Brexit

Brexit, Stay or Leave.

  • Stay

    Votes: 28 59.6%

  • Leave

    Votes: 19 40.4%
  • Total voters
    47
This is more up to date:

http://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-extends-permission-for-schengen-border-controls/a-19236852

Grassy is right, it's obvious that no country or group of countries will allow free movement to the citizens of another country without some form of reciprocation.



clivex said:
Yes. I would try and check some facts before you spout off

your ignorance is stunning at times, I clearly stated that freedom of movement would be bilateral .

norway has freedom of movement within the Eu. Norway is not a member of the eu

swatted away

ignorant? You haven't stated a single example of what the eu delivers, nothing at all
Click to expand...

timewaster

you really are an inadequate prick aren't you. so full of it you dive in with your prejudices just to be taken apart time and again

open question. is trolling simply ascribing points to posters which they clearly haven't made ? and which the troll knows they haven't made? simply to generate wasted posts having to deny blah blah blah

and do these people not have enough to do with their lives?
 
Last edited:
leaving aside the losers and the lazy on this thread, this is why a large number of countries with in the eu will be determined to keep bilateral agreements over work and residency such as they have with norway and i believe switzerland

And this will big up the uk, which is a nice wind up..

The uk has a huge number of expats who simply take their wealth to sunnier climes. Such as grass who should fck off there now imo. This is not exactly something that spain and portugal in particular will want to see the end of

More importantly many countries in the failed eu economies have massive unemployment amongst the young whether highly educated or not. They come to london which is by a country mile the biggest magnet. Look at the numbers. they get experience and most of all bring back wealth when they return and also gets them off SS in their own states

Lastly there are the hard working eastern europeans who would rather be here than anywhere and the many businesses here that would rather employ them than anyone else

of course some would hope that the eu states would react out of spite because thats those posters anti uk instinct but no deal? i dont think so...

With due respect to archie, the stay posts on this thread have been useless.
 
Last edited:
To my mind this nails it. Although we would lose grass's health and safety legislation, which would be a major blow of course, i think the rest stands up pretty nicely. Unfortunately it does big up the uk which will greatly offend certain posters...or at least i hope so



By Nigel Lawson, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer

10:01PM GMT 17 Feb 2016
comments.gif
Comment


In four months’ time the British people are likely to be asked to take the most important decision for the future of our country in their lifetimes.

It is not about Europe as such. It is about whether we should remain within a deeply misguided and troubled institution known as the European Union. No one could have been clearer about the problem than David Cameron, in hisBloomberg speech three years ago, when he committed himself to securing a “fundamental, far-reaching reform” of the EU. He has conspicuously failed to do so.

"As Chancellor, I became increasingly aware that, in economic terms, membership of the EU did us more harm than good"

He committed himself to ending the notorious ratchet, and ensuring that “power would flow back to the member states, not just away from them”. He has conspicuously failed on this front, too: not a single power is to be returned to the United Kingdom; and the doctrine of the so-called acquis communautaire, which holds that powers once transferred to the European Union cannot be taken away, remains firmly in place.

He also promised that whatever he did achieve in his negotiations would involve “proper, full-on, Treaty change”, without which they could not be legally binding. No Treaty change has been secured.

The Prime Minister cannot be blamed for the abject failure to achieve his objectives. The European Union is adamant against any change other than further integration. What is unacceptable is presenting the so-called concessions he does appear to have secured, which range from the wholly inadequate to the completely meaningless, as constituting success.

Let us have a look at them. He claims that he has secured a “red card” system to prevent new EU legislation that is damaging to the UK. Some red card! The draft agreement states that this will only come into play if and when more than 55 per cent of the EU wants it to – a highly unlikely state of affairs in the first place – and, even if it does, all that follows is that the presidency will put it on the agenda for “a comprehensive discussion”.
He claims to have addressed the serious problem of uncontrolled and uncontrollable levels of immigration by securing what he likes to call “an emergency brake”. Some brake! All that is provisionally agreed is an offer by the EU to allow us to bring in a temporary reduction in the level of some benefits (which no one who has studied immigration into the UK believes would make any significant difference, anyway).
This is an offer which the EU would be free to withdraw at any future date – such as after a vote by the UK to remain within the EU.
And as for the City of London, and our ability to flourish outside the dysfunctional eurozone, we are sternly told that we must “refrain from measures which [in their opinion] could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the economic and monetary union” and that “the existing powers of the Union institutions to take action that [in their opinion] is necessary to respond to threats of financial stability” remains untrammelled. We have been warned.
So what was presented as a drive for fundamental reform has turned into an exercise in damage limitation: how to limit the damage that EU membership inflicts on us. And even that has scarcely been achieved. The only way to end the damage is to leave.

