Shouldnt the "Remain" vote be winning by a landslide??

Johnsmith2016

mwpt wrote: »

Ok, it took me a while to see it but now it is clear. "Johnsmith" is a plant, an agent for the remain side, posing as a brexiter to make brexiters look stupid.

Or maybe I'm wrong and you are just a plain old boring troll. Like all trolls, you started off trying to sound reasonable but you could not contain your inner self and of late your comments have become more directly trollish and insulting.

Rumbled.

Or perhaps we can all behave like adults

Johnsmith2016

Generali wrote: »

Just a regular common or garden troll I'm afraid. I've had it on ignore for a few days. It's been busted on the Scotland thread too.

Don't feed it, pop it on ignore and it'll be gone in a day or two.

Aww are you okay?

Generali

Don't feed the troll.

Conrad

JOHNSMITH - can I give u some friendly advice?


I keep making this point to fellow Leavers >>> to win round the all important undecided's' it's best to focus on core issues.


So for example if you say 'we're letting in terrorists', this argument wont win many people round because everyone knows you have more chance of being struck by lightening than being caught up in a terror incident. Thus it means almost nothing to their daily lives. Sure they'll moan darn the pub, but when it comes to the moment in the booth, their wallet is all that matters


It's thus better to stick with things like explaining how us trading across the world unhampered by the EU will bring out the best in this nation that writes 15% of all the important scientific papers with 1% of the population of the world.


That we're America's biggest investment partner, DEPSITE NO TRADE DEAL.


That we will have our own full seat at all the global bodies


That its far easier (based on the evidence) to cut trade deals with independent nations as opposed to 28 nation super-states with disparate needs and rules


That Japan and S Korea sell the EU plenty "without having a say on the EU rules" - who cares!


That Australia and the other prospering independent nations sit on the global environmental task forces, and share intelligence and enjoy security, putting pay to the lie that independent nations "have no influence" dohhh or are "isolated", durrr

TrickyTree83

BobQ wrote: »

Do you believe that those who wish to leave would favour granting your wife UK citizenship. I suspect many would want her shipped back to the Ukraine.

.

Less than two years ago Boris Johnson said that people who opposed TTIP were Numskulls. Opposing TTIP is cause we can agree on and EU is still negotiating on. But be in no doubt that if we leave it is the sort of agreement that the Conservatives will seek with the US. Of course now it is a convenient thing to promote the Leave campaign. You seem to be falling for it!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/20/boris-johnson-ttip_n_6012958.html

They wouldn't be able to "ship her back" as you put it because Ukraine is a non-EU country and we've had to go through those non-EU procedures to obtain her right to reside here.

I agree that outside of the EU we may still have a government that would agree to TTIP. The difference being is:

- If we're in the EU our vote is diluted, so once we're in TTIP there's very little we can do unless we have the support of the majority of EU member states. So even a national government elected with a mandate to remove ourselves from TTIP cannot do so.

- If we're outside of the EU your vote and mine will have much more of an impact on the government of the day who will be able to decide either to remain or leave TTIP.

I've not fallen for any propaganda from the Leave campaign around TTIP, I was wondering what it was all about so I looked into it for myself.

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

They wouldn't be able to "ship her back" as you put it because Ukraine is a non-EU country and we've had to go through those non-EU procedures to obtain her right to reside here.

Fair enough, I was just pointing out that some on this forum favour no-immigration at all, so someone like your partner would not be able to come here in the EU or out. The EU is only relevant to this as Brexit campaigners seem to believe that Ukraine might well join the EU.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

We will be able to improve our trade with other countries without waiting years and years for the EU to reach an agrement
We could provide UK sourced substitutes for EU products : so people may buy UK built cars rather than BMWs/EU sourced cars
We would have the extra money we will not be giving to the EU
We can throw out numerous EU regulations that will reduce UK business costs.
We can import products from all over the world without imposing EU tariffs

CLAPTON wrote: »

There may or may not be decreased trade : what level of tariffs would you expect?

The question was why would trade increase if we had to pay a tariff?

Your reply suggests we might buy less from the EU and manufacture more in the UK so the UK balance of payments would change to more imports from non-EU nations. I cannot deny it might happen but I wonder how this will increase trade.

