EU Referendum

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

A fine statement of intent - but as Leave don't know or tell us how much it'll cost the UK to have all the necessary arrangements in place with the EU - they can't really tell me how much better off we'd be. It's aspirational.

 

[delc]

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

Perhaps we should try and claim more grants, etc. The other EU Countries seem to get away with it! Does our Government even ask?

 

[MegaSteve]

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,

Andrew Marr was more than just a BoJo parade...

Mervyn King spoke some very wise words...

And, Wolfgang Schauble didn't exactly inspire me to change my views with regard UKs position in Europe...
Turkey is a problem 10 years down the road... Very helpful...

DaveCam & Co can't even guarantee more of the same...

 

[jp5]

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.

But not 'how'. For a goal that has been an aspiration of some politicians for decades, with a few months to go before the big vote there seems to be very little substance or consensus on what exactly the alternative would look like. For the benefit of the debate let's hope they can put the political differences to one side and focus on getting that vision across!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

A fine statement of intent - but as Leave don't know or tell us how much it'll cost the UK to have all the necessary arrangements in place with the EU - they can't really tell me how much better off we'd be. It's aspirational.

Will it cost ?

Or maybe we will open up new agreements with other countries in the world as we will be the masters of our own destiny

But again as can be see by the people in the "in" campaign - the comments aren't why we should stay in more putting the scaremongering onto the reasons why to leave

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But not 'how'. For a goal that has been an aspiration of some politicians for decades, with a few months to go before the big vote there seems to be very little substance or consensus on what exactly the alternative would look like. For the benefit of the debate let's hope they can put the political differences to one side and focus on getting that vision across!

Exactly. Leave can't even agree amongt themselves about what they want - there is absolutely no clarity or focus. The only thing that is clear is that Leave aspires to: regain 'sovereignty'; have 'control' of immigration; and 'pay' (only phrased in £££ terms) less to access the European single market. That seems to be it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Will it cost ?

Or maybe we will open up new agreements with other countries in the world as we will be the masters of our own destiny

But again as can be see by the people in the "in" campaign - the comments aren't why we should stay in more putting the scaremongering onto the reasons why to leave

Oh absolutely - in this interconnected globalised world - we - the UK - will be able to have just whatever we want and trade and have other agreements on our terms with whoever we want. Well that would be just fine and dandy - were this a pre-1970s world we live in.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Oh absolutely - in this interconnected globalised world - we - the UK - will be able to have just whatever we want and trade and have other agreements on our terms with whoever we want. Well that would be just fine and dandy - were this a pre-1970s world we live in.

Are you saying that we won't be able to reach trade agreements with other countries ?

Still waiting for solid reasons to stay in

 

[Junior]

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.

I agree, it is a leap in the dark, but are you saying that the crux of the remain argument is that its 'better the devil you know' ?

Honestly, this is one of the most important votes in our countries history, yet, there seems to be no real pro's and con's lists with any substance from either side.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Why stay?

One word really - Stability.

Stability is good, it's something that creates the confidence in the system at every level of life. As individuals we like it, we want steady mortgage rates, steady jobs, steady food prices, basically a steady existence. It's what humans do, it fosters the environment where we can plan ahead, plan families, plan major spending, house moves etc. Then there's Businesses. They like it too, mostly for the same reasons. It fosters investment, it enables businesses to plan for growth, plan to expand, be confident of future markets etc. Then up another level and Countries also like it. Again it enables planning, it means agreements made today will be honoured tomorrow, it makes it mutually beneficial to work together and reduces the possibility of conflict and even war.

Look at anywhere in the world that there are problems, and I mean proper issues, famine, disease, war and the like costing thousands of lives every day. For 9 out of 10 the root cause is instability of one kind or another. Maybe the political system, the economy or even the environment but all with social unrest increasingly dividing the sides involved be that on religious, cultural, racial grounds all perpetuating the cycle. Instability creates division, division creates conflict and a quick look at history tells us that Europe isn't immune.

The EU isn't perfect, nothing is, even a UK "in charge of it's own destiny" whatever that really means, won't be. But I'm very wary of division and nationalistic rhetoric which brings every argument down to "us and them". When I look at this issue I look to the future, not the next 10 years in which nothing will change much either way but the world my baby granddaughter will grow up in. I genuinely believe in the stable system we have in the west and I can't see that fragmenting it and not working together to defend it is going to make the world a better, or a safer place.

