• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Brexit |OT| UK Referendum on EU Membership - 23 June 2016

Did you vote for the side that is going to win?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So. I've just watched the Brexit film, and while I know it's completely skewed to the leave side, I can't help thinking it spoke an awful lot of sense.

Switzerland for example, what do they have, that we don't, that allows them to prosper in a way that the remain camp seem to think impossible?

Singapore, a tiny city state built on little to none natural resources, self governing, yet one of the wealthiest nations on earth.

What are they doing, that we couldn't?

I'm genuinely curious.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Switzerland for example, what do they have, that we don't, that allows them to prosper in a way that the remain camp seem to think impossible?

The same EU rules that you want to evade now and no saying in how those rule are made.

Singapore, a tiny city state built on little to none natural resources, self governing, yet one of the wealthiest nations on earth.

What are they doing, that we couldn't?

I'm genuinely curious.

A much smaller population, an almost police state practically, most expensive city in the world and low taxes.
 
The same EU rules that you want to evade now and no saying in how those rule are made.



A much smaller population, an almost police state practically, most expensive city in the world and low taxes.

Can you rephrase the first part, I don't quite understand it, sorry.

On the Singaporean police state, they are higher on the HDI index than the UK. Expensive for outsiders to a degree, but those who live there, not so much I think.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Can you rephrase the first part, I don't quite understand it, sorry.

On the Singaporean police state, they are higher on the HDI index than the UK. Expensive for outsiders to a degree, but those who live there, not so much I think.

Switzerland trade agreements include compliance to some the rules of EU that the leave faction wants abolished.

As for Singapore:

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the education dimension is measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years and more and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by gross national income per capita. The HDI uses the logarithm of income, to reflect the diminishing importance of income with increasing GNI. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are then aggregated into a composite index using geometric mean. Refer to Technical notes for more details.

The HDI simplifies and captures only part of what human development entails. It does not reflect on inequalities, poverty, human security, empowerment, etc.

And no, most of the things are expensive for everybody (like house prices, car taxes etc).
 
Switzerland trade agreements include compliance to some the rules of EU that the leave faction wants abolished.

As for Singapore:



And no, most of the things are expensive for everybody (like house prices, car taxes etc).

The leave faction wouldn't have all the say in the event of a leave vote though, would they.

They may be expensive, but wages are also high.

While I agree with what you say, what I am annoyed with is the blatant scaremongering done by the government.

It was the same during the Scottish Independence referendum, and to be fair, it worked.

I just think we have what it takes to stand on our own two feet.

It's not as if we would close all our doors in the event of a leave win, in fact, we'd open them in my opinion.
 
What scare tactics were employed during the Scottish referendum?

I remember there being a lot of talk about how oil would fund their public services, etc. Well look at the price of oil...where would a free Scotland be now if they had voted to leave?

It's not scaremongering to outline the worst case scenario because things can and sometimes do change in the blink of an eye. Who would have thought a year ago that oil would be where it is now? Literally no-one and yet here we are...
 
The leave faction wouldn't have all the say in the event of a leave vote though, would they.

They may be expensive, but wages are also high.

While I agree with what you say, what I am annoyed with is the blatant scaremongering done by the government.

It was the same during the Scottish Independence referendum, and to be fair, it worked.

I just think we have what it takes to stand on our own two feet.

It's not as if we would close all our doors in the event of a leave win, in fact, we'd open them in my opinion.


Than don't listen to them and instead read some of the things the IMF, OECD etc. etc. wrote.
 
What scare tactics were employed during the Scottish referendum?

I remember there being a lot of talk about how oil would fund their public services, etc. Well look at the price of oil...where would a free Scotland be now if they had voted to leave?

It's not scaremongering to outline the worst case scenario because things can and sometimes do change in the blink of an eye. Who would have thought a year ago that oil would be where it is now? Literally no-one and yet here we are...

Exactly, things can change in the blink of an eye...

