You must vote leave ...

For an organization that was set up to avoid WW3, it is turning into a threat to peace.  The EU proved to be ineffective during the prolonged break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s - NATO had to impose order.  The EU getting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 was as laughable as Obama getting it a few years earlier - NATO maintained peace in Europe.  The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 established the European External Action Service (EEAS), equivalent to the Foreign Office.  Baroness Ashton - a Blair life peer, was the first 'High Representative'.  A minor Labour apparatchik with no foreign policy experience, she was a classic EU appointment in that none of the other countries thought she would show any initiative or rock the boat.  And they were right.  The EEAS has around 140 offices round the world, some 4000 staff and an annual budget of some 1/2 billion euros. It's a fair bet that several/most EU members also have embassies/consulates in the same countries.  The EEAS is supposed to put forward the EU view on world matters, though I doubt the 28 members can agree anything.  Massive duplication and expense for minimal effect.


In 2011 Ashton, Merkel et al wouldn't support a no-fly zone in Libya to stop Gadaffi slaughtering civilians. Conversely, the EU's desire to get the Ukraine (a country characterised by extreme and corrupt politicians) into its fiefdom gave Putin an excuse to flex his military muscle and boost his popularity at home.  Anyone who lived through the Cold War knew that the Ukraine was very much in Russia's sphere of influence - leave it a decade or so and the desire of the populations of U&R to emulate western living standards would bring about a liberalization of both countries.  However Brussels had to self-importantly interfere with predictably dire results.

Now Brussels wants an EU army.  In the unlikely event of the 28 members agreeing to deploy troops, I would imagine some units would behave like UN peace-keeping forces (ie rape and loot the local population), some would refuse to fight, some would fight amongst themselves, and any effective action would be down to the only two effective militaries in the EU, Britain and France.  As it stands, we already cooperate closely with France in such matters.  tbc

The EEAS/European army fiascos are relatively minor compared to the two biggest current failures of the EU, namely the ruinous Eurozone project and the failure to control mass migration from Africa, the Middle East and Southern Asia.

Since the creation of the euro in 1999, Germany has run a positive current account balance of about 1.5 trillion euros.  In contrast the current account balances of France, Spain and Italy are about 1.2 trillion euros in the red (assume Greece, Portugal, Ireland and the other debtor nations for the balance).  Germany alternates with China as the world's biggest exporter of manufactured goods.  It is successful because the depressed euro (kept low by the profligate Mediterranean fringe) allows it to export goods at prices some 30% less than with the deutsche mark.  Conversely, the south was able to borrow shedloads of money at artificially low interest rates.  The Germans hold much of this debt and it is increasingly obvious that most can never be repaid. Remember the farming village in Greece with the highest per capita ownership of Porsches in the world?  All the austerity being imposed on Greece, Portugal and the others by Germany is totally counterproductive - it cripples their economies and just slows the rate of debt increase without reducing it.  Sooner or later Germany will have to bite the bullet and forgive most of the debt.  The Germans will be massively pi**ed off and this will almost certainly lead to the break-up of the euro, if not the EU in its current form.  It's cerainly a bigger risk than Brexit.  The lesson is you can't have monetary union without fiscal/political union first. The EU in its present form is certain to collapse.  If we're still in we shall certainly be asked to contribute more money.  Much more.

This C4 debate is very entertaining.  But how come the Remain campaign have consistently picked poor speakers in virtually all debates?  Conspiracy or accurate reflection?

Would we be better off outside the EU?  Looking at the cost-benefit analyses that have been carried out (what you get out depends on what you want to get out), the answers generally fall in the range of plus or minus 1% of GDP.  The disgraceful government-sponsored leaflet (£10 million of our money on propaganda that makes the Iraq WMD dossier of 2003 seem like a product of impeccable research) that stated we would be £4,300/household worse off by 2030 - was deliberately dishonest and statistical garbage.  As for the dire predictions of the IMF, World Bank, the OECD and the US economic establishment, their track record of accurate prediction is thin to non-existent. Truly, Economics is the "science" that makes Astrology look respectable. What all these institutions have in common - along with Osborne and his Treasury goons - is that they have failed to deal with the global financial crisis of 2008 and we are in an even worse state now, especially as they have exhausted the usual remedial tools, namely lowering interest rates and printing money.  Some event is bound to trigger the next crisis and they fear Brexit may be it. It's only a matter of time.

(Just heard the Remain Police stooge say police officers keep the public safe on the streets of London.  Did I dream the London riots?)

