Support NeoGAF

[Par Score]

You should never get too excited, or worried, by a single poll.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

You should never get too excited, or worried, by a single poll.

So its more Stay at the moment?

 

[ClosingADoor]

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 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.

The European Commission actually writes the laws, their commissioners are appointed by the national governments. So in that case you should change your vote for your countries Parliament, so they will put one there more in line with their views.

Of course that doesn't automatically mean they have the power to pass the laws you want, since they have to work together with others and the majority vote will win, like it should in a democracy.

If you dislike the EU President - is there anything particular that you don't like about him btw? -, you should also change your vote in your countries election. The European Council consists of the heads of state of the different countries and they elect their President.

This is all a very democratic process. More democratic actually then your current UK government is run, which has a House of Lords with representatives of the Church in them. Yet I don't see the UK making such a big thing about that and calling for absolving it en mass because it is undemocratic. And let's not even start on how the UK runs its House of Commons elections.

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.

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.

The only problem I have with that, is that the EU expanded too much with letting in some countries with lower standards of living, while some others were still catching up to most in Western Europe. But that is a separate issue from actual laws being made.

 

[Hasney]

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.

Who do I vote for when I dislike our current prime minister? My constituency is always Labour anyway for 3 decades anyway but they're not in power. With the rise of UKIP, my MEP vote has seemed to matter more than my MP vote because if I want the Tories out, my vote doesn't actually matter.

 

[Bold One]

I got poo-poo'd a few pages back for saying I felt there was a swing in opinion coming.

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.

 

[Dougald]

My constituency has been Conservative ever since it was created, can't get more "undemocratic" than that

 

[danowat]

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.

I just think, as a whole, there is a trend that seems to be heading towards the out side.

I think as this is a battle of fear, the arguments on the out side instill a greater sense of fear than those for the in.

Hopefully I am wrong.....

 

[Hasney]

In a way, I'm glad leave is winning a poll just to hopefully motivate some of the remain people that think it might be a slam dunk.

My constituency has been Conservative ever since it was created, can't get more "undemocratic" than that

The best thing about that is the current government wants to re-draw the boundries to make it even more undemocratic, so fun times are ahead!

 

[phisheep]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Kathian]

You know I've always felt it would be a remain vote but seeing Remain react by just spouting IT'LL WREXK THE ECONOMY at hw immigration plan is really quite questionable.

 

[Moozo]

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.

You have to wonder if some of the commenters on that article are actual, real people, or some elaborate joke.

 

[OverBlood 3]

This referendum really has brought out the daft racists hasn't it.

 

[danowat]

This referendum really has brought out the daft racists hasn't it.

Nah, they've always been there, it's just that Brexit has now given them a seemingly legitimate and government sanctioned outlet for it.

 

[Maledict]

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!

 

[Phantast2k]

AP: What UK can learn from Norway as it weighs life outside EU

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.

Can't hold all of these Brexit advantages...

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

I know a few right wing types who hate the EU because of migration, sovereignty, etc. I saw them posting on Facebook that the EU will further restrict their hobby of shooting sports by banning all semi-auto firearms. Ironically the UK government isn't a huge fan of firearms either, especially not the Scottish government who are licensing airguns (which is utterly stupid and a waste of time, imo), but that's beside the point.

 

[milanbaros]

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.

 

[Hasney]

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.

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.

 

[Maledict]

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.

I'm not sure it's legal to publish an exit poll before the polling stations have closed is it?

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not sure it's legal to publish an exit poll before the polling stations have closed is it?

The polls won't be public, but if they suddenly start offloading a ton of assets, you know which direction it is heading.

 

[ultratruman]

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.

 

[danowat]

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.

I'm pro EU, but I disagree with you.

 

[Nicktendo86]

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!

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

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 country’s comparative advantage hurts rather than helps, as Columbia University’s 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 Schaeuble’s threat that renegotiation of Britain’s 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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...c-consensus-on-brexit-is-flawed-a7057306.html

The two polls from yesterday were encouraging, but of more significance I feel is this Ipsos-Mori one. Quite a large sample of 4000 found that two thirds of people don't think their personal finances will be affected by brexit.

This is after countless fear stories from the treasury, bank of England, IMF etc etc etc. I think people are seeing through project fear now, I can't wait for Osborne's upcoming Andrew Neil interview.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-think-brexit-would-not-leave-them-any-poore/

 

[QuicheFontaine]

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.

 

[ultratruman]

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.

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.

 

[KingSnake]

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.

Interesting. This made me realise that the referendum takes place during a working day. Follow the markets for the updated estimations instead of reassuring fit the exit polls results. This could be a great opportunity for someone who wants to do a hit on the markets.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

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.

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?

 

[danowat]

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.

If they've been here for 30 years, why would they not have applied to become a British citizen?

 

[Jackpot]

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

Wrong.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/economists-reject-brexit-boost-cameron

You have to be outright ignoring reality to think leaving won't shaft the economy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...after-poll-showing-brexit-ahead-a7058021.html

 

[milanbaros]

I'm not sure it's legal to publish an exit poll before the polling stations have closed is it?