Feel free to disagree as obviously many will. However, I think I've made my mind up and in the myriad of points being made, nearly all of which on both sides have some validity, the overarching one for me is to not rock the boat, fix the EU from within, don't be the catalyst that blows it all apart and set Europe back 70 years to a dangerous place my parents generation had to live through.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Why stay?

One word really - Stability.

Stability is good, it's something that creates the confidence in the system at every level of life. As individuals we like it, we want steady mortgage rates, steady jobs, steady food prices, basically a steady existence. It's what humans do, it fosters the environment where we can plan ahead, plan families, plan major spending, house moves etc. Then there's Businesses. They like it too, mostly for the same reasons. It fosters investment, it enables businesses to plan for growth, plan to expand, be confident of future markets etc. Then up another level and Countries also like it. Again it enables planning, it means agreements made today will be honoured tomorrow, it makes it mutually beneficial to work together and reduces the possibility of conflict and even war.

Look at anywhere in the world that there are problems, and I mean proper issues, famine, disease, war and the like costing thousands of lives every day. For 9 out of 10 the root cause is instability of one kind or another. Maybe the political system, the economy or even the environment but all with social unrest increasingly dividing the sides involved be that on religious, cultural, racial grounds all perpetuating the cycle. Instability creates division, division creates conflict and a quick look at history tells us that Europe isn't immune.

The EU isn't perfect, nothing is, even a UK "in charge of it's own destiny" whatever that really means, won't be. But I'm very wary of division and nationalistic rhetoric which brings every argument down to "us and them". When I look at this issue I look to the future, not the next 10 years in which nothing will change much either way but the world my baby granddaughter will grow up in. I genuinely believe in the stable system we have in the west and I can't see that fragmenting it and not working together to defend it is going to make the world a better, or a safer place.

Feel free to disagree as obviously many will. However, I think I've made my mind up and in the myriad of points being made, nearly all of which on both sides have some validity, the overarching one for me is to not rock the boat, fix the EU from within, don't be the catalyst that blows it all apart and set Europe back 70 years to a dangerous place my parents generation had to live through.

Fine post there sir.

 

[Foxholer]

Perhaps we should try and claim more grants, etc. The other EU Countries seem to get away with it! Does our Government even ask?

Do they?

Please give examples - from, say, Germany or France!

 

[MegaSteve]

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!

I doubt he conjured his points out of thin air...

One thing I'll give him is... If he was still running for Mayor [in May] it wouldn't surprise me if one his manifesto points wasn't along the lines of...

We'll decide what can be driven in London and the EU can go swivel...

 

[Hobbit]

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.

Do you have any facts behind those bullet point, headliners? Either for stay or leave. Where's your costings for either, or is it you're happy to pay out £14billion more than we get in.

You've posted up in the past the failings of the NHS, or the govt and mgt behind it. And knowledgeable medics have said there's an £8billion deficit. Well there's £6billion left over from the £14billion to plug the gap in Social Services & Benefits you've often posted up too.

I would say it wouldn't be as simple as that, and there are a multitude of other issues to resolve, e.g. you question whether we'd be in NATO. We were in it before the EU experiment, so why won't we be in it afterwards. We have the biggest aircraft carrier in the world to support protection of the Western Approaches, i.e. the UK. Do you think NATO would cut us adrift...?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Are you saying that we won't be able to reach trade agreements with other countries ?

Still waiting for solid reasons to stay in

We've got solid and long standing trade agreements in place - and as mentioned these provide stability and certainty for trade and investment. We have nothing from Leave on how long the multiple transitions to new trade agreements would take or indeed what these agreements would look like.

 

[Foxholer]

I doubt he conjured his points out of thin air...

...

I have no (well, little) doubt that his statements were correct. But the question was whether they were simply 'proposals' that were never implemented - ie did the EU 'general' standards/regulations or the specific TFL/Crossrail 'special considerations for the Project' ones prevail?

I'm inclined to think that TFL and Crossrail got their way! In the case of Crossrail, a 25% bigger tunnel would have significantly increased the cost of the project - and that requirement would have been announced way before now!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I agree, it is a leap in the dark, but are you saying that the crux of the remain argument is that its 'better the devil you know' ?

Honestly, this is one of the most important votes in our countries history, yet, there seems to be no real pro's and con's lists with any substance from either side.

