All these remoaners

So effective that Harley-Davidson are moving production of motorbikes for the EU market out of the USA?

The law is the law. Judges act on the law as written and previous rulings.. They don't need to understand the fabric or feeling within the country. That is why the Supreme Court ignored the Daily Mail's cries of "Traitors" at the Gina Miller case and why they can preside over these matters in a neutral manner.

That would of course, be "myself" and probably more ironically "WOOD"!!

My figures are in the past. The rate of population increase in the UK is actually now falling, from a peak of 0.98% in 2010 to 0.59% last year. Less than in the 60s for example.

 

had to look that up.... god bless urban dictionary! But yes, I concur

 

Ouch that hurt. You must be using a bumpstock, maybe.

 

. Made me laugh this
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gammon

 

I recall that York edition.... I think the Barnsley one definitely had a wall of gammon going on!

 

Let me ask you (and all the other Leavers) a direct question. How many jobs in the UK would need to be lost before you think Brexit should be cancelled?

Would you be willing to cancel Brexit if it cost 100,000 jobs, 1million jobs or are you willing to go full steam ahead no matter how much it costs the country?

 

If and when that happens that might be the point to leave, not now because you're afraid of something that has zero chance of happening unless we want it to.
I tried to not be condescending, but when you hear arguments like the EU declaring war, then it gets a little difficult .

No condescension intended, but please explain to me the concrete benefits of leaving. All I heard so far are nefarious things like 'take back control', 'make our own laws', 'they want to make their own army' or 'we will be able to go out into the world unhindered by the shackles of Europe'.

What precisely do brexiteers want to take back control of
Which laws have the EU made that are so outrageous that you would leave
Do you honestly think they could create an army, with funding, without the say of the member states/USA/NATO, unless we wanted them to.
What is the rational argument to suggest that we would be able to get better trading terms outside of the EU. What is it about the EU that means our trade deals with the rest of the world are bad (Trump seems to think the EU are winning hands down)
Who is that we aren't already trading with because of the EU.

You say you know 'exactly why you voted' tell us. I think i'm a reasonable, open minded guy, explain to me why we would be better off outside the EU. I'd be interested in a logical coherent counter argument, honestly.
Happy to tell you why I voted to remain;

• TRADE: I think economically we are far better off inside the EU. Logic suggests that negotiating a trade deal when you represent 600M consumers must give you a better starting point/chance than representing 70M. I don't believe that our current trade deals are bad. No one has explained to me how we might get better ones, so for me it is not worth the risk. Add to that the length of time normally required to negotiate a trade deal I can't see how this would be a benefit. The EU account for around 40% of our current trade, can't see how we would end up with better conditions from outside. If we join the EEA then we still have to follow the rules only we have no say & no veto. I also wouldn't want to put at risk our place as the leading financial services centre (along with NY). I don't like them, but they generate a large amount of our GDP. Maybe it will be okay, maybe not, but why put it at risk? Obviously we could go on at length about trade but it is so important as our economy under pins every other aspect of our social fabric from the health service to the ability to defend ourselves.
• TRADING STANDARDS: I'm all for the trading standards set by the EU. I'm glad that we are not importing hormone pumped beef from the US. I'm pretty sure that any trade deal we made with the the US would involve u having to accept their beef, which would obviously be detrimental to our agricultural sector. I hear stories of things being over regulated with nonsense stories such as the size of bananas (proven to be a lie). I'm glad that they hold global conglomerates like Facebook to account, somebody needs to. There probably are instances where certain areas are over regulated. I would defy anyone to come up with a system that protected consumers that wasn't over regulated. It may even be the case that in some cases that over regulation cost jobs, but nowhere near the number I think tariffs will. Usually the only people I hear arguing for more deregulation are the company bosses. Why do they want that? so they can make more profit. I'm not against companies making profit (or capitalism) but it needs to be constrained. We already have the horrendous situation of zero hour contracts (reminiscent of the dark past where people turn up to a factory and a foreman chooses 'you' you' & 'you', 'the rest of you b*gger off'. Unfettered capitalism is not a good thing except for a privileged few, it doesn't make for a coherent society.
• LAWS: I can't think of any laws that the EU have made that would force me to go through this upheaval. On the contrary I have more faith in Europe to sort out Human rights & Workers rights than I would a tory government. They gave us statutory maternity leave, the working directive etc. I've heard people arguing that because of the EU it took years to deport Abu Hamzar[?]. That may well be true, I wish we could have sent him packing earlier, but I am willing to accept that the rule of law applies to everyone, as it means that no government can treat its citizens we contempt. I would also argue that if we leave I would definitely want some sort of human rights charter to replace it which gives people the right to appeal. In order for that to be worth the paper its written on it has to apply to everyone, regardless of what we might think of them.
• SOCIAL FUNDING & INVESTMENT: I don't think that anyone is denying that the majority of money invested in the South Yorkshire has come from the EU. No tory government invest money up north, there's no votes in it. As has been shown earlier in this thread some of the poorest regions in Europe are in the UK.
• EU FUNDING: We do pay more in than we get out, not as much as is claimed, but we are definitely a net contributor. Personally I view this in the same way as I do the progressive tax system we employ in the UK. I think the richer nations should contribute more. Rightly or wrongly I view myself as much as a European as I do a British citizen.
• IMMIGRATION: I recognise that there are certain sections of our society that feel that they have been abandoned and immigrants are given preference by social services. I can also see how it is scary to see change. The EU needs to work on that. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know its not trying to pull the drawbridge up. Immigration brings far more to this country both financially & culturally than it costs. We've always had immigration, we need it, without it we will stagnate. The laws are already in place to deal with this, there is no need to leave the EU in my mind. At some point we have to address the concerns over immigration, but we don't need to leave the EU to do that. Right now there has never been a better chance of addressing those issues within the EU. I would like us to lead on that, not retreat.

