So its more Stay at the moment?You should never get too excited, or worried, by a single poll.
I don't know all the parties the UK has in the European Parliament. But I'd look at their programs and then vote for the one that matches the most. Over here in Holland we have about a dozen parties you can elect to the EP. You pick one, just like in your countries national elections. Of course, last time only 35% of people in the UK bothered to vote here.Thanks, but I'm still not clear - who do I vote for if I dislike the laws coming from the EU and I dislike the president(s)? Who should I have voted for in the last EU elections to get rid of those people?
That is a very easy question to answer when talking about a UK general election.
I get that not every law needs to be done by the EU. But can you give actual examples of laws they passed that you didn't like? Because I'm very hard pressed to think of any. Most are about streamlining regulations between countries to make movement of goods and people easier.Having 'input' isn't the same as making the laws ourselves.There are 28 EU countries, very different from each other in location, size, culture, nature of economy yadda yadda, and they can all be said to have input in making EU laws. If we made all our laws ourselves then we can make sure that they are applicable to us, and if they aren't we can vote out whoever made them. So I object to all EU laws on principle.
Thanks, but I'm still not clear - who do I vote for if I dislike the laws coming from the EU and I dislike the president(s)? Who should I have voted for in the last EU elections to get rid of those people?
That is a very easy question to answer when talking about a UK general election.
I got poo-poo'd a few pages back for saying I felt there was a swing in opinion coming.
I just think, as a whole, there is a trend that seems to be heading towards the out side.Have you been on the Guardian's BTL and comments section lately?
its become more progressively right wing over the last few years, honest to god, you wont believe some of the things people type their, just a tier or two below the youtube comments. I wouldn't hold any poll there to be worth its salt.
My constituency has been Conservative ever since it was created, can't get more "undemocratic" than that
The best-case scenario, then, is that Brexit would "only" result in a few years of economy-killing uncertainty while they negotiated a deal almost identical to the one they had just ripped up. And the worst is that they would be unable to reach any kind of agreement, leaving themselves permanently poorer.
But despite all this, almost half the country thinks this is a good idea.
During the Six Nations each year I always read the match reports from Australia - less likely to be biased, more likely to give a fair account of the game.
In that spirit, here's an article on Brexit from the Washington Post.
And a graph from the Wall Street Journal:
For anyone who thinks Brexit will not damage the economy - even the threat of Brexit is doing that right now.
This referendum really has brought out the daft racists hasn't it.
TRADE
Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein belong to a small club of non-members that enjoy access to the EU's huge single market, because they have signed up to the European Economic Area agreement. The relationship is economically fruitful: Some 84 percent of Norwegian exports go to the EU, and 62 percent of its imports are from the bloc.
For Britain to join this club, however, it would have to accept four EU-style freedoms: free movement of goods, services, people and capital. Also, Norway implements more than three-quarters of all EU laws without having a formal way of influencing how they're drafted.
That is the opposite of what the supporters of a British exit from the EU, or Brexit, want.
"It is not just that we don't influence the rules, we don't understand why we have them. Rather than being involved in drafting new rules, we have to spend time asking what the last one was all about," says Paal Frisvold, a Norwegian who is managing director of Geelmuyden Kiese Brussels, a lobbying firm for Scandinavian companies.
___
IMMIGRATION
After the 2004 EU expansion into Eastern Europe, Polish plumbers came to symbolize the arrival of cheap labor into British towns. Supporters say Britain has benefited from their arrival, citing studies showing EU migrants contribute more to British coffers in tax than they take out through benefits. Critics argue their arrival puts a strain on housing and services and keeps a lid on wages, penalizing poorer Britons.
Whatever the merits, following Norway's example on this issue wouldn't satisfy the concerns of the supporters of a British EU exit, as Norway has more EU migrants than Britain relative to population size. That's because Norway has signed on to the EEA, and unlike Britain, it's a member of Europe's passport-free Schengen zone, which makes it easier to enter Norway than Britain.
___
FARMING
Norway is not part of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, which subsidizes farmers and guarantees tariff-free trade across borders. The share of the EU budget earmarked for agriculture has fallen from 73 percent in 1980 to around 40 percent today but the policy remains a bugbear for many Brits who bristle at propping up the rural lifestyle of French and Polish farmers.
Oslo does not subsidize foreign agriculture. But tariffs for EU produce are high, which feeds through to pricey supermarket bills. And what Norway saves in EU subsidies is more than offset by lavish support to its own farmers. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, subsidies account for more than 60 percent of their income. British farmers fear their government would not be so generous. Supporters of a so-called Brexit argue it should be up to Britain to decide.
___
FISHERIES
Norway doesn't have to share its lucrative fishing waters with EU nations. The Common Fisheries Policy, which divvies up European waters and sets limits on how many fish can be caught, was a big reason why the seafaring country voted "no" to EU membership in 1972 and 1994.
Plentiful stocks of cod and other white fish suggest it can happily manage its own waters.
