The EU: IN or OUT?

Ballard

Blutto,

Leave said that we send £350m every week to the EU. When pressed they reluctantly agreed that a significant sum is returned.

Leave indicated that £350m would be spent on the NHS if we left.

Leave claimed that Turkey are among six countries that would soon be joining the EU. They also highlighted two counties which border Turkey (Syria & Iraq)

These were the three main points of their campaign and none of them are true (for pedants, the bit about Syria & Iraq bordering Turkey are true!)

Additionally they insisted that countries would be queuing up to sign trade deals. It's far too early to see how this pans out. I am quite sure that we will get new deals but I don't think that the one to replace the EU one will be as good.

Remain said that there would be market turmoil. Again, it's early days but the FTSE250 has suffered and cable has dropped through the floor.

BucksLady

jimjames wrote: »

People voting to leave had no idea what they were voting for other than leaving EU. .

How patronizing and disrespectful to those who use this forum.

eskbanker

Ballard wrote: »

Leave indicated that £350m would be spent on the EU if we left.

Seems somewhat unlikely that they'd have claimed that! Spending it on the NHS on the other hand....

doe808

BucksLady wrote: »

How patronizing and disrespectful to those who use this forum.

Interested to hear your analysis on the free movement of trade/tariffs/EEC points then, if possible.

BananaRepublic

jimjames wrote: »

People voting to leave had no idea what they were voting for other than leaving EU.

How rude and condescending.

BananaRepublic

doe808 wrote: »

Interested to hear your analysis on the free movement of trade/tariffs/EEC points then, if possible.

And anyone who voted stay should explain the workings of the EU, and the interaction with the UK.

doe808

BananaRepublic wrote: »

And anyone who voted stay should explain the workings of the EU, and the interaction with the UK.

Happy to in trade terms this evening, post flight.

magpiecottage

jimjames wrote: »

People voting to leave had no idea what they were voting for other than leaving EU.

I agree. There really is little point in leaving until you have a destination in mind.

That being so, I would rather be led by somebody who realised that and planned accordingly.

As none of the Leave campaign seem to have had any idea where they wanted to go to, I think we are probably better off with somebody who had at least seen the disadvantages before the vote.

It would be entirely within the result for the UK to retain freedom of movement as well as payments into the EU budget if we weren't actually a member but were in EEA instead. Quite what that would achieve apart from not being able to influence any decisions is beyond me.

It would be pretty ironic if parliament voted not to activate Article 50 to leave when the Brexit campaign was all about UK parliament having the final say on decisions that affect the UK. What could affect us more than such a momentous decision to leave EU.

Indeed - a clear demonstration that ultimately the UK Parliament remains sovereign over UK affairs.

Does anybody know what Farage was doing at the European Parliament? If he insists it serves no purpose, what was the point (apart from his childish outburst last week).

Thrugelmir

Ballard wrote: »

Remain said that there would be market turmoil. Again, it's early days but the FTSE250 has suffered and cable has dropped through the floor.

The elite got it wrong. They totally misread peoples feelings. Not just with the EU but the increasing impact of globalisation. Many people have seen no improvement in their living standards in the past 15 years. Possibly even a gradual decline. That has only been sheltered by a period of low interest rates. Average earnings have only kept pace with inflation since 2000. As a consequence the wealth divide is getting wider. Recent elections across Europe likewise show an increasing polarisation of views between extremes.

jimjames

BucksLady wrote: »

How patronizing and disrespectful to those who use this forum.

BananaRepublic wrote: »

How rude and condescending.

Come on then please explain what the future trade and economic deal will be. Even the Leave campaign leaders as well as government had no plan so I find it utterly bizarre than anyone voting to leave thinks they knew what it was. Some people voted to leave due to fears over immigration, some because we pay the EU money, others because they want control. Deals possible now would leave all of these unchanged.

The referendum question was "should we leave EU". It gave absolutely no further information about what should happen if we did leave. How can pointing that out be rude, patronising or condescending? Is the reality difficult to understand?