EU Referendum

[SocketRocket]

I was also disgusted as the Prime Minister of the UK stood shoulder to shoulder with the French President as he made threats against us if we decided to leave the EU.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As I said, but obviously not clearly enough for you, I find it amusing that the Out campaigners are complaining about the amount of regulations and red tape and suggest that there will be any less if we leave.

I don't really care who sets the rules my point is that there will be just as much intervention by the State whether we are In or Out.

Absolute implication from Leave is that EU bureaucracy is a big problem for many companies and that by leaving then that bureaucracy will be much less. But as Leave can't tell us what sort of relationship UK will have with the EU - or indeed what relationship they'd like to have I struggle to understand how they can say that there will be less bureaucracy.

Well of course the thing is the reason they don't tell us any detail about any deal is simply they can't. They just put anything that challenges them on the nature of the working relationship UK will have with the EU into the Project Fear camp and then claim that the EU needs us more than we need the EU so a 'deal will be struck'. Well that at least is true. But ask what deal and how long it'll take to agree - and then ask what the UK might have to pay (financially and in other ways) for that deal to be made and what bureaucracy UK companies would face - and again nothing. They have absolutely nothing to say other than aspiration founded upon anger, frustration and delusion.

 

[MarkE]

As I said, but obviously not clearly enough for you, I find it amusing that the Out campaigners are complaining about the amount of regulations and red tape and suggest that there will be any less if we leave.

I don't really care who sets the rules my point is that there will be just as much intervention by the State whether we are In or Out.

Quite clear, but I was'nt commenting on red tape, rather about who set's our laws. I find it amusing that Stay campaigners don't care about our sovereignty and are happy for the EU to set OUR laws and rules.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Q. How do you prove a negative?

A. You can't. That is why we end up with conspiracy theories.

BCC had already decided its policy was to remain neutral as its membership appears to be split 60/40 in favour of staying in.

If the DG decides to unilaterally ignore that decision it is hardly surprising if he is then disciplined by his employers.

And to think; the Out campaign is the one accusing the In supporters of running "scare stories".

No idea what you mean by proving a negative and it seems very Stalinist for a person not to be able express his own personal view of a situation. What happened to free speech? My employer might hold a different view to me but that doesn't mean I couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to hold my particular view and express that view as long as it is made clear that it is only my view and not that of the organisation I work for.

 

[Foxholer]

Quite clear, but I was'nt commenting on red tape, rather about who set's our laws. I find it amusing that Stay campaigners don't care about our sovereignty and are happy for the EU to set OUR laws and rules.

Try reading this! https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

I contend that the virtually all of the 53% figure will STILL BE REQUIRED TO BE ADHERED TO for anyone with any contact with EU, particularly through trade. However, equivalent regulations WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED BY UK to cover the same areas! So leving will actually generate MORE regulations and red tape!

The additional cost required to produce/maintain/administer these regulations would likely make up a considerable chunk of the £10Bn/year that membership of the EU actually costs UK. It could almost be argued that membership of EU is actually a 'cost saving' exercise!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

No idea what you mean by proving a negative and it seems very Stalinist for a person not to be able express his own personal view of a situation. What happened to free speech? My employer might hold a different view to me but that doesn't mean I couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to hold my particular view and express that view as long as it is made clear that it is only my view and not that of the organisation I work for.

Quite simple really; Number 10 may say that there was no pressure applied but BoJo and his friends say "They would say that wouldn't they!" Nudge,nudge; wink, wink.

How does Number 10 prove they did not apply pressure.

As to your other point I agree every employee is entitled to have and express their own personal views.

However, he was being interviewed in his capacity as Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce at the time of their Annual Conference so it is understandable if his employers found his behaviour inappropriate.

I would add that it would have been similarly inappropriate if he had stated a view in favour of remaining in light of the BCC's stated position of neutrality on the issue.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Quite simple really; Number 10 may say that there was no pressure applied but BoJo and his friends say "They would say that wouldn't they!" Nudge,nudge; wink, wink.