Fishermen in northern Norway say the industry supports many small coastal communities that would have struggled if they had to compete with foreign trawlers in their own waters.
"Maybe nothing would be left for these small societies," said Paul Jensen, a fisherman from the village of Ersfjordbotn. "Only snow and ice and skiing."
But being outside the EU also means Norway has to pay tariffs to sell its fish to European consumers. The tariffs ratchet up for smoked or other treated products. So Norwegian fish farmers often choose to export untreated salmon to EU member Poland and smoke it there instead.
___
FOREIGN POLICY
Norway felt the sting of being alone when China punished it for the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in 2010.
Even though the government has no say over the independent panel's choices, work on a trade deal was suspended, visiting diplomats were humiliated, and Norwegian salmon faced sudden restrictions at Chinese docks.
Had Norway been part of the EU, Beijing could have faced retaliatory measures from the entire bloc. Being on its own meant it had to suck it up.
As a bigger country and permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Britain has more clout on the world stage. But leaving the EU would mean losing its seat at the table when important issues are discussed in Brussels.
This has happened to Norway during the standoff between Russia and Ukraine or the free trade deal that the EU is negotiating with the U.S.
___
COST
Norway doesn't pay the EU's annual membership fee. But it does pay into a social fund which aims to raise the economic and social standards of poorer EU nations. It also coughs up for the EU-wide programs it uses, such as Horizon 2020 and Erasmus, which cover research and higher education.
Norway funds these programs based on the size of its economy. They will cost an average of 447 million euros per year until 2020, making Norway the EU's 10th largest contributor, according to The Confederation of British Industry.
"The negotiators have done a reasonable job of securing a deal for Norway. I would say we have not always been good enough at taking advantage," says Kristin Skogen Lund, head of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise.
What do you guys think about the hedge fund spending £0.5m on doing exit polling? This almost certainly means we will know the result during the day of voting because if their exit polls point leave the pound will tumble. Will be strange.
Don't believe it has ever been done before in the UK. The BBC won't be able to speculate during the day through of course but the fx rate is available to see.
What do you guys think about the hedge fund spending £0.5m on doing exit polling? This almost certainly means we will know the result during the day of voting because if their exit polls point leave the pound will tumble. Will be strange.
Don't believe it has ever been done before in the UK. The BBC won't be able to speculate during the day through of course but the fx rate is available to see.
The polls won't be public, but if they suddenly start offloading a ton of assets, you know which direction it is heading.I'm not sure it's legal to publish an exit poll before the polling stations have closed is it?
It's a disgrace that non-commonwealth foreign nationals who've been living in the UK for years are not allowed to vote on this referendum. On the otherhand, it nicely unveils the nativist tone of this entire debate.
It's going to be fascinating to watch my country basically commit economic suicide in less than weeks time. Not only will it cause massive immediate harm; I the long run I honestly don't see how London maintains its position as a world city if we are outside Europe.
But don't worry, the 6836473938363 Turks who are currently invading Europe won't be able to come over!
All economists not just the current protagonists agree that a country gains by increasing its overall international trade. Greater trade makes it possible to produce more of and export what the country does best (its comparative advantage) and import what it does less well. Everyone gains.
But there is no gain in exporting to Germany, Spain and Poland rather than to the United States, Korea and China. In fact, if preferential access diverts trade away from the United States to Germany, then departure from the countrys comparative advantage hurts rather than helps, as Columbia Universitys trade theorist Jagdish Bhagwati has long argued.
So the claim that Brexit will impose a huge cost rests on the twin beliefs that British trade with Germany will go down sharply and trade with the United States will not increase. Is that reasonable?
First, British trade with Germany will not decline significantly. As economists have long known, trade is embedded in business and social networks into which partners invest enormous social capital. Studies repeatedly show that businesses make accommodations in profit margins to retain the benefits of trust and reliability.
For this reason, all productive trading relationships will remain intact. For this reason too, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeubles threat that renegotiation of Britains trade arrangements with the EU would be most difficult and poisonous is bluster. Germans run a trade surplus with Britain. Mr Schaeuble can humiliate the IMF, but he dare not hurt the interests of his exporters (or his importers).
And even if British trade with the EU falls, trade with other regions will undoubtedly increase. Because Europe has been growing at a slower pace than the rest of the world, trade has been shifting away from Europe for years.
It's a disgrace that non-commonwealth foreign nationals who've been living in the UK for years are not allowed to vote on this referendum. On the otherhand, it nicely unveils the nativist tone of this entire debate.
The often described 'nationalist' Scottish Referendum allowed everyone living in Scotland to vote.
Ehhh, not really, they're just the same rules as a General Election.
I'm sure the Scottish government would have loved to poll only Scottish people in the indyref but it wasn't practical. There's no "Scottish citizenship" to go by so they had to do it by residence.
What do you guys think about the hedge fund spending £0.5m on doing exit polling? This almost certainly means we will know the result during the day of voting because if their exit polls point leave the pound will tumble. Will be strange.