As Chancellor, I became increasingly aware that, in economic terms, membership of the EU did us more harm than good. And that was before the arrival of European monetary union, which occurred after I had left office, and which has had such a disastrous economic effect on the EU.
But it is unsurprising that it brings no economic benefit, for the European Union has never been an economic project. It is has always been a political project, with a political objective which we in the UK do not share. That is the fundamental reason, above all others, why we must vote to leave.
That objective is the creation of a full-blooded political union, a United States of Europe.
That is what “ever closer union” is all about. As the 1983 Solemn Declaration on European Union makes explicit, this is not simply a union of the peoples of Europe but a full-blooded political union of the member states.
That is what monetary union is all about. The father of European monetary union was Jacques Delors, the former President of the European Commission. I knew him very well, since before he became President of the Commission he was France’s finance minister and my opposite number.
He fully understood that you cannot have a workable monetary union without a fiscal union, and you cannot have a fiscal union without a political union. That was the object of the whole exercise.
"Most of the world is not in the European Union – and most of the world is doing better than the European Union"
Hence the proposal, in the European Commission’s so-called “Five Presidents’ Report” of June last year, for a single eurozone Finance Ministry and a single eurozone Finance Minister by 2025.
This is clearly not right for us, and we must leave. Otherwise, although we have a notional “opt-out” from the political union, we will still be obliged to accept EU laws framed with this object in mind.
I have been asked “what, then, is your alternative to being in the European Union?” A more foolish question is hard to imagine. The alternative to being in the European Union is not being in the European Union. Most of the world is not in the European Union – and most of the world is doing better than the European Union.
So far as the detail is concerned, we would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which establishes the primacy of EU law over our own UK law. The morass of EU regulation, much of which is costly, unnecessary and undesirable, would become UK regulation, which we would then be free to accept, repeal or amend as our national interest requires.
And we would continue to trade with the EU, as the rest of the world does today, almost certainly assisted by a bilateral free trade agreement, which they need far more than we do.
Above all, we would become once again a self-governing democracy, with a genuinely global rather than a little European perspective. We would prosper, we would be free, and we would stand tall. That is what this referendum is all about.

 
Last edited:
Good to see Lawson express his concerns that he thought the "EU does more harm than good" when he was Chancellor - in 1989. It's always good to have a contemporary viewpoint on these matters.

He basically says three things. Cameron didn't get enough concessions to satisfy him, he is worried about the EU reneging on what they did give up, and he is worried about a European super-state. There is fu*ck -all to see beyond these three simplistic observations, and it completely fails to address every other consideration in the argument.

It does aligns with your position though, so I can see why you present it here - presumably as incontrovertible truth. Never seen that happen before! :lol:
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
leaving aside the losers and the lazy on this thread, this is why a large number of countries with in the eu will be determined to keep bilateral agreements over work and residency such as they have with norway and i believe switzerland

And this will big up the uk, which is a nice wind up..

The uk has a huge number of expats who simply take their wealth to sunnier climes. Such as grass who should fck off there now imo. This is not exactly something that spain and portugal in particular will want to see the end of

More importantly many countries in the failed eu economies have massive unemployment amongst the young whether highly educated or not. They come to london which is by a country mile the biggest magnet. Look at the numbers. they get experience and most of all bring back wealth when they return and also gets them off SS in their own states

Lastly there are the hard working eastern europeans who would rather be here than anywhere and the many businesses here that would rather employ them than anyone else

of course some would hope that the eu states would react out of spite because thats those posters anti uk instinct but no deal? i dont think so...

With due respect to archie, the stay posts on this thread have been useless.
Click to expand...

One minute you are banging-on about securing the Borders, and in the next you are advocating they come to London, so that they can make a better life back home when they leave.

Have you ever been sectioned?

:lol:
 
dont you get bored trolling with your sidekick?

Where did I say "secure the borders" . Like the other dickhead you are wasting time
 
Grasshopper said:
Good to see Lawson express his concerns that he thought the "EU does more harm than good" when he was Chancellor - in 1989. It's always good to have a contemporary viewpoint on these matters.

He basically says three things. Cameron didn't get enough concessions to satisfy him, he is worried about the EU reneging on what they did give up, and he is worried about a European super-state. There is fu*ck -all to see beyond these three simplistic observations, and it completely fails to address every other consideration in the argument.

It does aligns with your position though, so I can see why you present it here - presumably as incontrovertible truth. Never seen that happen before! :lol:
Click to expand...

to those that follow this idiots posts I would read the article

what will not happen is an answer point by point. Is there any better example of the flimsiness of the posters arguments? Non existent ?

if the ability was there, would pick up on a flaw in lawsons argument.

