I am not sure if debates are planned but it would be good if they organised debates in the same way they did for the General Election.

[kinaper]

#VoteStay