No I don't think EU electives will gain any mythical new powers.. If remain win.
the status quo will remain... But in the future it won't stop them gaining new powers as they see fit.. And I don't want that to happen..
Mps cock enough things up in this country as it is without the Euro adding to our problems..

Is this not a double edged sword though? If we leave then we are no longer protected by these deals and we will have much more difficulty selling to the EU.



Sorry but I don't understand this at all. Surely our currency falling in value and having a tariff applied to products is a bad thing?

If product A costs 130 Euros then I can buy that for £100 as it stands. Assuming we leave and the Pound becomes the same value as the Euro then I am now paying £130 for the product. But then a 5% tariff is applied to the product making it cost 136.50 Euros in total. I now have to pay £136.50 for this product.

Good point Craig and I can't argue with that but it's not the main reason why I shall vote to leave..

I think he's talking about export tariffs (or EU tariffs on British goods) and conveniently ignoring the other side of the equation, but even in the context of exports it doesn't make any sense.

No one is saying the economists are lying. They just have an appaling record of ever getting a prediction right. Why are you ignoring this

You seem to spend a lot of time reading these "crackpots" You still have not produced one aurgument for remianing or any facts. Only links to what others say. can you not form your own opinion?

Apart from not going to war with each other.

I only started producing links after YOU asked me to produce links, for all the good that's done. Prior to that and throughout this long thread I have offered plenty of my own opinions and arguments for remaining. You'll find a couple of them (no links) on the last page, and plenty more before that.

Provide opinions, get asked for links. Provide links, get asked for opinions. It's the Juan way.

It really is not worth engaging in dialogue with you any more, other than to let others see what you are.

Still waiting for an example over your 4000+ posts on any subject of where you've admitted you might just have got something wrong. You can start with your tariff argument, if you like.

Because it isn't true. It is like saying doctors have an appalling record of saving lives because people still get ill and everyone dies at some point.

Yes they are wrong from time to time, yes often they are dealing with an incomplete picture, and yes they don't operate with 100% certainty, but they are still infinitely better than just hoping for the best.

Correct, a decrease of 5% and an increase of 5% do not cancel each other out.

For example 100 - 5% = 95

95 + 5% = 99.75

or

100 + 5% = 105

105 - 5% = 99.75

Yes I did list a whole bunch of points:

Juan Cornetto wrote:
[iUndoubtedly Project Fear has been the main thrust of the Remain campaign run by by Cameron and Osborne from the very start. You cannot argue with this. I cannot recall anything positive they have said about staying in the EU, just a catalogue of disasters if we leave be it thousands of pounds less in people's pockets, huge unemployment, massive tax rises, renaging on the pensioners triple lock, back of the queue in making trade deals, increases in food, increases in everthing else, the pound plummeting, stock exchanges in melt down, another European war, huge tarriffs, flying in Obama to issues threats to his closest ally etc etc. Then there has been the coordinated personal attacks on the likes of Boris Johnson.

The official Leave campaign has on the whole been positive and optimistic and more up beat with little fear or personal attacks and no threats.[/i




So like I said please explain why these remain negative comments are accurate and positive and why?

And what are the negative and untruthful things that the Leave campaign have said that you allege?

And do you really believe the remain campaign has not spread fear?




Care to name those facts?

An advert at the top of this very website (for me anyway)







I thought the Leave campaign didn't have anything to do with this sort of fear-based propaganda?

Why?

Ok for example Dyson Vacs (run by that nice inventor and Leave campaigner) currently sell a cordless vac into Europe at say £200. With an exchange rate of 1.30 Euros to the pound this becomes €260.

200 x 1.30 = 260

If we leave the EU and they put on an import tarriff to punish us of say 10% this now sells at €286

£200 x 1.30 = €260 + 10% = €286

However if sterling has gone down by 10% in value against the Euro the sum is as follows:

exchange rate 1.30 - 10% = 1.117

£200 x 1.117 = €223.40 + 10% tarriff = €245.74

So our exports become more competitive (ie cheaper) and we sell more.

You can play with the variable of tarriff and exchange rate but the "experts" whom you all believe expect a lowish tarriff and a higher fall in stirling so we could be even more competitive.

Turning to import tarriffs. If we vote to leave and take back control we can decide not to put on a tit for tat tarriff so our imports do not increase. However the lower pound will make imports more expensive. but this must be balanced by our new freedom to buy from other non EU countries who offer lower prices because of the restrictive trade rules of the EU.

The lower pound will boost our exports to other countries too as happened after we left the dreaded ERM when the economy grew on the back of a lower sterling value which by the way was completely the opposite of what the expert economists had predicted.

Use you own brain and vote Leave

No I never asked you to produce links. I asked you to challenge my points with your own argument and a few facts would help too. Name something positive about remaining in the EU without links other peoples opinions. By all means use others links to back up you view if you have one that is.


It really is not worth engaging in dialogue with you any more, other than to let others see what you are.'"

But Mr Dyson builds his vacuums in Malaysia so he won't really care if the pound falls. So he is just left with a 10% increase in tarriffs that he and everyone else must pay.

Also the pound doesn't only fall in relation to the Euro. It falls in relation to the other currencies as well. So even if we can now buy from new countries we get less for our money AND then have new tarriffs to sell in to our largest and nearest market

Did the Leave campaign place these adverts? the Remain campaign are like all bullies they give it out and complain if some comes back at them.

What is the current UK and EU governments position regarding EU membership?

and are they planning to accelerate that membership?

Even if it takes 10 or 20 years eventually they will join based on current policy.

Cameron refused to answer 3 times if he would veto Turkey's membership on TV the other night.

Many things are made abroad but traded in Sterling

The pound is a floating currency and goes up and down against different currencies depending on many factors. If after Brexit our economy remains strong the pound will recover. Also only the negative effects are being discussed. What happens if we have successful dealings in both the EU as it is in their countries interests that they keep selling to one of their best markets.

So you think Mr Dyson wants the pound to fall so it costs him more to buy in the raw materials imported in to Malaysia?

Regardless why should I care even a little bit about how much money a multi-millionaire makes at his Malaysian factory?

We know what successful dealings with the the EU looks like. We have it now.

My apologies. It was DHM who asked me to provide links, not you. It's possible to admit where you've been mistaken - watch and learn.

Also, you peculiar man, I was asked to provide links BECAUSE I'd apparently only been offering MY OWN opinions before that. Of course when I link to and analyse an important George Soros piece it's disregarded by you, although I accept his argument have been beyond you.

What's this on page 13? Oh, that's right, it's two positive arguments, which is two more than you've come up with, without any links to your dreaded "experts". Of course, this is one of my few posts that you haven't edited to oblivion in order facilitate your Straw Man arguments, but that's to be expected.

_____________________________

"Two really key positive arguments, set aside from the clear economics, and also set aside from the 'fear' and the 'speculation' from overwhelming numbers of 'experts' that seems to not make a blind bit of difference to some, in fact is, in a through the looking glass world, cited as further evidence to vote leave. Anyway:

-40 years of membership of the single market has led to a more outward-looking, more prosperous British nation. There is *nothing* to suggest this will not continue.

-The European Union's founding purpose was to ensure the absence of war. Throughout its existence, member states of the EU have never taken up arms against each other - a remarkable achievement of unity given European history. I'm from the first generation of my family that hasn't fought in a major European war, and I don't want to be from the last"

________________________________


Now, I don't expect you to agree with my arguments - given that they're not identical to yours - but I do expect you to have the simple grace to accept they were made.

And I have read your Dyson example. It doesn't address any of the complexities of manufacture and how those prices rise with a weakened pound. That won't be the case for Dyson, because that great patriot manufactures in Malaysia - but for actual British manufacturers it's plain crackers to think any tariff benefit - and who's to say there will even be one outside a powerful trading bloc - will outweigh a significant weakening of Sterling. You really are going so far away from the grain of established economic thinking here that you may as well be on another planet.

Still waiting for an example of where you've ever admitted fallibility in any of your arguments on here. Happy to extend it away from simply this message board and include any incidents from your actual life. Suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

And this shows that Brexit is good for British industry and manufacturing how?

I can't help what other people think.

Quote ="Doom&Gloom Merchant"Like the power to reject or amend bills - that kind of power? Thank god we have Lord Hugh Tottingbridge-Swithamwick sat in his cloak in Westminster looking out for our best interests. Or old Queeny giving her consent to pass new laws, our PM visiting her weekly to 'discuss matters' or the heir to the throne using his political influence to lobby MP's. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan ... veto-bills'" Have you read the parliament act? "The result was the Parliament Act 1911, which removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a Bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. Instead, the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years (now changed to 1". The only bills the HoL can "veto" are private members bills, they cannot veto any government bill apart from one that attempts to extend the life of parliament (effectively stopping a government deciding it wants to go on forever). Of course they can veto any bills that start in their own house and any that are submitted at the near end of a session - 1 month from the end. But the government can re-submit and they have to let it past. They cannot forcibly amend bills, they can - just like any member of parliament - suggest amendments. The government does not have to include or accept them. I don't like the way the HoL is selected but it's actual function is critical and we need a second house - preferably elected along the lines of Congress in the US - who do it every 2 years to curtail the power of a potentially unpopular president. And the last time a monarch refused consent was 1708. That Guardian article manages to list some bills the Queen was asked to look at, apparently only one - a private members bill about declaring war on Iraq - did she have objection to. But I'm a republican, I'd have the lot of them out as well - we could just get their waxworks from Tussauds and stick them on the Buck Palace balcony for the tourists. And we are far from being the only country in Europe with a monarch who gives consent. Holland, Belgium, Spain and a few more all have monarchs who have the power of royal assent in some form or other.

Quote ="Doom&Gloom Merchant"Like the power to reject or amend bills - that kind of power? Thank god we have Lord Hugh Tottingbridge-Swithamwick sat in his cloak in Westminster looking out for our best interests. Or old Queeny giving her consent to pass new laws, our PM visiting her weekly to 'discuss matters' or the heir to the throne using his political influence to lobby MP's. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan ... veto-bills'" Have you read the parliament act? "The result was the Parliament Act 1911, which removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a Bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. Instead, the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years (now changed to 1". The only bills the HoL can "veto" are private members bills, they cannot veto any government bill apart from one that attempts to extend the life of parliament (effectively stopping a government deciding it wants to go on forever). Of course they can veto any bills that start in their own house and any that are submitted at the near end of a session - 1 month from the end. But the government can re-submit and they have to let it past. They cannot forcibly amend bills, they can - just like any member of parliament - suggest amendments. The government does not have to include or accept them. I don't like the way the HoL is selected but it's actual function is critical and we need a second house - preferably elected along the lines of Congress in the US - who do it every 2 years to curtail the power of a potentially unpopular president. And the last time a monarch refused consent was 1708. That Guardian article manages to list some bills the Queen was asked to look at, apparently only one - a private members bill about declaring war on Iraq - did she have objection to. But I'm a republican, I'd have the lot of them out as well - we could just get their waxworks from Tussauds and stick them on the Buck Palace balcony for the tourists. And we are far from being the only country in Europe with a monarch who gives consent. Holland, Belgium, Spain and a few more all have monarchs who have the power of royal assent in some form or other.

For me this vote tomorrow isn't all about money and jobs. It's more about democracy and being responsible for our own destiny and making our own laws and rules. Many people died fighting for the democracy we all now take for granted. Don't throw it away and become ruled by the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Vote LEAVE


So many good erudite arguments ...until somebody cuts and pastes a piece from the Daily Express

The salient points for me:

We are not voting to join the EU (completly hypothetical) we are voting for a divorce...divorces are never pretty nor as ordered as you might hope.

The leave campaign is bluster, bravado and an appeal to the tribal instincts ....no more than that.

To date I have not seen one country (China, India, USA, not even Tuvalu) queueing up or thumping down the door to do a UK favourable deal if only we were to leave the EU?

Perhaps we are the world's 5th biggest economy because of the EU and the access to the Free Trade Zone?

How long will these wonderful new trade deals take to conclude (a darn sight longer I'm sure than Brexit would have us believe)? We will be in a position of weakness as all present trade deals unravel. Politically the EU (and other countries) will play hard ball with us. The EU especially, politically, cannot afford not to.

I LOVE the concept of Free Movement ..we might be glad of it when the banks do manage to bankrupt our country next time.

(Either way that Free Movement can just as easily flow in a different direction when other EU economies grow - unless of course you think that won't happen and the UK will [ialways[/i have the strongest economy?)