So how can Cameron say that every British household would be £4,300 worse off outside the European union...

How?

I get that both sides have to build a degree of foresight into their campaign, but I don't really think the country would go to the dogs as much as the remain campaign say it would, were we to leave...
 
Exactly, things can change in the blink of an eye...

So how can Cameron say that every British household would be £4,300 worse off outside the European union...

How?

I get that both sides have to build a degree of foresight into their campaign, but I don't really think the country would go to the dogs as much as the remain campaign say it would, were we to leave...

That's a long term projection of a possible worst case scenario should we leave and the economy contract by 6% due to loss of investment. It's a projection, one that might seem a little out there, but one that could potentially happen.

What makes you think the country wouldn't go the dogs/that the remain campaign and numerous economists are exaggerating?
 
That's a long term projection of a possible worst case scenario should we leave and the economy contract by 6% due to loss of investment. It's a projection, one that might seem a little out there, but one that could potentially happen.

What makes you think the country wouldn't go the dogs/that the remain campaign and numerous economists are exaggerating?

Trade, inherently is a good thing, why would that stop if we were to leave the EU. Look at how many German cars on the roads here, would that just stop one day? I think not.

We'd still have massive buying power. The rest of the EU would be stupid to ignore us.

Exporting, is something that I am still skeptical about. I think it may take us a while to find our feet in. But, we do have massive fishing trade which I feel is being hampered by the EU at present.
 

Jackpot

Banned
So how can Cameron say that every British household would be £4,300 worse off outside the European union...

They divided the projected decrease in GDP by the number of households, which isn't the same thing as household income at all. Stupid of them to hand pro-Leave such an easily-discredited piece of scaremongering.
 

Hasney

Member
'If Hitler couldn't unite Europe, who else can?'

Fuck off Boris.

It's amazing how the fake buffoon suit has come off and he's just gone into full on cunt mode. There's no more laughing at him now to make up for how much of a shit he is.

Just fucking wow.
 
I just posted direct evidence they're not. You're either lying or wilfully ignorant. Which is it? Why don't your posts contain any details about the analysis or data? Six different studies and a one sentence rejoinder is supposed to cover all of them? Does the "prophesy" [sic] line mean you're now trying to write off every single economic forecast ever done as no more than guesses so that you don't have to confront the evidence proving you're wrong?

They all conclude with a "this is based on worse case scenario of absolutely no trade agreements and wto rules."

The leave studies all show best case scenarios which again is equally useless as I can't see that happening either.

Which is my point.
 

Sarek

Member
Exporting, is something that I am still skeptical about. I think it may take us a while to find our feet in. But, we do have massive fishing trade which I feel is being hampered by the EU at present.

Fishing is actually one of the success stories of EU. As in EU has been able to reduce the massive overfishing that is simply completely unsustainable. It's not fully there yet, but I don't see how different nations would have ever agreed to the current fishing quotas without EU.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
I just posted direct evidence they're not. You're either lying or wilfully ignorant. Which is it? Why don't your posts contain any details about the analysis or data? Six different studies and a one sentence rejoinder is supposed to cover all of them? Does the "prophesy" [sic] line mean you're now trying to write off every single economic forecast ever done as no more than guesses so that you don't have to confront the evidence proving you're wrong?
Did all of these economists predict the crash in 08? How many said joining the euro would be a good idea? How many have received funding from the EU?

I'm sick of the scare stories, there of course be a rebalance if we left but medium to long term I genuinely believe we would be fine.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
That's a long term projection of a possible worst case scenario should we leave and the economy contract by 6% due to loss of investment. It's a projection, one that might seem a little out there, but one that could potentially happen.

What makes you think the country wouldn't go the dogs/that the remain campaign and numerous economists are exaggerating?
Not quite, the treasury report doesn't say the economy will contract by 6%, it's says the economy will grow by 30% if we leave but grow by 36% if we stay. We won't be quite as rich if we leave.