Better the devil indeed - but we must not forget that many if not most of the workplace, employment and welfare benefits, rights and protections are framed in the context of EU legislation - so for many the 'devil' is a rather benevolent devil. I do not feel inclined to consider an environment in which Ian Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling and their like, have free reign to reform in these areas (as that is what sovereignty much sought after by Leave means)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

We've got solid and long standing trade agreements in place - and as mentioned these provide stability and certainty for trade and investment. We have nothing from Leave on how long the multiple transitions to new trade agreements would take or indeed what these agreements would look like.

You still haven't provide any reasons for the UK to stay in the EU - it seems the only thing you can provide is negatives towards people's reasons for wanting to leave

I fully understand the stability reason put forward by Flydewhite and not rocking the boat etc - but can you use that as reason when it appears it wasn't valid when people were using it as a reason for No to Scottish a independence.

A lot of reasons have been posted by people as reasons for wanting to leave , sovereignty , immigration , getting more for out money etc - but still not seen any reasons for staying from you

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Why stay?

One word really - Stability.

Stability is good, it's something that creates the confidence in the system at every level of life. As individuals we like it, we want steady mortgage rates, steady jobs, steady food prices, basically a steady existence. It's what humans do, it fosters the environment where we can plan ahead, plan families, plan major spending, house moves etc. Then there's Businesses. They like it too, mostly for the same reasons. It fosters investment, it enables businesses to plan for growth, plan to expand, be confident of future markets etc. Then up another level and Countries also like it. Again it enables planning, it means agreements made today will be honoured tomorrow, it makes it mutually beneficial to work together and reduces the possibility of conflict and even war.

Look at anywhere in the world that there are problems, and I mean proper issues, famine, disease, war and the like costing thousands of lives every day. For 9 out of 10 the root cause is instability of one kind or another. Maybe the political system, the economy or even the environment but all with social unrest increasingly dividing the sides involved be that on religious, cultural, racial grounds all perpetuating the cycle. Instability creates division, division creates conflict and a quick look at history tells us that Europe isn't immune.

The EU isn't perfect, nothing is, even a UK "in charge of it's own destiny" whatever that really means, won't be. But I'm very wary of division and nationalistic rhetoric which brings every argument down to "us and them". When I look at this issue I look to the future, not the next 10 years in which nothing will change much either way but the world my baby granddaughter will grow up in. I genuinely believe in the stable system we have in the west and I can't see that fragmenting it and not working together to defend it is going to make the world a better, or a safer place.

Feel free to disagree as obviously many will. However, I think I've made my mind up and in the myriad of points being made, nearly all of which on both sides have some validity, the overarching one for me is to not rock the boat, fix the EU from within, don't be the catalyst that blows it all apart and set Europe back 70 years to a dangerous place my parents generation had to live through.

Thankyou - you have captured my views and thinking far better than I have been able to myself. You are so correct in placing the focus 20+yrs down the line - with so much of the debate we are hearing being focussed on issues and concerns of the 'here and now' we miss the point that this decision is not really for us...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Do you have any facts behind those bullet point, headliners? Either for stay or leave. Where's your costings for either, or is it you're happy to pay out £14billion more than we get in.

You've posted up in the past the failings of the NHS, or the govt and mgt behind it. And knowledgeable medics have said there's an £8billion deficit. Well there's £6billion left over from the £14billion to plug the gap in Social Services & Benefits you've often posted up too.

I would say it wouldn't be as simple as that, and there are a multitude of other issues to resolve, e.g. you question whether we'd be in NATO. We were in it before the EU experiment, so why won't we be in it afterwards. We have the biggest aircraft carrier in the world to support protection of the Western Approaches, i.e. the UK. Do you think NATO would cut us adrift...?

I didn't question at all whether UK would be in NATO - there is no reason whatsoever for UK not being in NATO if it leaves the EU.

You wish to know how much it costs to be in the EU today and have access to the single market and how much in the future. I am sure that the government and OBR have all the figures for these costs projected 5, 10 etc years into the future, after all they are needed for the budget and spending reviews - and one is coming up soon. So where are the equivalent forecasts of costs from Leave. There will of course be forecasts - but these forecasts require very significant assumptions to be made - and at the moment I hear and read only the vaguest of aspirational assumptions- and so forecasts built more on sand than on stone.