He cant

lawson rightly makes the salient point which should be addressed by both sides. Staying in will almost certainly lead to more pressure on "integration". Not for any economic benefit but simply because this is a political project.

As he rightly points out, on the economic front they have constantly called it wrong.

Now quite a few posters here like dictators and a few more believe that governments always know what's best for everyone but... I don't want an up democratic body which cannot be voted out with a dismal track record passing down useless wrong headed legislation

lawsons article is bang on when it comes to highlighting the real issues
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
This is more up to date:

http://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-extends-permission-for-schengen-border-controls/a-19236852

Grassy is right, it's obvious that no country or group of countries will allow free movement to the citizens of another country without some form of reciprocation.





timewaster

you really are an inadequate prick aren't you. so full of it you dive in with your prejudices just to be taken apart time and again

open question. is trolling simply ascribing points to posters which they clearly haven't made ? and which the troll knows they haven't made? simply to generate wasted posts having to deny blah blah blah

and do these people not have enough to do with their lives?
Click to expand...

I really don't like having anything to do with a hateful and hate-filled sh*t like your not-so-good self, clivex, but it's important for other people to understand that you are wrong on this point.

Norway has signed up to the Schengen agreement, that way its citizens have free movement in that zone, and in return citizens of the Schengen zone have free access to Norway. Norway can't pick and choose individual Schengen countries with which to have bilateral arrangements; the deal applies to all Schengen countries or none. This is for obvious practical reasons, because once you are admitted to the zone you can circulate anywhere in it.

End of
 
Personally I don't wish to have any thing to do with your Brit hating self. Your constant trolling and throwaway accusations down the years . Best ignored

I fully accept that it has to be bilateral one way or another. That was the point I was making. I can understand it has to be right across the zone but it isn't being observed is it?

i read your post as it was stated. I have constantly stated it has to be reciprocal. You and the otehr one claimed I didn't.

Personally im largely in favour of free movement. I would not vote out if I thought that too many restrictions were going to apply
 
Overall I think the decision is knife edge. I don't like the complacent reasons for staying in. Constantly looking at this short term is wrong headed. Sooner or later you have to buy into it or not and the U.K. doesn't want further integration. Whether that will come about is maybe the weakness in lawsons argument because the euro and migration has surely turned other members too.

i don't much like the idea of all the hassle of new treaties for this that and the other. I tend towards the view that in trade and finance its probably marginally better to be in than out although by a lot less than many believe.

i believe in the freedom of movement and if that means a treaty covering all states then so be it. but going to look at that again...

overall ll there is no doubt it's a poorly run overbearing institution. No one would give extra powers to a board of directors who have made a constant mess of a business. In fact the clear policy would be to strip powers away and that is not guaranteed for the very reasons Lawson stated in that it is not run for economic benefit but for political ideology
 
Last edited:
The threat of further/deeper integration is as bogus as half the posts you have made on this thread. In the event that legislation is presented to create a Super-State, the UK can at that point choose to reject it and exit the EU. That threat is assuredly not a valid reason to leave now.

Anything he says about Europe getting their economic policy wrong should be taken with a pinch of salt, given he was an advocate of joining the ERM 30 years ago, only to be over-ruled by Thatcher.

Is it a knife-edge vote? I'm not so sure. I don't think there is anyone under 40yo who will vote for Brexit, because they don't believe in the mythical 'cricket on the village green' world, that Lawson, IDS and all the rest of them think will miraculously be created at Brexit.

I still think Stay is a strong favourite.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
The threat of further/deeper integration is as bogus as half the posts you have made on this thread. In the event that legislation is presented to create a Super-State, the UK can at that point choose to reject it and exit the EU. That threat is assuredly not a valid reason to leave now.

Anything he says about Europe getting their economic policy wrong should be taken with a pinch of salt, given he was an advocate of joining the ERM 30 years ago, only to be over-ruled by Thatcher.

Is it a knife-edge vote? I'm not so sure. I don't think there is anyone under 40yo who will vote for Brexit, because they don't believe in the mythical 'cricket on the village green' world, that Lawson, IDS and all the rest of them think will miraculously be created at Brexit.

I still think Stay is a strong favourite.
Click to expand...

I'm well under 40 and most of my contemporaries are voting leave...
 
Fair enough, Ali.....I don't know anyone under 40 who is planning to vote Leave...........EU obviously viewed differently in my circle.
 
Couldn't resist an anti English sneer could you grass? Your prick of a mate would be proud

lawson is a million miles away from being a village green cricket type. He lives in france

also that is as ignorant as all your posts so far. The idea that wanting less unnecessary govenment is backward thinking is absurd. That is the future. The eu is dated and dead. Most of what it "governs" does not need two parliaments and 50000 staff doing fck all.

what Lawson is saying that that is the intention. If we are continually opting out what's the point of being in it.
 
