EU Referendum Megathread (Brexit)

[FlyingJesus]

Don't you live in England now Tara what

And I meant that if there are benefits to being in the EU that we wouldn't get outside of it (as there must be or there'd be no opposition to leaving) and if they want to tighten those to maintain or build as much power as they can, would they not then just stop us from having trade agreements with them out of spite if we left? And if not, surely they're not the great evil that we're being told they are

[wixard]

Don't you live in England now what

yes hence why i'm allowed vote, but i still want to protect myself and people home. as far as i'm aware i wont have any issues being here as ireland and england have their own separate agreements that were put into place well before the EU, however obviously the EU is a massive benefit to my country and has helped it to grow, and we still don't know the repercussions for northern ireland etc

[-:Undertaker:-]

And I meant that if there are benefits to being in the EU that we wouldn't get outside of it (as there must be or there'd be no opposition to leaving) and if they want to tighten those to maintain or build as much power as they can, would they not then just stop us from having trade agreements with them out of spite if we left? And if not, surely they're not the great evil that we're being told they are

I don't see any benefits that you get inside that you can't get from the outside, just look at Norway and Switzerland who are two very wealthy countries who are very happy with their status outside the EU. It's worth remembering though that often this is turned into an economic argument when the reality is that the EU wasn't set up for economic reasons, it is a purely political project and its true supporters support our membership for political and not economic reasons. If you look at the private reasons as to why we were taken into the EEC in the first place, it was because people like Heath supported the political ideal of a federal Europe - the reasons weren't economic for joining.

As I said earlier, Britain is heading for the exit door anyway given we're not going to join the Eurozone so I don't see why we don't just get it over with now.

yes hence why i'm allowed vote, but i still want to protect myself and people home. as far as i'm aware i wont have any issues being here as ireland and england have their own separate agreements that were put into place well before the EU, however obviously the EU is a massive benefit to my country and has helped it to grow, and we still don't know the repercussions for northern ireland etc

Low taxes, education and deregulation helped Ireland grow. Not bureaucrats from the Low Countries.

The Euro was often cited in the Irish example/debate as the EU's biggest achievement. But look what happened.

[Prosiary]

Post edited by Cerys (Forum Moderator) Please do not post pointlessly!

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Telegraph have published Boris' piece setting out why he's backing the Leave campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ve-the-EU.html

Here are some of the best pieces of his article.

I am a European. I lived many years in Brussels. I rather love the old place. And so I resent the way we continually confuse Europe – the home of the greatest and richest culture in the world, to which Britain is and will be an eternal contributor – with the political project of the European Union. It is, therefore, vital to stress that there is nothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 23.

There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No. The fundamental problem remains: that they have an ideal that we do not share. They want to create a truly federal union, e pluribus unum, when most British people do not.

It is time to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements. We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option; the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on; and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, I think they are likely to be exaggerated. We have heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case.

Above all, we will be told that whatever the democratic deficiencies, we would be better off remaining in because of the “influence” we have. This is less and less persuasive to me. Only 4 per cent of people running the Commission are UK nationals, when the Britain contains 12 per cent of the EU population. It is not clear why the Commission should be best placed to know the needs of UK business and industry, rather than the myriad officials at UK Trade & Investment or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

If the “Leave” side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible? We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future. We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny Civil Service. Are we really unable to do trade deals? We will have at least two years in which the existing treaties will be in force.

Now is the time to spearhead the success of those products and services not just in Europe, but in growth markets beyond. This is a moment to be brave, to reach out – not to hug the skirts of Nurse in Brussels, and refer all decisions to someone else.

Headlines in tomorrow's papers....

[Zak]

Britain has been on the decline since the end of WW2

This is true

[-:Undertaker:-]

Government struggling to get FTSE 100 companies to back pro-EU letter

Many of the FTSE 100 companies are refusing to sign a pro-EU letter which the government has asked them to sign

This is an interesting story I have noticed in exchanges between journalists on Twitter.

Now often when a "letter" is presented in favour of a government policy or message it has been organised by the government although it is usually done in secret and later released as though to indicate the signatories support of government policy. In other words it is classic spin which all sides use on a various number of topics as it is supposed to indicate impartial support for any said policy.

I think it is important to draw attention to this example though as the government is very much hoping to scare people into believing that all business and corporations back Britain remaining in the EU which of course isn't true, but they're very keen to paint this in people's minds for fear reasons.

