If we vote for Brexit what happens

gfplux

Generali wrote: »

It costs the UK at lot less to pay for part of a standards agency than to pay to run one herself just as it costs farmers a lot less to adhere to one standard than 28 standards.

If you want out of Europe because you hate the EU or because you don't like foreigners or for any other reason fair enough but don't kid yourself that there is a good economic reason for leaving. At the very best there is no net loss from leaving in the long term after some short term pain. The reality is that the most likely economic outcome is poor for the UK.

Per the FT's video, the UK had output per head well below the average of similar economies (France, Germany and Italy) in 1973/4 and now is considerably ahead. What happened? Well lots of things bit one is the EU.

Well said. I could not agree more.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

Really Clapton, that is bazaar even for you.
I was pointing out and commenting on a 5 minute radio piece. I DID NOT say I was in favour of lower levels of animal welfare. I just thought (wrongly for you) that I would draw posters attention to this particular nugget of information.
Hard facts in this debate are hard to come by and are then obscured by some.
You are right I should have REVERSED what the programme (the Pig Farmer) actually said and reported.....

" The EU have constantly lobbied the UK Government to reduce the Animal Welfare regulations that protect out livestock. The British Government has continued to resist these pressures"

By putting an anti EU spin on the facts they would have suited you.
NOW Clapton you have a nice quote to pass on.

bizarre
.............................

michaels

IN the short term the economics are clear that Brexit would have costs. In the longer term all bets are off as it would appear that Europe has made a much worse fist of 'recovering' from the financial crisis than other states because of its structure and fiscal, monetary and social inclinations and that Brexit might allow the UK to pursue a more competitive, international set of policies (or not should Corbyn become PM).

The point being that with sovereignty the UK could pursue the policy mix that suits its voters rather than having one 12th input into EU policy making that might have zero impact without the building of complex (pork filled) alliances.....

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

I find your view on population absolutely repulsive

You find it repulsive that I don't think the UK is "full up" and therefore we don't need to have, and shouldn't enforce, a population cap? Or do you find it repulsive that if we were to have a population cap I would at least want it implemented in an evidenced and non-racist way?

gfplux

michaels wrote: »

Does anyone have any feel for how polling accuracy will play out, as we saw in the ge it is not just of academic interest as in that case the polls drove campaign behaviour. Are there 'shy leavers'? will leavers have a higher prospensity to vote?

In the electoral reform referendum the establishment, confident of victory, basically ignored the whole thing - will we see a similar tactic this time with the referendum mostly kept out of the headlines where possible?.

I think that those are very interesting points.
Leading up to the referendum we will have the "debate" with as we have seen before, the committed from both sides will be heavy on smoke and mirrors and light on facts. (Hopefully most will agree with me on that) On further thought, I am sure someone will want to disagree!
There will be the polls with many talking heads on TV. If one side are well ahead will the support of the other side fall away due to apathy or will apathy be the order of the day?
Then the vote.
BUT HOW MANY WILL VOTE?
The committed IN and the committed OUT will turn out come rain, thunder, hail or shine. What about the rest.
In the 2015 General Election the turn out was 66%. In other words 34% did not bother.
I wonder what the turnout will be for third Referendum.

gfplux

danothy wrote: »

You find it repulsive that I don't think the UK is "full up" and therefore we don't need to have, and shouldn't enforce, a population cap? Or do you find it repulsive that if we were to have a population cap I would at least want it implemented in an evidenced and non-racist way?

Those in favour of population caps might want to read up on one solution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

You find it repulsive that I don't think the UK is "full up" and therefore we don't need to have, and shouldn't enforce, a population cap? Or do you find it repulsive that if we were to have a population cap I would at least want it implemented in an evidenced and non-racist way?

as I said, repulsive.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

as I said, repulsive.

Specifically though, Is it the fact that I don't think the UK is full that you find repulsive, or the lack of desire for racism that you find repulsive?

setmefree2

mayonnaise wrote: »

So why do you keep muttering about wanting cheap housing, less traffic jams and a better quality of life in general

If you want all that - I've no idea why you would live in Clapton?

prosaver

gfplux wrote: »

Well said. I could not agree more.

its wrong,
look it up instead of being a sheep