The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Pinchop73]

We certainly would not carry on as we are. Away from the EU our value soars, undiluted by extremely poor, shrinking economies.

[nirvana]

We certainly would not carry on as we are. Away from the EU our value soars, undiluted by extremely poor, shrinking economies.

Yah but my point isn't about what we would do its about what they would do. Anyway, academmers as remain wins.

[Doobs]

it is unable to win on economics. all polls and surveys say that people regard economic risk as the main problem with "vote leave"

One of the remain campaigns' strongest hands is that the UK will be worse off due to having to renegotiate trade deals. I believe the countries within and outside of the EU are bricking themselves that Brexit might happen, they fear loosing one of the largest slices of their pie. We are in such an envious position to enter into trade deals. We hold the equity.

Losing one trading partner doesn't seem particularly disastrous, losing 50% of your overseas trade deals does?  Surely we will be the ones in the distressed position and not those that we are negotiating with.  Why would the people of the Netherlands be envious?  They have all their trade deals in place barring one.   

Understand this point but why wouldnt all other nations just say 'let's carry on as we are'. Genuine question and probably academic I guess

But won't every beurocrat in numerous countries want to re-introduce all their previous bug bears?  I am not sure I believe we can move quickly either, we aren't some fleet footed start up, and it isn't likely to be something we put our most brilliant minds in to either.  I just don't see these things happening quickly.  The state seems to take forever to do the smallest easiest things.

[david3103]

it is unable to win on economics. all polls and surveys say that people regard economic risk as the main problem with "vote leave"

One of the remain campaigns' strongest hands is that the UK will be worse off due to having to renegotiate trade deals. I believe the countries within and outside of the EU are bricking themselves that Brexit might happen, they fear loosing one of the largest slices of their pie. We are in such an envious position to enter into trade deals. We hold the equity.

Losing one trading partner doesn't seem particularly disastrous, losing 50% of your overseas trade deals does?  Surely we will be the ones in the distressed position and not those that we are negotiating with.  Why would the people of the Netherlands be envious?  They have all their trade deals in place barring one.   

Understand this point but why wouldnt all other nations just say 'let's carry on as we are'. Genuine question and probably academic I guess

But won't every beurocrat in numerous countries want to re-introduce all their previous bug bears?  I am not sure I believe we can move quickly either, we aren't some fleet footed start up, and it isn't likely to be something we put our most brilliant minds in to either.  I just don't see these things happening quickly.  The state seems to take forever to do the smallest easiest things.

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC. It seems to me that removing that barrier to change and reform would enable us to do a lot more, and be able to do it faster.
I'm weary of all this fear of change and the supposed calamity that it would bring. Remaining ties us to the politics of the EC and since we are outside of the Eurozone our interests will be placed some way behind the desire to sustain the ideas of common currency and commonality of political outlook.

[nirvana]

it is unable to win on economics. all polls and surveys say that people regard economic risk as the main problem with "vote leave"

One of the remain campaigns' strongest hands is that the UK will be worse off due to having to renegotiate trade deals. I believe the countries within and outside of the EU are bricking themselves that Brexit might happen, they fear loosing one of the largest slices of their pie. We are in such an envious position to enter into trade deals. We hold the equity.

Losing one trading partner doesn't seem particularly disastrous, losing 50% of your overseas trade deals does?  Surely we will be the ones in the distressed position and not those that we are negotiating with.  Why would the people of the Netherlands be envious?  They have all their trade deals in place barring one.   

Understand this point but why wouldnt all other nations just say 'let's carry on as we are'. Genuine question and probably academic I guess

But won't every beurocrat in numerous countries want to re-introduce all their previous bug bears?  I am not sure I believe we can move quickly either, we aren't some fleet footed start up, and it isn't likely to be something we put our most brilliant minds in to either.  I just don't see these things happening quickly.  The state seems to take forever to do the smallest easiest things.

I guess we don't really know and that strikes me as the main underlying tenet of remain's campaign.

[doubleup]

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Where is it in this process that the law has to go to the EC for approval?  

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/

There is an obvious sense check that a law doesn't conflict with any EC commitments, but I can't see that as supporting your assertion.

[david3103]

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Where is it in this process that the law has to go to the EC for approval?  

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/

There is an obvious sense check that a law doesn't conflict with any EC commitments, but I can't see that as supporting your assertion.