No, but they will be trading based on first mover advantage. They make money by being the first to place the trade based on their exit poll. The market will see how they act and follow. The market will effectively publish their results.

 

[milanbaros]

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.

But the trades will be effecting the market. When they sell pounds others will follow.

 

[Maledict]

Anyone saying that the economy won't take a hit from Brexit is simply denying reality right now. Even a lot of the BRexit people are saying that it will have a negative effect (just that it won't be that bad and it's worth it in the long run).

The idea that losing access to the single market won't matter because our trade will go up with the USA instead instead is just... nuts. Our trade goes where it gets the best advantage - if we could trade with the USA at the same profit levels etc then we already would be doing. Coming out of the EU makes that harder not easier given the trade treaties.

This utterly stupid idea (highlighted in that article) that the EU will give us everything we want in terms of the single market because we buy a lot of goods from them is also simply insane. We are not equal partners when it comes to bargaining - a single market with over 300 million people versus the UK with 60, when the EU has every right to be pissed at us and inflict harsh penalties to show the dangers of leaving.

I can buy the argument that any amount of pain is necessary to 'again our sovereignty' - I think it's incredibly misguided and ill-informed, but I can understand it. But to deny that Brexit happening would not be a significant shock to our economy, as basically every single economic unit in the world is saying, is utterly ludicrous. For christs sake one bad poll sends the pound tumbling right now.

 

[spuckthew]

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.

 

[milanbaros]

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 risk is more the other way as remain has been mostly priced in. Would get a small bump though.

 

[Nicktendo86]

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.

 

[Frankfurter]

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.

Let's just ignore the vast majority of the economists that say Brexit will be bad both short and long term?

 

[Hasney]

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?

No, those figures are based on having a trade agreement. Direct from the report:

In conclusion, the Treasury’s 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 UK’s receipts are £36 billion healthier in the EU. The overall economic benefits of
EU membership are significantly higher than in any potential alternative.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

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).

 

[ultratruman]

If they've been here for 30 years, why would they not have applied to become a British citizen?

Not every country allows dual citizenship. They shouldn't have to give up their nationality to have the same rights as commonwealth citizens.

 

[PJV3]

Hilarious that Trump is visiting the UK on result day, i get the feeling the world is heading down the shitter.

 

[Hasney]

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).

Yeah and then the arguments of "But Norway and Switzerland do fine!" and yeah, they do.... But they have to apply a lot of EU law and principles anyway while paying the EU and losing some of the benefits, so I don't understand why anyone who wants to leave would even want that.

 

[Maledict]

What I still don't understand is how Brexit reconciles access to the single market with the arrangements that all the countries that have access and aren't in the EU.

If you want access to the single market (which everyone seems to agree we do), we will have to accept EU laws and rules any ways - without input. The EU will not, cannot, give us access to the free market without those conditions.


So what exactly do we gain? Suffer the rules without input? Even the free movement of people is covered by that.

 

[danowat]

Not every country allows dual citizenship. They shouldn't have to give up their nationality to have the same rights as commonwealth citizens.

I dunno, I get that, but if they are essentially British, and want to have a say in these kind of things, surely they should commit to being a British citizen, why hold on to a nationality of the past, are they ever intending to return?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[anonymous_abc]

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.

 

[danowat]

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.

Brexiters would have a shitfit if non-British citizens could vote!

 

[Phantast2k]

Hilarious that Trump is visiting the UK on result day, i get the feeling the world is heading down the shitter.

The Donald Trump Conversation: Politics' "Dark Heart" Is Having the Best Time Anyone's Ever Had - Hollywood Reporter

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Not every country allows dual citizenship. They shouldn't have to give up their nationality to have the same rights as commonwealth citizens.

Well there it is. Basically they could have voted in this referendum but they essentially chose not to.

Commonwealth citizens getting to vote is a privilege of coming from a commonwealth country. Giving everyone those privileges would cheapen membership of the commonwealth.

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.

Under this scheme do they lose right to vote in their country of origin when they gain the right to vote in their country of residence? Because that's really what this boils down to. Ultratruman above thinks his parents should get to vote in UK elections and elections of their country of origin. I don't think that's fair, I don't to get to vote in elections in Slovakia, and nor should I.

 

[Jackpot]

No, those figures are based on having a trade agreement. Direct from the report:

oops.

I feel the risk is worth it. Especially from a sovereignty viewpoint.

Worth what exactly? Being able to tell immigrants to go back to where they came from? Being able to tear up the UK-designed human right act? Not having to implement the huge amount of UK inspired EU laws? Not follow the EU regulations which our products will still need to conform to if we want to sell them in the EU?

 

[JoeNut]

Some leave campaigners walked up to my house as i was leaving the other day, i am firmly in the remain camp and told him i wasn't interested. He looked at me like i was batshit.

I really don't understand why someone would spend their time putting leaflets through someones door to say "we don't know what will happen, but lets vote for it anyway!"

 

[ClosingADoor]

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.

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?