Last edited:
It was most certainly not an anti-English sneer, and I genuinely take exception to this particular accusation (the others I'm happy to roll with for shi*ts and giggles).

It's pointless to deny that there is a 'Little Englander' mentality amongst many in the vanguard of the Leave campaign. The constant rattling-on about an abstract like Britain's "place in the world" tells you that.

The prospect of a European super-state being created against the UK's will is precisely zero. The UK has a legal guarantee that exempts it from the stated goal of "ever closer Union" - which is a nebulous phrase open to lots of interpretations anyway. And even in the remote likelihood of that eventuality coming to pass, we can hold another vote to leave. Regardless, this point is utterly irrelevant to the current debate.......in much the same way as Lawson's views on EU monetary-policy in 1989, are utterly irrelevant. We should not base a huge decision like this, on things which might happen - especially when the chances of them coming to pass are so remote.

It's simply not true to suggest we are "continually opting out" of EU-led decisions. The UK has secured opt-outs for Schengen (as has Ireland - probably because of our combined island-status) and the Euro....with partial opt-outs invoked on the charters covering EU Fundamental Rights and Freedom, Security & Justice. And that's about it.
 
Last edited:
Ok I do agree that there is that element but what is the boring lefts mantra is that that is what the whole exit ia about. It most certainly isn't

I did say that I didn't buy into lawsons argument but frankly if we are that detached if it goes down that route we should have the same status as norway
 
I just don't agree that we are that detached from the EU Mainstream, if we want to call it that. We sit outside Schengen (like Ireland), we sit outside the Eurozone (like Norway), and we selectively opt-out of elements of the other Treaty areas I mentioned (like Poland, the Czech Republic and Denmark).

And I don't think there is a Left-wing bias on the Stay side either - the political-rainbow that is the make-up of the Remain campaign, is evidence of this. It is the Leave campaign who are most assuredly right-wing-only, and it is they who constantly promote the "Britain's standing" argument - something 'Remain' merely counter-point, with the perfectly-valid riposte that our "standing" is best-assured as a major player within the EU bloc.
 
Last edited:
Makes me laugh when Obama tells us what to do. Answer should be we will do that and you go and **** off and join a community of American states with open borders and Argentina and Venezuela telling you how to run your economy

Some chance but what do you expect from a commie Muslim terrorist anyway
 
Never thought I'd be in agreement with Gordon Brown!!!

On a slight tangent, U.K industry has gone back into recession. I predicted this a while ago.
Austerity was a short term solution to balance the books in some small way.

A question for Warbler and others, will the U.K leaving the E.U or staying in the E.U have an impact on the austerity economics of the current U.K government? Is there any link between our membership of the E.U, and the way economic policy is determined?
 
Marble said:
She is one of thousands and thousands of cases of people expressing a private opinion in a public arena..... then having to say sorry afterwards..
Click to expand...

This week its Eamon Holmes turn after comparing whats happened to a Man U team coach to Hillsborough, oh dear.

Who will it be next week...
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
Never thought I'd be in agreement with Gordon Brown!!!

On a slight tangent, U.K industry has gone back into recession. I predicted this a while ago.
Austerity was a short term solution to balance the books in some small way.

A question for Warbler and others, will the U.K leaving the E.U or staying in the E.U have an impact on the austerity economics of the current U.K government? Is there any link between our membership of the E.U, and the way economic policy is determined?
Click to expand...

its manufacturing that has slipped back by a small percentage. not the whole economy. I bet it's a figure that fluctuates plenty anyway. Exchange rate for a start would have far bigger impact that any austerity measures

on the issue of Schewen agreement and Norway, Switzerland are proposing to impose quotas and seemingly daring the Eu to kick them out. lets see how that plays out eh?
 
clivex said:
...on the issue of Schewen agreement and Norway, Switzerland are proposing to impose quotas and seemingly daring the Eu to kick them out. lets see how that plays out eh?
Click to expand...

Letting it play out is exactly what she would be doing - not exiting when change to the EU is almost certainly in the offing anyway.
 
The change would have to be an end to agreement to total free movement without any consequences. The Swiss referendum on immigration was binding. Sooner or later it will have to be implemented So it's down to the eu to adapt or tear up the agreement. If they compromise then Norway will almost certainly seek the same quota arrangement
 
clivex said:
Makes me laugh when Obama tells us what to do. Answer should be we will do that and you go and **** off and join a community of American states with open borders and Argentina and Venezuela telling you how to run your economy

Some chance but what do you expect from a commie Muslim terrorist anyway
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention his ancestral roots make him a Brit-hater too. Unlike you to miss such an opportunity
 
Last edited:
Back
Top