The current official UK National Debt is around £1.65 trillion but total British liabilities, including state & public pensions, as well as other commitments (eg PPP rip-offs) by the government, are nearer £5 trillion.  Many complain of austerity but Osborne has always borrowed 1 1/2 to 2 billion a week.  We're amoral debt junkies who are happy to saddle unborn generations with our unearned entitlements.  The sooner asset bubbles are burst and zombie institutions and individuals go bankrupt, the sooner we can get back to economic normalcy - you know, receive interest on savings and similar crazy stuff.  In 2008 the political/economic elite didn't feel like getting poorer and got the unsuspecting masses to bail them out - that wont be so easy next time.  It wont be pretty but the longer we leave it the worse it will be.  Better get some practice in scavenging rubbish dumps.

And remember all those penalty shootouts.....now is the time to score against The Filthy Hun.

Let's incoherently ramble about money and trade.

We gave just under £18 billion to the EU in 2015. After the rebate is applied (not guaranteed in the future) and EU subsidies and grants to the UK, we paid out about £6.5 billion net.  The second largest total contribution after Germany, but on a per capita basis the Dutch pay almost 4x as much.  Good on the Dutch.  I guess it's insurance against being occupied by Germany again.  Money well spent.

If we leave we would be relieved of some of the costs of regulation/red tape (it is reckoned the annual cost to UK businesses and the public sector of EU social policy is just over £9 billion), we could cut customs duties on many non-EU imports (eg 17% footwear, 12% clothing, 10% cars), we could get cheaper food by ditching the CAP (designed to protect inefficient French farmers), and could cut costs associated with supporting EU migrants.  Free access to the Single Market (SM) is an oxymoron - we have to impose EU rules across the whole economy (these rules have to be applied domestically and to everything we export, even though only 12% of our GDP is related to the EU), we pay that annual fee of £18 billion, we have to charge tariffs on non-EU imports without being able to negotiate trade deals with other countries, and we provide services to EU migrants.  I've seen figures suggesting that after leaving, the average common external tariff we would have to pay would be around 3% - that could be neutralized by a small fall in the value of the pound.  Arguably, the £8 billion or so we pay into the EU budget is equivalent to a tariff of about 7% on our goods (so you avoid a 3% tariff by paying a 7% tariff?)!

In 2013 our net contribution to the EU was about £6.7 billion. Most of the money went on subsidizing farming (39% though farming contributes only 1.7% to the EU economy(incredibly the CAP used to consume 98% in the days of wine and milk lakes, and beef and butter mountains - some old posters on here will be getting misty-eyed with nostalgia)and funding infrastructure and employment projects, mostly in the poorer regions (aka roads to nowhere and deserted airports).  If the single market is so great, why are so many countries in the EU doing so badly?  Apart from the usual suspects, Italy's GDP has stagnated, the total (not annual) increase since the birth of the euro in 1999 being 3%. And why are so many non-EU countries exporting more into the SM than we are? Boris quotes figures that show 36 non-EU countries have exported more into the SM since its foundation in 1993 than the UK. Conversely, we don't have a trade deal with the US but it's a major partner. The % of UK goods and services exported to the EU is decreasing, from 55% in 1999 to 44% in 2015, probably 39% with the Rotterdam effect (re-exported) applied.  tbc

This referendum is mainly about immigration.  About 7.7 million foreign-born people live in the UK, about 2.6 million of whom were born in the EU.  Plus, aggregating best guesses, around a million illegal immigrants.  The only reason the boatload of Albanians were caught last week was because they phoned their location in when they got in trouble.  Our border controls are a joke - 3 boats for 7000 miles of coastline compred to Greece with hundreds.  More tellingly, thanks to our wonderful legal system and the skeletonization of the enforcement side, I'd be very surprised (and deeply impressed) if just 1 in 10 of failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants actually gets deported.  If you get here illegally, there is little chance of you being removed.

Nevertheless, we are a working multi-racial society - trust me, attitudes are so much better than in the 50s&60s.  I believe Leicester is the most multi-racial city in the world, and I suspect London is the most multi-racial capital city.  I'm surprised there's so little strife, but continued high levels of immigration will inevitably lead to a breakdown of social cohesion.

Millions of additional migrants (one every 3 years plus those already here have substantially higher birth-rates) put great pressure on our existing infrastructure - housing, schools, health and social services, transport, power, local councils and justice system. The working classes/poorer people in society are most affected by the consequences of mass immigration but are virtually ignored by this government.  Shockingly, they also seem to have been largely abandoned by the Labour Party.  I can sort of see the justice of people coming from countries we exploited during the days of empire coming here and thriving, but I suspect the descendants of the elite who made fortunes from colonial trade/loot are also the ones doing best this time (cheaper agricultural and factory labour, and a glut of nannies, gardeners, builders etc).  To paraphrase, it's the same old story, it's the rich what gets the pleasure, it's the poor what gets the pain.