It also divides GDP by number of households today rather than the predicted number of households in 2030. No other treasury report has reported GDP per head in this way. Using that data to say households will lose out is wrong and misleading.

Also, Osbourne predicted that the deficit would be eliminated by now, it looks like it won't be now until 2020 at the very least. He has got every short to medium term prediction wrong since becoming Chancellor, in short the treasury report was complete and utter bollocks.

Edit: sorry for the double post.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
Here is a list compiled by Guido Faulks of pro remain groups that have received EU funding by the way. Interesting to bear in mind when considering their independent opinion.

Christine Lagarde is making yet another doom-mongering ‘major intervention’ at 10am, with that €400 million fraud trial still looming over her. The IMF chief will again warn against Brexit during a meeting with Osborne at the Treasury, a geo-political courtesy return favour to the Chancellor, who campaigned hard for her to get the job. Like pretty much every group Remain have wheeled out, the IMF has received funding from the European Commission. Pro-Remain groups which have made referendum interventions have received €160 million from the Commission in the last nine years:

http://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/
 

Hasney

Member
Here is a list compiled by Guido Faulks of pro remain groups that have received EU funding by the way. Interesting to bear in mind when considering their independent opinion.



http://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/

What kind of EU funding, directly for this campaign or just as a result of EU policies that are in their favour? Because when I click on that site and the 'Euro News' in the top right is just all hand picked stories about why we should leave or anger at the remain group, I find that also interesting to bear in mind when reading their story.
 
So. I've just watched the Brexit film, and while I know it's completely skewed to the leave side, I can't help thinking it spoke an awful lot of sense.

Switzerland for example, what do they have, that we don't, that allows them to prosper in a way that the remain camp seem to think impossible?

Singapore, a tiny city state built on little to none natural resources, self governing, yet one of the wealthiest nations on earth.

What are they doing, that we couldn't?

I'm genuinely curious.

Tax evasion in a big scale?
 

DrFurbs

Member
Sick of this government scare mongering. Between jobs, house prices, tax, wars in Europe ffs... I'm voting out.

It might be tough for 5 years but who knows in 10 to 20 but at least we will be governing ourselves but unelected ministers in another country.

I'm shocked to learn we spend 350 million a week on membership.
 
Sick of this government scare mongering. Between jobs, house prices, tax, wars in Europe ffs... I'm voting out.

It might be tough for 5 years but who knows in 10 to 20 but at least we will be governing ourselves but unelected ministers in another country.

I'm shocked to learn we spend 350 million a week on membership.

What a steal looking at the the benefits in the region of £62bn-£78bn a year.
 
Sick of this government scare mongering. Between jobs, house prices, tax, wars in Europe ffs... I'm voting out.

It might be tough for 5 years but who knows in 10 to 20 but at least we will be governing ourselves but unelected ministers in another country.

I'm shocked to learn we spend 350 million a week on membership.
You know there are EU elections right? We all elect those people.

350 million a week. UK is 65 million people. So per person little over 5 bucks? What a shocker...

And it's actually even less.
 

Tak3n

Banned
Ian Duncan Smith on radio 5 this morning

David Cameron is not being truthful with his security claims, stop short of calling him a liar, but he said when he was in Government it was always agreed Nato were the ones who kept the peace, the EU was about trade, and if you asked him privately he would agree, but publicly he is not being truthful by claiming the EU is why there has been no conflicts


Caroline Lucas

young people need to vote as dont let your future be decided by your grandparents
 

SuperHans

Member
Sick of this government scare mongering. Between jobs, house prices, tax, wars in Europe ffs... I'm voting out.

It might be tough for 5 years but who knows in 10 to 20 but at least we will be governing ourselves but unelected ministers in another country.

I'm shocked to learn we spend 350 million a week on membership.

You already have an unelected head of state and the house of lords so would you want to get rid of those too?
 
Sick of this government scare mongering. Between jobs, house prices, tax, wars in Europe ffs... I'm voting out.