How does Number 10 prove they did not apply pressure.

As to your other point I agree every employee is entitled to have and express their own personal views.

However, he was being interviewed in his capacity as Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce at the time of their Annual Conference so it is understandable if his employers found his behaviour inappropriate.

I would add that it would have been similarly inappropriate if he had stated a view in favour of remaining in light of the BCC's stated position of neutrality on the issue.

For your first point I wasn't asking for No. 10 to prove that they hadn't done anything. Was saying that if the leave campaign were able to prove that pressure HAD been applied it could change people's intentions with the vote. So it was down to the leave campaign to prove it had happened rather than the remain campaign to prove it hadn't.

For the second point then maybe it is a bit more understandable. I wasn't aware of what he was being interviewed for just that the story I saw on the BBC (I think) said that he had said it was only his personal view and not that of his employers.

 

[MarkE]

Try reading this! https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

I contend that the virtually all of the 53% figure will STILL BE REQUIRED TO BE ADHERED TO for anyone with any contact with EU, particularly through trade. However, equivalent regulations WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED BY UK to cover the same areas! So leving will actually generate MORE regulations and red tape!

The additional cost required to produce/maintain/administer these regulations would likely make up a considerable chunk of the £10Bn/year that membership of the EU actually costs UK. It could almost be argued that membership of EU is actually a 'cost saving' exercise!

Again, I was'nt doubting there would be any reduction in regulation. I could'nt care less. I don't let any of that worry me too much, just that it's our own red tape and regulation and not that imposed by the eu. As for it costing more to be out of the eu, I don't believe that for a second. But even if true I don't care. I'm quite prepared to be worse off if it means we are again in control of our own destiny, not being dictated to.:thup:

 

[Foxholer]

I love Boris, he constantly attempted to get over his point with Andrew Marr so people not fully understanding of the single currency and other issues, hopefully understood it a bit better, there's no doubt in my mind that he cares and is passionate about the UK. I want to hear more about the things that get wrapped up and delayed by Europe that won't ever, or hardly at all, affect Europe, like our tunnels or tipper trucks, yet they can have a say which then affects us and not them.

Cameron came back with nothing of any significance as we can't do anything or change anything or challenge anything once the dog wags our tail, it's a resounding out for me, lets get the gagging orders lifted and hear what's really happening out there and stop the scaremongering.

I want my FREEEEEDOM..:thup:

So you want our tunnels or tipper trucks to be less safe than those in Europe? Any company that exports to EU will be bound by EU laws/regs AND there will have to be additional ones created, maintained and enforced to cover the same areas by UK government! Far simpler to simply apply the same Rules/Regs - and participation in their creation has distinct advantages!

 

[MegaSteve]

So you want our tunnels or tipper trucks to be less safe than those in Europe? Any company that exports to EU will be bound by EU laws/regs AND there will have to be additional ones created, maintained and enforced to cover the same areas by UK government! Far simpler to simply apply the same Rules/Regs - and participation in their creation has distinct advantages!

Think you need to see the interview...

Boris was advising the EU was insisting the new crossrail tunnels needed to be 25% bigger just in case a German train needed to use them... And, TFL wanted stricter rules for tippers than the EU would allow them to apply...

HTH

 

[Fish]

So you want our tunnels or tipper trucks to be less safe than those in Europe? Any company that exports to EU will be bound by EU laws/regs AND there will have to be additional ones created, maintained and enforced to cover the same areas by UK government! Far simpler to simply apply the same Rules/Regs - and participation in their creation has distinct advantages!

I Didn't say that and you obviously didn't watch the full interview

 

[Fish]

Think you need to see the interview...

Boris was advising the EU was insisting the new crossrail tunnels needed to be 25% bigger just in case a German train needed to use them... And, TFL wanted stricter rules for tippers than the EU would allow them to apply...

HTH

Thank you 👍

 

[Foxholer]

Think you need to see the interview...

Boris was advising the EU was insisting the new crossrail tunnels needed to be 25% bigger just in case a German train needed to use them... And, TFL wanted stricter rules for tippers than the EU would allow them to apply...