[doubleup]

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Where is it in this process that the law has to go to the EC for approval?  

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/

There is an obvious sense check that a law doesn't conflict with any EC commitments, but I can't see that as supporting your assertion.

So basically more brexitist lies then.  Although the brexitist politicians are getting paid to talk shite, you're doing it for nothing, that's a bit careless imo.

[david3103]

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Where is it in this process that the law has to go to the EC for approval?  

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/

There is an obvious sense check that a law doesn't conflict with any EC commitments, but I can't see that as supporting your assertion.

So basically more brexitist lies then.  Although the brexitist politicians are getting paid to talk shite, you're doing it for nothing, that's a bit careless imo.

The official position of the European Parliament is that "a big portion of the laws adopted by the House of Commons and House of Lords actually are EU-laws that are made into national laws by the national parliaments". When we asked for their source, they cited the House of Commons Library research we present here as well as examples from elsewhere in Europe.


https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/



The Brexiteers certainly don't have a monopoly on talking shite. Who's paying you?

[doubleup]

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Where is it in this process that the law has to go to the EC for approval?  

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/

There is an obvious sense check that a law doesn't conflict with any EC commitments, but I can't see that as supporting your assertion.

So basically more brexitist lies then.  Although the brexitist politicians are getting paid to talk shite, you're doing it for nothing, that's a bit careless imo.

The official position of the European Parliament is that "a big portion of the laws adopted by the House of Commons and House of Lords actually are EU-laws that are made into national laws by the national parliaments". When we asked for their source, they cited the House of Commons Library research we present here as well as examples from elsewhere in Europe.


https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/



The Brexiteers certainly don't have a monopoly on talking shite. Who's paying you?

you said

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Whatever they do

That is simply untrue

[david3103]

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Where is it in this process that the law has to go to the EC for approval?  

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/

There is an obvious sense check that a law doesn't conflict with any EC commitments, but I can't see that as supporting your assertion.

So basically more brexitist lies then.  Although the brexitist politicians are getting paid to talk shite, you're doing it for nothing, that's a bit careless imo.

The official position of the European Parliament is that "a big portion of the laws adopted by the House of Commons and House of Lords actually are EU-laws that are made into national laws by the national parliaments". When we asked for their source, they cited the House of Commons Library research we present here as well as examples from elsewhere in Europe.


https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/



The Brexiteers certainly don't have a monopoly on talking shite. Who's paying you?

you said

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Whatever they do

That is simply untrue

OK, let's revise that to 'For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that much of what they do is OK with the EC.'

Can you accept that as being accurate? A chunk is between 30 & 40 years btw.

The truth is that c95% of British Businesses have zero EC trade. Yet 100% have to comply with EC regulations.

[neeko]

It was good of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to say he was in favour of immigration today given he was not born in the UK.

[DaveShoelace]

It was good of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to say he was in favour of immigration today given he was not born in the UK.

Learn something new every day, just googled that one.

[neeko]

It was good of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to say he was in favour of immigration today given he was not born in the UK.

Learn something new every day, just googled that one.

Taking wiki as the truth is sometimes dangerous - but I just want it to be true. (He was def born in New York though)

[redsimon]

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Where is it in this process that the law has to go to the EC for approval?  

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/

There is an obvious sense check that a law doesn't conflict with any EC commitments, but I can't see that as supporting your assertion.

So basically more brexitist lies then.  Although the brexitist politicians are getting paid to talk shite, you're doing it for nothing, that's a bit careless imo.

The official position of the European Parliament is that "a big portion of the laws adopted by the House of Commons and House of Lords actually are EU-laws that are made into national laws by the national parliaments". When we asked for their source, they cited the House of Commons Library research we present here as well as examples from elsewhere in Europe.


https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/



The Brexiteers certainly don't have a monopoly on talking shite. Who's paying you?

you said

For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that whatever they do is OK with the EC.

Whatever they do

That is simply untrue

OK, let's revise that to 'For the past chunk of our history the state has had to make sure that much of what they do is OK with the EC.'

Can you accept that as being accurate? A chunk is between 30 & 40 years btw.

The truth is that c95% of British Businesses have zero EC trade. Yet 100% have to comply with EC regulations.

Which EU regs do you wish us to be unburdened of?