It might be tough for 5 years but who knows in 10 to 20 but at least we will be governing ourselves but unelected ministers in another country.

I'm shocked to learn we spend 350 million a week on membership.

you live in a monarchy god damn it.
 
You already have an unelected head of state and the house of lords so would you want to get rid of those too?
I mean, the Queen is different but what you're saying with the lords is fair.

I find the whole EU regulation argument to be ridiculous when three independent reports have shown us to have the 10th least red tape in the world.. Other countries like Germany are in the 60s/70s and Finland(I think it was them) are in the top five. Clearly the red tape of Europe isn't such a big issue as is being made out by Leave.
 
I am seriously considering an out vote, purely because i imagine the generation afterwards will never forgive the UKIP, Tories etc when they realise just how many jobs etc this will cause to be lost to Europe, they will never win another election again when realism hits in, when the International companies who own our factories all head over to Europe to avoid the inevitable tax hikes and new duties when we leave, i will need to have an endless supply of popcorn to watch the political careers of Liar Johnson, disabled persecutor IDS and co finally end in tatters, good stuff.
 

Real Hero

Member
I am seriously considering an out vote, purely because i imagine the generation afterwards will never forgive the UKIP, Tories etc when they realise just how many jobs etc this will cause to be lost to Europe, they will never win another election again when realism hits in, when the International companies who own our factories all head over to Europe to avoid the inevitable tax hikes and new duties when we leave, i will need to have an endless supply of popcorn to watch the political careers of Liar Johnson, disabled persecutor IDS and co finally end in tatters, good stuff.

I think your putting too much faith in people to blame the correct people
 
I think your putting too much faith in people to blame the correct people

Maybe, but somehow i doubt it. It is likely Johnson and co. will lead the government after the referendum and when economy falters, governments are always blamed even if it is not ultimately them to blame.
 

Hasney

Member
Maybe, but somehow i doubt it. It is likely Johnson and co. will lead the government after the referendum and when economy falters, governments are always blamed even if it is not ultimately them to blame.

It could somehow be the fault of the remaining immagrants and Boris "Nazi EU killer" Johnson might not have been harsh enough on them.

Governments have still won elections in the past when they fucked things up in the first place. Like the Scottish tacitcal voting idea to try and get independance with an out vote, it would be a terrible idea.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
I am seriously considering an out vote, purely because i imagine the generation afterwards will never forgive the UKIP, Tories etc when they realise just how many jobs etc this will cause to be lost to Europe, they will never win another election again when realism hits in, when the International companies who own our factories all head over to Europe to avoid the inevitable tax hikes and new duties when we leave, i will need to have an endless supply of popcorn to watch the political careers of Liar Johnson, disabled persecutor IDS and co finally end in tatters, good stuff.

Don't do it. They will survive. They have survived much worse.

Johnson's leadership credentials will be wrecked by a remain vote.
 

cjp

Junior Member
I find the whole EU regulation argument to be ridiculous when three independent reports have shown us to have the 10th least red tape in the world.. Other countries like Germany are in the 60s/70s and Finland(I think it was them) are in the top five. Clearly the red tape of Europe isn't such a big issue as is being made out by Leave.

When there are regulations on the curvature of bananas and requirements on small scale food producers to spend thousands of pounds on repackaging to insert the fine print "may contain fish" on packages of salmon, then 10th place isn't good enough.
 
When there are regulations on the curvature of bananas and requirements on small scale food producers to spend thousands of pounds on repackaging to insert the fine print "may contain fish" on packages of salmon, then 10th place isn't good enough.
You mean the banana regulation that just keeps in check what farmers can grow as certain class bananas and have no impact on retailers whatsoever? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94

The salmon example I can only find something from 2003. But the official UK Food Standard Agency has this to say about those labels:

Manufacturers often use phrases such as 'may contain' to show that there could be small amounts of an allergen for example milk, egg, nuts etc. in a food product because it has entered the product accidentally during the production process.