Don't believe it has ever been done before in the UK. The BBC won't be able to speculate during the day through of course but the fx rate is available to see.
This is a bigger decision than a general election, it's more than political. Just because it is similar to the UK General Election doesn't mean it's fair. People from Malta and Ireland can freely vote, but my parents who 30 years ago escaped communist Czechoslovakia and have worked half their lives for the NHS have no voice.
I wouldn't presume to divine the true motivations of the Scottish Government, but they could very easily have required a UK passport for the Scottish Referendum.
This is a bigger decision than a general election, it's more than political. Just because it is similar to the UK General Election doesn't mean it's fair. People from Malta and Ireland can freely vote, but my parents who 30 years ago escaped communist Czechoslovakia and have worked half their lives for the NHS have no voice.
I wouldn't presume to divine the true motivations of the Scottish Government, but they could very easily have required a UK passport for the Scottish Referendum.
The UK economy will not collapse under Brexit. The scare stories of economic meltdown are based on nonsense, as this article in the Independent sets out
I'm not sure it's legal to publish an exit poll before the polling stations have closed is it?
Are they releasing the results? I would have thought they'd keep it to themselves so if leave is winning they could sell their £ currency quickly and on the flip side, buy some £'s if remain is winning since the economy will be speculated to be less fucked.
I'm really hoping that a 'remain' vote will make the sterling super strong a week after the dust has settled because I want more spending money when I go the States at the end of the month :S
Heck, I'd be chuffed with just 1.55 GBP to the USD at this stage. Anything higher is a bonus.
The treasury's own report, which takes a worse case scenario of losing access to the single market and not making any other trade deals to make up for it, says we would still grow by 30% in 15 years, opposed to 36% if we remain. Is that honestly a disaster, as a worst case scenario?
So, say we lose our free trade agreement with the EU. Does that mean we no longer trade with the EU? Of course not, we don't have a free trade agreement with the US but we still have massive amounts of trade. Will barriers and tariffs be put in place? Maybe, maybe not. I would like to think that in the 2 year negotiation period after activating article 50 a mutually beneficial deal between the UK and EU could be struck. We have a massive trade deficit with the EU, would German car manufactures, French cheese and wine makers etc etc all be happy with barriers to the UK market?
Are there massive unknowns and a short term risk? Yes, of course. Long term? We would be fine. I admit there are a lot of ifs and buts, a lot of maybes and who knows. But, all together, I feel the risk is worth it. Especially from a sovereignty viewpoint.
The treasury's own report, which takes a worse case scenario of losing access to the single market and not making any other trade deals to make up for it, says we would still grow by 30% in 15 years, opposed to 36% if we remain. Is that honestly a disaster, as a worst case scenario?
In conclusion, the Treasurys analysis shows that none of the alternatives come close to
matching the net economic benefits to the UK of EU membership. Using a negotiated
bilateral agreement like Canada as the central assumption for the alternative, the UK
economy is 6.2% larger in the EU, British families are £4,300 better off in the EU, and
the UKs receipts are £36 billion healthier in the EU. The overall economic benefits of
EU membership are significantly higher than in any potential alternative.
If they've been here for 30 years, why would they not have applied to become a British citizen?
I'd like to ask what those who argue that we need absolute sovereignty think of international law? Because the ICJ has jurisdiction over a fair bit, too. Should we pull out of the UN (not that it would remove us of the customary international obligations).
Not every country allows dual citizenship. They shouldn't have to give up their nationality to have the same rights as commonwealth citizens.
So what country are your parents citizens of? If they've worked half their life for the NHS surely they've been in the UK for a long time and could have applied for UK citizenship if they wanted?
If they've been here for 30 years, why would they not have applied to become a British citizen?
Within the EU (apart from the voting right) there really is little reason to change your citizenship...
And I am strongly in favour that all EU nationals should be able to vote in the country they live in. Introduce a minimum residency time of a couple of years if you must, but there really is little reason not to give everyone the vote.
Hilarious that Trump is visiting the UK on result day, i get the feeling the world is heading down the shitter.
Not every country allows dual citizenship. They shouldn't have to give up their nationality to have the same rights as commonwealth citizens.
Within the EU (apart from the voting right) there really is little reason to change your citizenship...
And I am strongly in favour that all EU nationals should be able to vote in the country they live in. Introduce a minimum residency time of a couple of years if you must, but there really is little reason not to give everyone the vote.
No, those figures are based on having a trade agreement. Direct from the report:
I feel the risk is worth it. Especially from a sovereignty viewpoint.
Can you name me a few examples of EU law that had an negative impact on the UK and which would be improved if the UK got out?Are there massive unknowns and a short term risk? Yes, of course. Long term? We would be fine. I admit there are a lot of ifs and buts, a lot of maybes and who knows. But, all together, I feel the risk is worth it. Especially from a sovereignty viewpoint.