Look at this series of tweets.

Talk that an increasingly worried Dan Korski busy hitting the phones to try and convince more FTSE bosses to sign this 'We love EU' letter

— Steve Hawkes (@steve_hawkes) February 22, 2016

Lloyds Bank the latest to say it won't be signing No.10's EU letter - and that's a bank run by Portuguese ceo Antonio Horta-Osorio

— Steve Hawkes (@steve_hawkes) February 22, 2016

First claimed 80...then 50...now tomorrow's Times says the number's shrunk again to 36. https://t.co/o8UUY5LzJX

— Mark Wallace (@wallaceme) February 22, 2016

Interesting to see how reporting of letter changed over past few days
80…50…now 36 FTSE bosses#tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/IBfundsyQs

— Nick Sutton (@suttonnick) February 22, 2016

Be interesting the next time one of the 36 FTSE 100 firms signing the PM's letter complains in their results about EU laws or red tape

— Steve Hawkes (@steve_hawkes) February 22, 2016

The number of FTSE companies backing the government on this is falling and many are refusing to sign. From an expected 80 down to 36.

You can also read here how the government is using Whitehall resources to spin for the Remain campaign which I find disgraceful.


The dirty dirty dogs. Been caught out though before the letter is published.

[-:Undertaker:-]

An update on this.

On Sky News it was stated that apparently 25 of the 36 FTSE companies that have signed are either Conservative Party donors, have received EU/Government money and have been given roles in government. Obviously what has happened is the government has leant on them basically telling them to be good and play along or else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...EU-letter.html

The majority of Britain’s biggest companies have refused to sign a letter backing membership of the European Union.

High street shops including Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Next and banks such as Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland did not put their names to the letter published today.

It had been suggested that bosses of 80 of the FTSE 100 firms would sign the pro-Brussels letter, but in fact only 36 have done so.

Those who signed include multi-national corporations such as HSBC, BAE Systems, BT, Royal Dutch Shell, Rio Tinto and BP, and the chief executives of Heathrow and Gatwick.

Even some of David Cameron’s own business advisers refused to sign the letter to The Times which claims that quitting the Brussels club ‘would put the economy at risk’.

Yesterday Mr Cameron angrily defended Downing Street’s involvement in orchestrating the pro-EU letter after it emerged that it was drafted by a civil servant.

The Prime Minister has been trying to rally support from major businesses to endorse his deal to keep Britain in the EU ahead of the referendum on June 23.

But several of them have backed people power to decide for the nation.

Others that refused to sign the letter include Primark owner Associated British Foods, insurer Legal & General and investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown, whose founder Peter Hargreaves is a loyal Thatcherite.

It's now turned into a PR fail for the government though as the story has gone from companies signing to the majority, including his advisors, refusing to sign.

[Kardan]

@-:Undertaker:-; slightly off topic, nothing in regards to the FTSE 100 Companies, but to do with the referendum:

If the country does decide to remain in the EU, will you actually accept the result or will you be like some of the people on the forum after the Scottish referendum that were like "We'll just wait until the next referendum!"

[-:Undertaker:-]

@-:Undertaker:-; slightly off topic, nothing in regards to the FTSE 100 Companies, but to do with the referendum:

If the country does decide to remain in the EU, will you actually accept the result or will you be like some of the people on the forum after the Scottish referendum that were like "We'll just wait until the next referendum!"

I'm relaxed about the referendum so initially yes.

If we don't leave now we'll be leaving within the next decade as the European Union and specifically Eurozone moves closer together and we're de facto forced out as we won't accept any more political or economic integration which they're planning already. It'll just be a shame not to accept and make the best of the opportunity now which is why I have just ordered 4,000 leaflets to start posting through letterboxes as soon as they arrive.

A key difference though for the next few years if a Remain vote happens is this as both examples are not the same. The European institutions such as the ECJ and even the ECHR are constantly with each ruling acquiring powers for the EU/Commission and centralising power away from the nation states to the middle meaning our referendum lock will inevitably be activated again under acquis communautaire as what we've voted on will not be what the EU will be in say 5 or 10 years. The opposite is true for the United Kingdom which is devolving power away from the centre to devolved institutions.

That's a crucial difference between both debates to bear in mind.