It's not a legal requirement to say on the label that a food might accidently contain small amounts of an allergen, but many manufacturers label their products in this way to warn their customers of this risk. - https://www.food.gov.uk/science/allergy-intolerance/label

Of course there are regulations for allergies and such. It might look a bit ridiculous, but whatever. I doubt any money extra was spent on this stuff for repackaging, since these are not just dropped on companies randomly one day.
 
Has anyone ever come up with a good example of an EU regulation which doesn't have an entirely reasonable justification for its existence? All I ever see are the stupid banana, teabag recycling and vacuum cleaner power ones.
 
Sick of this government scare mongering. Between jobs, house prices, tax, wars in Europe ffs... I'm voting out.

It might be tough for 5 years but who knows in 10 to 20 but at least we will be governing ourselves but unelected ministers in another country.

I'm shocked to learn we spend 350 million a week on membership.

... But we do elect EU officials. The problem is we elected a bunch of "officials" who don't actually turn up to EU meetings and stuff and are making millions by not representing the needs of the British public.

These same people are the people telling you to leave the EU. Because we were actually dense enough to vote for UKIP MEPs.
 

Jackpot

Banned
When there are regulations on the curvature of bananas and requirements on small scale food producers to spend thousands of pounds on repackaging to insert the fine print "may contain fish" on packages of salmon, then 10th place isn't good enough.

oh, jeez, not the "EU wants to outlaw curvy bananas" line. How can you fall for such an obvious made up story? Do you also believe they want to outlaw fireman's poles and rename sausages "emulsified high-fat offal tubes"?

That story is so ancient. Didn't think we'd still find people believing in it here.
 
Has anyone ever come up with a good example of an EU regulation which doesn't have an entirely reasonable justification for its existence? All I ever see are the stupid banana, teabag recycling and vacuum cleaner power ones.
Not that I know of. Anti-EU people would do good to read about Euromyths and see that most of those are either complete bullshit or have a good reason to exist. Most regulations are also based on already existing stuff, but just made EU wide to make trade easier. Helps to have same standards everywhere.

Here is a whole list of it: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
 

cjp

Junior Member
oh, jeez, not the "EU wants to outlaw curvy bananas" line. How can you fall for such an obvious made up story? Do you also believe they want to outlaw fireman's poles and rename sausages "emulsified high-fat offal tubes"?

That story is so ancient. Didn't think we'd still find people believing in it here.

What made up story? The then Agriculture Comissioner stated themselves ""This is a concrete example of our drive to cut red tape and I will continue to push until it goes through. [...] It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things. It is far better to leave it to market operators." when discussing the repeal of the regulation.
 
What made up story? The then Agriculture Comissioner stated themselves ""This is a concrete example of our drive to cut red tape and I will continue to push until it goes through. [...] It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things. It is far better to leave it to market operators." when discussing the repeal of the regulation.
Products have certain quality standards. That is a good thing.

No, it is not good to leave it to the market. Because then you have giant corporations doing whatever with the food you eat without you knowing it.

Quality standards are necessary in order that people buying and ordering bananas can rest assured that what they are getting lives up to their expectations. Individual EU member states have tended to have their own standards, as has the industry (whose standards are often very stringent). The European Commission was asked by the Council of Ministers and the industry to prepare a draft regulation laying down EU quality standards, and this has been the subject of consultation for some time now. As such it represents a consensus position. The following points should be noted however:
1) These are minimal rules, applied solely to green, unripe bananas, rather than those destined for the processing industry.
2) These standards should improve the quality of bananas produced within the Commmunity. They should thus be able command a higher price in the Community markets. This should also help reduce Community aid and therefore relieve pressure on the Community budget.
3) Far from being an interference in trade these norms should facilitate it throughout the Community
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/bananas-and-brussels/

Bananas are classified according to quality and size for international trade. Individual governments and the industry have in the past had their own standards with the latter’s, in particular, being very stringent. The European Commission was asked by national agriculture ministers and the industry to draft legislation in this area. Following extensive consultation with the industry, the proposed quality standards were adopted by national ministers in Council in 1994.
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/curved-bananas/

This is a normal thing. On all these kinds of products, there are qualifications. A certain quality of banana will fall in one class, another in another class. There are prices between these. There are rules saying how the classification is done, so it isn't just randomly.

