When considering in or out:

[EFLImpudence]

It is worth pointing out that Cameron has only ever promised to reduce NET migration.

He can't control immigration so the only influence he has is to pìss off as many of us as he can so that more of us leave.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

The votes will be cast. Britain will stay in no matter the result. Best all get used to it.

 

[Doggit]

You accuse me of making accusations and assertions Himmy, and then ask me to actually quote examples, but I suspect this is at the heart of your problem. I get the impression from you, that like C&O if you can find a graph etc showing how bad everything's going to be, then that'll justify your point. I on the other hand, read loads, and then sift through what I'm being given, and then decide on it's validity. You seem to want to accuse me of making things up just because I disagree with your viewpoint. That's not a discussion, just a putdown.

 

[PBC_1966]

The votes will be cast. Britain will stay in no matter the result.

Unfortunately, I fear that is exactly what will happen, one way or another.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I've already placed a bet at the bookies, to Remain. That way when we do inevitably remain, I'll get a little consolation prize. (And if we don't I'll be too happy to care about losing some money!)

 

[EFLImpudence]

A lot have done the same thing on the Stock Exchange.

Although I suspect they will win either way.

 

[Doggit]

Not if the merger of the stock exchange with the German Boerse goes ahead; although interestingly the English papers report that the LSE will get transferred to Germany, and the German papers, are being told it'll be the other way round. My question, is why isn't Sajid Javid blocking the merger.

 

[Himaginn]

It roundly defeats your assertion that it's the Commission that governs the EU.
The procedure is available, whether it's been used yet, I dunno, but the system and process is there to be used!
Whereas it's utterly obvious that the Commission does not make the rules, or govern the EU.

Think of the Commission as the same as committees in local and central government. They draft legislation in those committees to be put before the house/chamber for discussion and vote.
It would be intolerable, and nothing would ever get done if the legislation was drafted in the house/chambers.

Of course, we don't expect the MEP's to actually draft thelegislation, but you're missing the point.

The Commission sends proposed legislation to the Parliament, and in the brief time allowed for discussion Parliament says "O.K., we want to pass this except we don't like that part in paragraph 29 sub-clause 2. Get rid of it."

Is the Commission obliged to send back a revised proposal with sub-clause 2 of para. 29 deleted?

Just like the committee stages in UK parliament, if the legislation is not suitably modified, it's not supported in parliament.
You could work that out for yourself.

If John proposes that you give him a £1M, and you say, "if I can give him £1M in £20 notes, I'll vote for it."
He'd be stupid not to modify his proposal, wouldn't he.

 

[Himaginn]

So quote your sources.

Lots of accusations and assertions in there, any examples?

You accuse me of making accusations and assertions Himmy, and then ask me to actually quote examples, but I suspect this is at the heart of your problem. I get the impression from you, that like C&O if you can find a graph etc showing how bad everything's going to be, then that'll justify your point. I on the other hand, read loads, and then sift through what I'm being given, and then decide on it's validity. You seem to want to accuse me of making things up just because I disagree with your viewpoint. That's not a discussion, just a putdown.

Still no sources for your stories, or examples of your accusations and assertions.
That's not a putdown, it's a fact.

 

[Himaginn]

It is worth pointing out that Cameron has only ever promised to reduce NET migration.

He can't control immigration so the only influence he has is to pìss off as many of us as he can so that more of us leave.

He, or the Government, can control non-EU immigration, which is greater than EU immigration.
The Government can put temporary (7 year) moratorium on immigrants from newly joined countries to EU.

 

[Himaginn]

Maybe, but it won't be available for farmers 'cos you'll have spent it on compensating all those exporters to EU for the tariffs imposed by EU on our exports to EU.

Tariffs are paid by the importer at the other end. And yes, obviously the £30 million per day or however much is saved can't be spent multiple times, but it's still a lot of money to be divided up to help elsewhere.

It doesn't matter who pays the tariff, it results in UK's products being more expensive, therefore less competitive, therefore less is sold, therefore less is exported, less is produced, less employment, less money to be spent, less taxes collected, less secondary spending, therefore reduction in down-the-line production/employment etc.
You're original suggestion was to use the EU contributions to cover the cost of these tariffs so that our exports was not affected.

Moreover, there'll be additional UK expense required to reorganise the farming industry, invent the UK farming subsidies, and administer the scheme.

You think there aren't already Whitehall bureaucrats administering the U.K. part of the EU scheme?

Are there? How do you know? What department? Where are their offices? What are their titles/names?

 

[Himaginn]

The votes will be cast. Britain will stay in no matter the result. Best all get used to it.

It'll be interesting to see what will transpire in the event of a Brexit vote in the referendum
What PM/Cabinet/Government in history would start a motion in the House to consider a process that will mean a severe effect on the UK economy?
I suspect that Cameron, perhaps along with most of the Cabinet, will resign rather than lead the country into such a catastrophic move.
Perhaps there'll be a general election prior to any discussion in the House, of a Brexit process being instigated.

 

[JohnD]

You'd need someone who is an absolute idiot and cares more about his own vanity than about the good of the country, with a total disregard for truth and good sense.

The Outists already have such a mop-haired buffoon ready to jump in.

 

[JohnD]

The french and Germans ignore edicts that hurt their economy, but we bend over backwards, and implement everything we're told to do.

The funny thing is that you might actually believe that anti-foreigner nonsense.

Do you not know that the anti-foreigners of Elbonia tell each other "Us hard-working Elbonians prop up the world with our hard work, honesty and taxes, but them swarthy brits just take what they can and put nothing back?"

There's always a few like you who read their anti-foreigner newspapers and sit in their pubs swapping ridiculous made-up stories and blaming Them Others for everything.

 

[Himaginn]

The french and Germans ignore edicts that hurt their economy, but we bend over backwards, and implement everything we're told to do.

The funny thing is that you might actually believe that anti-foreigner nonsense.

Do you not know that the anti-foreigners of Elbonia tell each other "Us hard-working Elbonians prop up the world with our hard work, honesty and taxes, but them swarthy brits just take what they can and put nothing back?"

There's always a few like you who read their anti-foreigner newspapers and sit in their pubs swapping ridiculous made-up stories and blaming Them Others for everything.

Some of them even come back on to GD Forum and relate their new found wisdom. But when asked for sources or examples, where are they?