I can probably think of another hundred reasons (joint projects, peace in europe etc. etc.) as to why we should stay in the EU but i'm guessing you (and everyone else) stopped reading after the first paragraph . Anyway that's some of my more important reason why I voted remain. your turn, enlighten me as to why you think it makes sense (particularly financially) for us to leave. Open to counter arguments based on logic/common sense.

 

No i voted as i could see what the EU was,still is and where its attempting to head in the short and long term.

Theres been many posts explaining my reasons and posts from others who are more elequant at putting accross their message than me explaining why we are better off out of the EU.

 

Brilliant post. Greece makes very little effort to collect tax revenue from the richest in their society. They borrow a **** load of money as a result. In the past they got away with doing this by devaluation of their currency & as a result hyper inflation. This made pensions worthless for working class people in the 1980's & 1990's (the rich of course were OK). Being in the euro has stopped that, so they now have a bill. If I ran a country that has mega rich shipping rights & tourism that badly I'd expect not to be elected, hence a load of differing parties cropping up.

Brexit may do the same thing over here.

 

Can you tell me which KPIs we need to use to measure how we are going to be better off? Is this financially? (we already aren't individually or nationally) or is this some kind of nebulous measure of sovereignty? (I feel much less loyal to this country than I did two years ago).

 

We will be competing on a world scale with Viet Nam & Somalia by then.

 

There is ignorance on both sides... many in here struggle to debate the issue. Instead, they talk hearsay as facts, feelings as facts and maybe’s as facts. There are no facts yet. They also struggle to debate, and just try to pretend they are sat in a throne of righteousness. You’re not going to change anyone’s minds. Get out, enjoy the football and the sun... and forget about this ***** thread!

 

Finally someone from the leave side offering reasons as to why it might be beneficial to leave. Respect for that. I can't argue that it must be easier to get a deal ratified by one country rather than 20 odd.
That said I would take issue will a couple of points you made

On the one hand you are saying we would get a better deal because we are a smaller entity ... how does that work ... sympathy?
You also say that the EU is protectionist and that you can see his (Trump's) point. Isn't that a good thing for us, as we are still members for now? Don't we want the best deal possible for us?

We are net contributor's no getting away from that. But wouldn't we be better off staying in and trying to redress the balance. It is unclear (certainly to me) exactly what leaving would do to our economy. If it turns out to be catastrophic the net contribution will look like peanuts. I haven't worked it out, but even if the effect was only minor (say 3%) wouldn't that account for much more than the net contribution? I don't think anyone is suggesting we will be better off on day 1 from a trade point of view. Even if it only took us 10 years to recover (which I think is conservative given how long it takes to do deals). Point is nobody really knows, but why take the gamble, it is just too big a risk.

I hope you aren't basing that on the whims of Donald Trump. I can't see how we would get a better deal than as part of a larger block. I'm also pretty sure that Canada & Mexico & most of the far east would disagree with you.

 

Here's one.....it's not about better though....nor about gaining advantage over another country... it's about a mutually beneficial balanced deal that respects segments not only of of business, but life and culture, it's easier to conclude such a deal between two nations. than with one nation and 27 others who may have competing interests that they wish to preserve....the Canada deal is in example took many years and was then blocked by the Walloon farming lobby ( I'm not necessarily saying that is wrong btw)....Canada threatened to walk away and The EU had no option but to buy the Walloons off.

 

We have 3 government funded forecasts (the ones who are driving Brexit for their own interests).
They verge from driving off to a skyscraper, to driving off the marina at Whitby in terms of their positivity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42977967

Still they press on & people like you don't give a ****. Either you live in Devon, or you are mentally challenged.
COYR.

 

You misunderstand the reason behind the EU Army...if I can find the quote again I will post it.
The German Defence Minister last year said in the German press that the forces were to be used to provide internal security, it would be very interesting to have that expanded on.

 

No football on til August, it's pre season ;-)

And I burn, being from Viking genes! Seems a very good thread actually. There are many facts. Businesses leaving the UK, shifting jobs to EU countries from the UK, weakening of the pound and a minimal pick up of manufacturing and export gdp, repeated stalling of MPC monetary stimulus to interest rates as underutilisation of employment continues.

Lots of actual events that have happened, the fact part, allowing for debate of why they may have occurred, But if you want to watch football in the off season and sit in the sun, those choices all lay in your hands. As do contributing to, or opening a thread you don't like.

 

It's not going to happen, but even if it did, whats to say we would have been part of it if we'd stayed in the EU... and if it got to the end scenario, and was created and contributed to by the UK.... why is that a bad thing?

 

No don’t need one, single shot bolt action and a o/u shotgun

 

Vietnam are light years ahead of us in terms of connectivity and technology. A absolutely massive Samsung factory just outside Hanoi, makes Dagenham in its heyday look tiny