Watched the BREXIT film. I'm still voting out. Such waste.

The Swiss example was an eye opener.
The UK is not going to magically turn into Switzerland when they leave the EU. And Switzerland is still part of the trade bloc and has to follow those regulations that Brexit movie (just watched it, had a good laugh) is so against.

If it is about accountability, nothing is stopping the UK government from improving that themselves now. An example given was the referendum, how the Swiss can call for one and the politicians have to follow, but in the UK it is up to the Prime Minister. If your government wants to, they can do just that. Also see Holland, where we just had one (a bullshit one, but for other reasons). Nothing in the EU is stopping you from holding your own representatives accountable.

That whole movie is just throwing together some stuff that sounds bad, but when you think about it a minute doesn't make sense. So regulation is bad. We want to get rid of that and return to the mighty empire of the 1800s. The times with kids in factories and people dying of health problems because of the lack of regulations. Doesn't sound so good to me.

Then they talk about getting rid of tariffs. Only for ten minutes later to tell that the EU is doing just that and they have dropped majorly.

After that we are going on about how we shouldn't have a Fortress Europe. But when the Chinese flood the market with cheap steel which closes factories here, we suddenly want to protect our own industries. And when Polish people come to work in the UK that is bad because protection is needed suddenly. The whole argument doesn't make any sense.

The fishing industry sure was busy a few decades ago. Surely that was sustainable with over fishing. Going on like that without quotas would have been a major disaster.

Oh, and lets ask random people on the street if they know these EU people by name. Now go try that with a random bunch of UK members of parliament or even ministers. I sure as hell don't know the names of all the government officials in my country. Nobody does. But when we can't recognize someone from the EU it is suddenly bad?

The only thing I agree with is the oversight and transparency in Brussels. There is too much lobbying going on there and too little accountability. But let's not pretend the same exact thing isn't happening everywhere else, including the UK.
 
Has anyone ever come up with a good example of an EU regulation which doesn't have an entirely reasonable justification for its existence? All I ever see are the stupid banana, teabag recycling and vacuum cleaner power ones.

The problem is often not bad intentions, but a heavy-handedness - VAT MOSS being a prime example.
 
Has anyone ever come up with a good example of an EU regulation which doesn't have an entirely reasonable justification for its existence? All I ever see are the stupid banana, teabag recycling and vacuum cleaner power ones.

How about the bullshit that the EU is pulling with regards to E-Cigs and the Tobacco Products Directive (guess what, there is NO tobacco in E-cigs so it shouldn't even apply).. Here in the UK we want to encourage smokers to quit and E-Cigs are a fantastic way of getting people to quit (worked for me and I was a heavy 40 a day smoker) so the UK government is taking a more laid back attitude to E-Cigs. Hell we even have the NHS and Doctors recommending them

Not the EU, nope they are bringing in moronic restrictions and heavy handed regulation based on little or no actual scientific evidence whatsoever. They are bringing restrictions on the amount of e-liquid being sold (maximum limit will be 10ml). I believe the reason for this is because it is a poison, hm yeah so is bleach which you can buy in LITRES. They are bringing in restrictions on the E-Cig devices which are almost impossible to meet again based on no real scientific evidence whatsoever. The EU is going to heavily damage the fledging E-Cig industry and it's restrictions could end up reducing the E-Cig's ability to help people quit smoking.

You can read more about it here :-

http://www.epicenternetwork.eu/wp-c...rettes-and-Article-20-14th-September-2015.pdf

The UK government wants to take a more relaxed approach to E-Cigs but will have to implement this bullshit directive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom