rivingtonpike

I couldn't have said it better. Really!

Oink

I'm not terribly sure what point you're making here. I do agree that the discourse of politicians and media on both sides of the argument has been distasteful and condescending while positing theoretical projections as fact.

JamesM

If you want my opinion and lets be candid you are 110% entitled to it then Britain needs to remain in the EU.

The logistics are incredibly simple:

1/Britain needs immigrants. With out them the country is finished. Why not get them from Europe under the current system than waste money on a new system? Europeans are just as competent as integrating than anyone else if not more so.

2/Markets need to be open to succeed. Why question hundreds of years of economic theory unless you are an advocate of communism which incidentally there is nothing wrong with and is the only reason this would make sense.

3/Why would you want to make travel for yourself more difficult and devalue your passport? This one is kind of crap but really I like having the option of living across Europe hassle free even if I only speak the languages of football and love.

4/Why would London be a desirable destination for European HQ's if it wasn't part of Europe. The city will be ****ed and there will be higher unemployment having a ripple effect across the rest of the UK. This would reduce the GDP etc....I could go on for ever on the implications.

The reality is in isolation Britain is in even more decline than it's been if it leaves. I grew up as part of the EC/EU so have never known any better but the "old" days that the older folk pine for are long gone. Britain doesn't have "Commonwealth" ties to exploit anymore.

The only reason a person would vote to leave is if they truly believe the EU has made laws that have been detrimental to their lives. Granted it is another tier of government that costs money but the benefits of the largest free market in the world far out way that. Britain is better off trying to improve the situation with Europe than having to redesign everything and be on it's own with everyone overlooking it.

I won't ever go back if they vote for Brexit. The place will be well and truly finished in 10 to 15 years.

I'm off to bed. One too many Belgian Moon's tonight.

Apologies if my views have been bought up on here before. 10 years on this forum has bought me the right not to waste my time reading through threads.

Shard

I wouldn't say Britain is "finished" if it exists, but ironically, the EU might be finished. Britain will become a harder nosed place, two tiers of citizenry, workers rights such as German style holidays and holiday pay eroded, FDI will plummet, and we can go back to be served our coffees by scowling Brits instead of friendly Poles. Completely retrograde move, a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas.

BristolUK

In favour of Brexit: English football hooligans in France, a man who accused of murder says “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain" and Nigel Farage.

Who else?

Shard

Indeed...

So Britain, are you ready to enter the United Kingdom of Ukip? | Marina Hyde | Opinion | The Guardian

Saw Tweet earlier where someon had taken a composite of about 40 DM and DE covers, each screaming MIGRANTS. It's no wonder so many have been pushed toward the Brexit. Very effective picture.

Pulaski

Anyone who doesn't want to see the UK progressively absorbed into a European super-state. The Remainers are like a frog in a pan of cold water that is being heated. The frog doesn't realise there is a problem until it is too late, and that it is being cooked alive. If Britain waits much longer it will be so far absorbed into the EU experiment that there is no way out.

Trying to demonize the Brexit camp by associating it with a handful of fringe lunatics is neither accurate nor helpful.

And I am not even sure that the football hooligans do want Brexit, because a return of borders and passport controls would make it much harder for them to travel.

Shard

There's a similar but more subtle demonization on the Leave side: it's the idea that Brussels bureaucrats (a diverse group of well educated public spirited leaders from member states) are hell bent on destroying freedoms and killing democracy . Brussels the bogeyman. The tabloids have implanted this notion in the heads of many Brits and it simply isn't true.

Pulaski

But it is at least partially true. Britain has been forced to take on a variety of legislation based on the societal norms of countries with which Britain has little or nothing in common with, other than that Britain is relatively close geographically.

Someone else pointed out, either in this thread or another on BE, that somewhere between one third and two thirds of legislation in the UK is now "required" to implemented EU legislation in the UK.

Shard

Generally true. Norms change. There are a few EU directives which stick in the throat, being unable to deport certain criminals for instance, but maybe that's a compromise we have to make for other benefits (stability, trade, mobility) and/or maybe it's policy Britain can seek to change or be exempted from with more time. As you know better than I, many states are "forced" to implement Federal law against their own opinions or norms, it's not a cause for separation.

BristolUK

So you accept Farage and his ilk as fringe lunatics?

JonboyE

This is one of the most depressing aspects of the whole debate. People make stuff up and then get angry about it.

Any further integration into Europe will require a change to existing treaties or a new treaty. This requires unanimous consent from all members. I.e. the British representative on the council can veto any change.

Further, the UK parliament decides how the British representative in the council votes. So if the UK does not veto any treaty change it is because of the will of our democratically elected sovereign parliament. And current British law says there must be a further referendum at that time.

dave_j

There is an idea expressed as catastrophe theory. A typical example is of a man who approaches a dog. As he gets closer the dog barks, closer still and the dog attacks. The man retreats to where he was where the dog didn't bark but the dog continues the attack. Something has changed, retreating to a safe place is no longer safe.

I suggest a similar process has happened to how the UK voter views the EU and we see a similar example in the US with regard to Trump. Over time the voting public has become convinced that politicians and EU officials of all kinds have misled, ignored and exploited them in equal measure and where they once viewed belonging to the EU was a good thing, they now view anything that the conventional political classes want with something close to disbelief and disgust.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the argument to leave is percieved to carry genuine weight. The woman who has to wait for that operation sees an immigrant in the waiting room and concludes that's the reason. The mother who can't get her son into the school around the corner but the immigrant next door has, concludes that that's the reason. But what can they do? Nothing..... until someone cries 'Referendum!'.

All the highbrow arguments about the economy, place in the world, imports, exports,defense etc mean absolutely nothing and don't even enter the conciousness. It's the gut feeling of the man on the street that has been so seriously misunderstood.

Whether voting Brexit will change anything on the ground will only come to pass later but Pandora's box has been opened and it won't be shut again for a long, long time.

JonboyE

I don't think it is. The UK chooses to adopt directives that relate to operation of the common market: customs, fisheries, commerce and competition. I.e. for the regulation of the common market that everyone (well, almost everyone) says is what they wanted in the first place. The treaties give the UK the right to opt out of, or just ignore, everything else.

JonboyE

Criminals can be denied entry from the UK under EU Directive 2004/58/EC, which states free movement of people within the EU is not an unqualified right and can be restricted on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health.”