We continually hear about EU Regulations being bad for us. I find this a simplistic argument although I do accept that they have costs. I have never been clear how much of it is due to the way that an EU Regulation is introduced in UK national legislation?

Many of them seem to fulfil a useful purpose in protecting employment rights of vulnerable workers, introducing uniform equality rights, standardising motor vehicle consruction, consumer protection, money laundering and pollution.

Those who want to sweep them aside should I feel explain which they would keep. Take a simple example, we have the channel tunnel and numerous car ferries, and many people take their car on holiday using it. Do we really want to have a situation where we manufacture UK cars that cannot be taken to the continent without additional inspections or certificates? So which would we end?

Another issue is the sharing of energy with other EU nations. EU Regulations specify that members should have implemented measures on renewable energy supplies (laudable in itself in my view). Would this be retained? If not we would probably not be able to share energy. So presumably we would be spending more on energy generation?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

The question was why would trade increase if we had to pay a tariff?

Your reply suggests we might buy less from the EU and manufacture more in the UK so the UK balance of payments would change to more imports from non-EU nations. I cannot deny it might happen but I wonder how this will increase trade.

the issue is are we better of worse off overall?
it may or may not be beneficial to produce more for home consumption : as we are net importers there is plenty of scope to reduce imports and manufacture more here : as this would hurt the countries of the EU then they may seek to avoid making themselves poorer to all our benefits.

We continually hear about EU Regulations being bad for us. I find this a simplistic argument although I do accept that they have costs. I have never been clear how much of it is due to the way that an EU Regulation is introduced in UK national legislation?

Many of them seem to fulfil a useful purpose in protecting employment rights of vulnerable workers, introducing uniform equality rights, standardising motor vehicle consruction, consumer protection, money laundering and pollution.

I'm not sure your examples of vehicle construction and pollution are very favourable to EU regulation given the diesel fiasco.

Restriction on employment flexibility is not to workers benefit : it tends to help state sector workers at the cost of the private sector and destroys jobs and opportunities. In any event I favour the UK parliament deciding these things.

Those who want to sweep them aside should I feel explain which they would keep. Take a simple example, we have the channel tunnel and numerous car ferries, and many people take their car on holiday using it. Do we really want to have a situation where we manufacture UK cars that cannot be taken to the continent without additional inspections or certificates? So which would we end?

clearly that wouldn't happen : otherwise one might get the situation where different cars had the steering wheel on opposite sides.
also otherwise we might get the absurd situation where Japanese, South Korean cars etc. could be driven in the EU:

Another issue is the sharing of energy with other EU nations. EU Regulations specify that members should have implemented measures on renewable energy supplies (laudable in itself in my view). Would this be retained? If not we would probably not be able to share energy. So presumably we would be spending more on energy generation?

no idea what renewable energy has to do with energy sharing.
however, if there is benefit for both nations in sharing then it will happen anyway.

There are millions of 'standards' in the world without the need for the EU.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

.................There are millions of 'standards' in the world without the need for the EU.

Thanks for your reply.

The Brexit economists paper does make some useful points about Regulation. I agree that there are many international standards although often they are based on national standards or agreed multinational ones like the EU's. But of course the real issue is whether they are necessary.

Personally I approve of EU employment law but I can see an argument that the energy regulations may go to far.

Not sure I agree that employment law favour the public sector. Many are intended to help vulnerable workers (like agency workers, those affected by takeovers) but the issue is often the ease with which individuals can exercise the rights.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

The Brexit economists paper does make some useful points about Regulation. I agree that there are many international standards although often they are based on national standards or agreed multinational ones like the EU's. But of course the real issue is whether they are necessary.

Personally I approve of EU employment law but I can see an argument that the energy regulations may go to far.


Not sure I agree that employment law favour the public sector. Many are intended to help vulnerable workers (like agency workers, those affected by takeovers) but the issue is often the ease with which individuals can exercise the rights.

The 'rights' help people in work and make employment harder for the unemployed. We will see how the 'living wage' affects people in practice.

In any event I see every reason why the UK government should set those laws so we can effectively vote against them if we don't like them.

I am against the EU rush to diesel as it kills people.