The reasons the migrants risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean and Aegean are fairly obvious.  Populations have grown beyond the point where their own countries - almost all arid/semi-arid - can support them. This leads to civil war, often in the guise of religious strife.  Europe must seem like the promised land - rule of law, democracy, stability, generally free/subsidized education and healthcare  and a benefits/welfare system that defies belief. As Merkel pointed out, Europe has 7% of the world's population, 25% of global GDP, and 50% of global welfare spending (58% according to the World Bank, compared to the combined 3% of China and India). Completely unaffordable and still rising, but no government dare tackle this.  In contrast, spending on things that would increase productivity, such as education and infrastructure, is declining.  Someone coming to this country legally will find free healthcare and education, money when you're out of work, money when you're in work but earn below a certain level, money (and often a free car) if you are physically unable to work or just get depressed at the thought of working, money when you have children, and money when you grow old.  This is unsustainable now, and mass immigration will bring an end to much of it.  If you want to keep your (ironically named) 'entitlements', you must vote Brexit.  It's already been flagged that if we stay in the EU we will have to find substantial additional amounts to pay for the migration crisis.

Seconded.

my mum told me about that quote dw2e

I can confirm that sadly, it hasn't, bodil.

Odds and sods.


The open borders of the Schengen zone are a gift to organized crime and terrorists.  The smarter criminals come to the richest countries, which includes us.  Thanks to our weakened/liberalized police/legal systems, they are having an increased impact on our crime figures. I've seen articles from our indigenous crime families complaining about the ruthlessness of the newcomers.  The European Convention on Human Rights prevents us from deporting many dangerous criminals (though to be fair, our own legal system cheerfully takes loads of money to protect the rights of the offender (less keen on the victims)).  Unless there is an active arrest warrant out, we have to let in known criminals.

To regain full control of our borders we have to leave the SM/EU.  The migration crisis cannot be solved within the EU.  Merkel arbitrarily broke the Dublin agreement (asylum seekers remain in the (safe) countries in they first registered) to admit a million Middle Eastern refugees.  It's been estimated that they will each bring in 4 to 8 family members.  Once granted citizenship they can move anywhere in the EU.  The second-language of the vast majority is English, and all major groups already have substantial populations in the UK. And remember, we get migrants from all sides of every conflict, not just the innocent bystanders.  As an aside, the older 'uns on here will remember when the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka were largely funded by credit card fraud at UK filling stations.  Well, the Sinhalese (also here in significant numbers) solved their local inter-racial spat by herding the Tamils (introduced by the British to pick tea) into a corner of the island and shelling the hell out of them.  As a species we do tend to violent solutions.

sofia , you read it all ?

What about the animals, bodil. What would thy vote?

Alan Price is voting remain, not sure about the others in the band.

sofia, I was hoping that you were going to tell me that Scotland will leave the UK if we vote to go.  So I'll pretend that you did anyway.

According to the Petroleum Exploration Society of GB bulletins, just 16 exploration/development wells will be drilled this year, the lowest for decades.  Decommissioning costs (removal of wells/installations) are estimated to be around £58 billion, mostly to be paid by the UK (or Scottish) government.  With tax breaks etc, UK income from the North Sea this year is going to be about minus £1 billion, so I recall reading.  You really dodged the bullet by voting to remain.  The Scots are too smart to vote out again.  They elect the SNP because they know - correctly - they will extract the maximum from the English.  Meanwhile the SNP elected cohorts are in the process of showing themselves to be just as corrupt, venal, sexually depraved and prone to substance abuse and violence as any other political party.  It was good while the dream lasted.

Must get back to the serious stuff.

Think of a country in Africa for the asterisks.  Or substitute chortling.

Not long now.

related fgs!

I didn't see it but I heard about it. Obviously she meant well, but got it wrong from what I can gather.

I'm guided by the CEO of Compassion In World Farming on this.

In our fight against live exports, we have been told time and again that since animals are legally considered ‘goods’, it would be unlawful under EU regulations to ban the trade of live animals. And yet, if we left the EU, the trade would most likely continue. Indeed, trade between the UK and member states would then be governed by World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, which, just like the EU regulations, prohibit trade restrictions on ‘goods’. Therefore, any attempt to ban live exports could face a challenge by the WTO, and without strong political will to see an end to the trade, any such move would be unlikely.

This is no time for gloating ....


Hahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahhahhahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahhahahhahahaha ......

16 looks pretty good now.  Seriously - to cash out or not to cash out?