HTH

Indeed, I haven't (yet) seen the full interview - I canonly take Boris in very small doses!!

Has it been clarified that either/both of those 'additional' requirements been applied? Or is this just a (nother?) instance of myth-creation - as each project can have unique requirements that would require/allow differences from the standard regulations to apply!

 

[SocketRocket]

If we left the EU the worst case scenario I can see is that we would pay export tariff of 1.75% as members of the WTO. We would of course also apply this tariff to imports so it's not exactly a massive problem. This is also the fall back position considering we could not negotiate a better arrangement which is unlikely.

We would also have our own seat on the WTO rather than being represented by the EU, this would give us more say on world trade.

 

[Crazyface]

If we left the EU the worst case scenario I can see is that we would pay export tariff of 1.75% as members of the WTO. We would of course also apply this tariff to imports so it's not exactly a massive problem. This is also the fall back position considering we could not negotiate a better arrangement which is unlikely.

We would also have our own seat on the WTO rather than being represented by the EU, this would give us more say on world trade.

Leave:- Immigration / Laws / World Trade Agreements

Stay :- It's will be bad very bad, sooooo bad......But WHY??????? TELL US WHY !!!!!!!!!

We will leave because the Leave argument tells us in simple terms why.

 

[Junior]

Leave:- Immigration / Laws / World Trade Agreements

Stay :- It's will be bad very bad, sooooo bad......But WHY??????? TELL US WHY !!!!!!!!!

We will leave because the Leave argument tells us in simple terms why.

This is how I feel. A massive part of me wants to stay in the EU as you think together we would be stronger, BUT, nobody can seem to say how we would be stronger.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I'm still yet to hear a very strong vote turning argument to stay in the EU but plenty to leave

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Trust all Brexiters were filled with confidence in BoJo after his Marr Show interview - totally on top of the arguments and rationale - completely at ease with being pressed on what it will mean for the UK. Hmmm. Don't think so. Our next PM? Oh hells teeth,

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm still yet to hear a very strong vote turning argument to stay in the EU but plenty to leave

A problem that Remain have is that all the positives that Remain might state are spun by Leave into Project Fear negatives.

For a me a vote turning argument is quite simply that those promoting Leave seem unable to put forward a consistent and coherent vision and statement of what UK out of EU will be and have. Everything in respect of relations with the EU is aspirational. They talk about all that will be possible in the context of the WTO, NATO, USA, China (that stable powerhouse of the global economy) and the Commoinwealth etc. Well that's fine in a global context - but there can be no denying that our economic, trading, fiscal, financial, welfare, immigration and security arrangements with the EU are what really matter. And on that I hear absolutely nothing concrete - nothing that say that this is what we will have in place; it will take X years to get it in place; and it will cost the UK £Y to be party to these arrangements.

So leaving a 'leap in the dark' - of course it is - at the moment we haven't a clue what a UK out of the EU will be like. Except of course we'll have 'sovereignty' and be able to 'control' immigration.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

A problem that Remain have is that all the positives that Remain might state are spun by Leave into Project Fear negatives.

For a me a vote turning argument is quite simply that those promoting Leave seem unable to put forward a consistent and coherent vision and statement of what UK out of EU will be and have. Everything in respect of relations with the EU is aspirational. They talk about all that will be possible in the context of the WTO, NATO, USA, China (that stable powerhouse of the global economy) and the Commoinwealth etc. Well that's fine in a global context - but there can be no denying that our economic, trading, fiscal, financial, welfare, immigration and security arrangements with the EU are what really matter. And on that I hear absolutely nothing concrete - nothing that say that this is what we will have in place; it will take X years to get it in place; and it will cost the UK £Y to be party to these arrangements.

So leaving a 'leap in the dark' - of course it is - at the moment we haven't a clue what a UK out of the EU will be like. Except of course we'll have 'sovereignty' and be able to 'control' immigration.

And we would no longer give out a damn sight lot of money to gain little back and be able to use that money to improve our nation as opposed to others