BREXIT - Why?

Ballard

Singapore and Macau both have niche markets. Singapore has financial services and Macau has gambling. Macau in particular benefits from the fact that the Chinese love to gamble but it's illegal in the mainland.

I've been to a couple of casinos in Macau and they were full of Chinese day trippers who get bussed from the border. If China opted to make it difficult for their citizens to cross that border Macau would be dead.

They've left Portuguese control but have joined China as an SAR. Yes, they have a local government but China could crush them simply by forcing its citizens to apply for visas. It suits China to allow it to continue.

I doubt that many could even name the currency of Macau because it's so unimportant.

Dird

And yet Canada is the dog's !!!!!!!!

talexuser

I can't see that as an EU argument. Canada went into the financial crisis with less debt through better economic management and then did not have to ruin their economy by bailing out their banks.

Ballard

Dird wrote: »

And yet Canada is the dog's !!!!!!!!

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Canada is an independent nation, as is Singapore, but both have remained in the Commonwealth club.

Looking back at our colonial history it is pretty clear that Britain had no right to rule over so much of the world. It therefore makes complete sense that they wanted (and gained) independence. Most of those leaving opted to keep ties with London by joining the commonwealth. Ireland and the US are the obvious exemptions.

Linton

cloud_dog wrote: »

I tend to believe that the in / out debate could really be summarised by two primary 'feelings':

1. The feeling that we are losing or have no control over our sovereignty; and that is the primary consideration.......

What does sovereignty mean in a globalised economy? Many of the decisions that really matter are made by the multinationals and by those states with the power to control them. Others will be forced on us by changes in the global society driven by technological and economic changes - how much power do we actually have to control the internet? We need to be an active member of a larger grouping to have any influence whatsoever.

The problem as I see it is that the UK as a nation state is the wrong size to fulfill a useful purpose. It is too small to be an influential player on the world stage and to gain from economies of scale (eg we have to build one-off bespoke power stations) and too large for its inhabitants to feel their views matter.

Of course the EU has its faults - there will always be problems and awkward compromises to be made. But the vote next month is to set the future on a time scale of decades or more, it isnt about the relatively minor issues that people complain about now.

Linton

Dird wrote: »

........
Canada & Australia both left the empire, no disaster became of them. Instead they rank highly in various rankings on quality of living etc while accepting immigrants based on their ability & skills they provide rather than what passport they have

Both Canada and Australia are major suppliers of natural resources. The world wants what they produce. Everything the UK produces could be produced elsewhere.

Dird

Linton wrote: »

Everything the UK produces could be produced elsewhere.

Oh, didn't realise Canada & Australia were the only remaining sources of oil & coal

Ballard wrote: »

Looking back at our colonial history it is pretty clear that Britain had no right to rule over so much of the world.

And in 100 years perhaps people will have the same views about Belgium and Poland having a say on the UK

mrginge

talexuser wrote: »

Nevertheless after Bradford & Bingley and the Icelandic banks failed our internal protection was raised to 50k and it was the EU that brought in 85K here.

So what you are saying is that the EU added a greater protection than the British government decided was necessary based on our regulatory framework for banks.

That greater protection deemed as necessary by the EU has increased costs and resulted in no actual realised benefit.

Thanks.

cloud_dog

Linton wrote: »

What does sovereignty mean in a globalised economy? Many of the decisions that really matter are made by the multinationals and by those states with the power to control them. Others will be forced on us by changes in the global society driven by technological and economic changes - how much power do we actually have to control the internet? We need to be an active member of a larger grouping to have any influence whatsoever.

The problem as I see it is that the UK as a nation state is the wrong size to fulfill a useful purpose. It is too small to be an influential player on the world stage and to gain from economies of scale (eg we have to build one-off bespoke power stations) and too large for its inhabitants to feel their views matter.

Of course the EU has its faults - there will always be problems and awkward compromises to be made. But the vote next month is to set the future on a time scale of decades or more, it isnt about the relatively minor issues that people complain about now.

I'm not making the argument one way or the other, I was just trying to simplify where people's 'feelings' might place them; rightly or wrongly.

For the record, my DD is 'doing' this at school so I have asked her to let me know which way she would vote and I will vote that way. After all, this decision is likely to have more of an effect of the next generation than myself.

Linton

Re level of savings protection...

mrginge wrote: »

So what you are saying is that the EU added a greater protection than the British government decided was necessary based on our regulatory framework for banks.

That greater protection deemed as necessary by the EU has increased costs and resulted in no actual realised benefit.

Thanks.

What costs? The protection has never been called upon. The realised benefit is that people are happy to keep more in individual bank accounts which adds to efficiency.