BREXIT - Why?

Apodemus

bigfreddiel wrote: »

...having an in or out referendum, based on nothing concrete means you must vote OUT ....

Au contraire. Leaving the actual pros and cons aside, if you believe that there is no concrete evidence to base a decision upon, good governance would surely be to ensure that the status quo is maintained.

veryintrigued

I tend to see a lot of commentators generalising with their inferences that the leave campaign voters are ill informed, half whit, bigots - for someone who wants to be educated (and is on the fence) that really irks me.

That and the fact that the argument is so polarised with NO-ONE knowing the true impact.

I know this is a Money Saving website but national identity (the lose of) cant be measured in financial terms so that'll be a factor when I have (hopefully) cut through the tosh.

Ballard

The EU is far from perfect but I'm voting to stay in. All this talk about trade deals with the commonwealth, US & EU is, to an extent, fanciful in my opinion.

It would take years to arrange these bilateral agreements. If we do leave then will the likes of France & Germany be begging us to start a trade agreement with the EU or will they be somewhat more reticent? What will the public think in those countries? What would we say if it were France deciding to leave the club instead of us? I'd suggest that there would be a lot of public pressure on the government not to set up a free trade agreement with them. They would undoubtedly be set up but how long would it take and what concessions would we need to offer to appease the EU public?

The UK is an important worldwide marketplace but just look at a map to see how tiny we are compared to most developed countries. We are punching well above our weight and I truly believe that having the might of the EU on our side isn't a bad thing. It gives us security.

A lot has been said about the cost of membership. It's not cheap. As I understand it, farmers get the bulk of the returning money so if we leave I'd expect either farmers to get subsidies direct from our tax or some would go under. Brexiters will insist that the money that we stop sending to Brussels will be ploughed into the savagely underfunded NHS. Yeah, of course it will.

There is a significant proportion in the 'out' camp who 'want our country back' and seem to think that we will close our borders, kick Johnny foreigner out and life will be fine and dandy. In the event of Brexit I think that these people will be the most disappointed.

I'm not an expert in international trade and don't pretend to be. This isn't the right forum for such a discussion but I thought that I might as well post them anyway.

jimjames

maxie014 wrote: »

Im voting out,bollix to the sane,rational,informed ,logical,this will happen,that will happen bull****
How did anyone ever make a decision if all that had to be taken into account!

So you don't care what might happen and to all the rational, informed discussion about it and are voting out anyway? Bizarre. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick and it was a sarcastic post...

PeacefulWaters

Cameron only included the referendum in his manifesto because he didn't actually expect to win the election.

In coalition the Lib Dems would have blocked it.

PeacefulWaters

msallen wrote: »

Yet another example of how it is the inane rantings of the leave campaigners (rather than a convincing positive message from the remain ones) that has convinced me to vote to stay in.

If they had any good arguments we would be hearing them instead of all the drivel / lies.

I'm afraid all I have heard from both sides is made up numbers, guesswork and very little else.

I'm yet to hear a convincing message for or against.

jimjames

veryintrigued wrote: »

That and the fact that the argument is so polarised with NO-ONE knowing the true impact.

I agree no-one knows the exact impact but common sense says that leaving will be hugely disruptive and costly to our economy as well as creating uncertainty which markets hate. We might not know the exact numbers but it has to be disruptive by its nature in the same way that company mergers and demergers are. Picking apart agreements made over 40 years and then reestablishing replacement agreements will not be quick, easy or cheap. The one lot of winners will be the lawyers though!

The examples given of countries that are outside EU but part of EFTA are hardly inspiring vision of why it's worth leaving - pay into EU, accept most regulations and accept free movement of people but with no voice in setting those rules.

It also seems to me that the Brexit campaign is built on the principle of having your cake and eating it. Thinking we can get everything that we want in negotiations without needing to accept anything that others want is a bit disingenuous. Why would other countries accept that we can travel to them without hindrance but their citizens are unable to do the same in coming to the UK?

fun4everyone

jimjames wrote: »

It also seems to me that the Brexit campaign is built on the principle of having your cake and eating it. Thinking we can get everything that we want in negotiations without needing to accept anything that others want is a bit disingenuous.

Totally agree

bigfreddiel

msallen wrote: »

Yet another example of how it is the inane rantings of the leave campaigners (rather than a convincing positive message from the remain ones) that has convinced me to vote to stay in.

If they had any good arguments we would be hearing them instead of all the drivel / lies.

I would have said the remain are the people who ar ranting!

bigfreddiel

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

I'm afraid all I have heard from both sides is made up numbers, guesswork and very little else.

I'm yet to hear a convincing message for or against.

How true, thanks for that