Brexit or Britin

[thebish]

Who the Dickens are this bunch then - Leave.eu? And how've they acquired my personal details? They've written to me, or at least sent me a personally addressed standard draft.

they've not written to me!

[bedwetter2]

Who the Dickens are this bunch then - Leave.eu? And how've they acquired my personal details? They've written to me, or at least sent me a personally addressed standard draft.

Mwhahah, we know more about you than you yourself do. Trying to escape Leave.eu is futile.

[Lord Kangana]

They've written to me too.

Might I add, amongst their bullet points about how all foreigners are shifty and other such guff, if you look, is a point about Europe wanting to regulate the financial sector in this country. I think you'll find that's their backers and motivation. As it is with most of the movers and shakers on the exit side.

[bobo the clown]

I've just had Plaid Cymru write to me pleading for me to join them in keeping I.

I've never agreed with them about a bind thing. They don't help their own cause.

[thebish]

I've just had Plaid Cymru write to me pleading for me to join them in keeping I.

I've never agreed with them about a bind thing. They don't help their own cause.

^ good to see you picking up a smattering of welsh, though!

[thebish]

hmmm....

Lord O'Donnell, former head of the UK Civil Service under three prime ministers, has described the prospect of having to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU as "a bit scary".

Should the UK vote to leave it would have just two years to renegotiate access to the EU's single market, a new relationship with the EU and all its existing trading links with other countries. A Cabinet report as well as an external study have both come to the conclusion the process could take a decade or longer to complete.

Two years is the amount of time allowed under EU rules, with any extension of this deadline requiring unanimous agreement from all 27 other EU member states. With French and German elections next year Lord O'Donnell says it could be "very difficult" to achieve positive results for the UK in any renegotiation, before even considering whether an extension would be granted.

He also highlighted how Greenland's decision to withdraw from the European Community in 1985 took three years: "Greenland has a slightly smaller population than Croydon and it has one issue, and that's fish," he said. "So with one issue, small population it took them not two years but three. We have multiple issues. The idea that we can do it all in two years I think is highly unlikely."

[Hoboh]

hmmm....

Lord O'Donnell, former head of the UK Civil Service under three prime ministers, has described the prospect of having to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU as "a bit scary".

Should the UK vote to leave it would have just two years to renegotiate access to the EU's single market, a new relationship with the EU and all its existing trading links with other countries. A Cabinet report as well as an external study have both come to the conclusion the process could take a decade or longer to complete.

Two years is the amount of time allowed under EU rules, with any extension of this deadline requiring unanimous agreement from all 27 other EU member states. With French and German elections next year Lord O'Donnell says it could be "very difficult" to achieve positive results for the UK in any renegotiation, before even considering whether an extension would be granted.

He also highlighted how Greenland's decision to withdraw from the European Community in 1985 took three years: "Greenland has a slightly smaller population than Croydon and it has one issue, and that's fish," he said. "So with one issue, small population it took them not two years but three. We have multiple issues. The idea that we can do it all in two years I think is highly unlikely."

Immediate cessation of any funds going into the EU budget might sharpen quite a few minds, more so the 'awkward squad' former commie countries who might see a dip in their grants.

[Worthy4England]

hmmm....

Lord O'Donnell, former head of the UK Civil Service under three prime ministers, has described the prospect of having to negotiate the UK's exit from the EU as "a bit scary".

Should the UK vote to leave it would have just two years to renegotiate access to the EU's single market, a new relationship with the EU and all its existing trading links with other countries. A Cabinet report as well as an external study have both come to the conclusion the process could take a decade or longer to complete.

Two years is the amount of time allowed under EU rules, with any extension of this deadline requiring unanimous agreement from all 27 other EU member states. With French and German elections next year Lord O'Donnell says it could be "very difficult" to achieve positive results for the UK in any renegotiation, before even considering whether an extension would be granted.

He also highlighted how Greenland's decision to withdraw from the European Community in 1985 took three years: "Greenland has a slightly smaller population than Croydon and it has one issue, and that's fish," he said. "So with one issue, small population it took them not two years but three. We have multiple issues. The idea that we can do it all in two years I think is highly unlikely."

Immediate cessation of any funds going into the EU budget might sharpen quite a few minds, more so the 'awkward squad' former commie countries who might see a dip in their grants.

But surely, it's not just about sharpening minds? That's a bit simplistic. Some of the Contracts we do at work can easily take two/three years to negotiate - that's with minds (other than mine of course) that are plenty sharpened by incentives on both sides. They're just big complex things to deal with.

[Bijou Bob]

I'm getting so sick of the scaremongering, I'm now wavering towards voting out. Almost. Maybe.

[Worthy4England]

^^ I reckon basing a vote on who scared you the least is a sound judgemental approach.

[Hoboh]

^^ I reckon basing a vote on who scared you the least is a sound judgemental approach.

You're far scarier than me mate

[Worthy4England]

^^ I reckon basing a vote on who scared you the least is a sound judgemental approach.

You're far scarier than me mate

There are no depths you wouldn't plumb to try and get a vote for your side.

[Hoboh]

[BWFC_Insane]

"If you chop your leg off with that chainsaw you may bleed to death and will not be able to walk again".

"Look your scaremongering tactics don't work on me, I'm fed up of hearing scare stories and consequences, I'm a' chopping"

"Ok then......."

"Owwww, why didn't you warn me....."

[thebish]

just because one side or the other labels an opinion from someone as "scaremongering" doesn't mean it is... it could just be an honest opinion - and as such, could turn out to be right or wrong.... the best response is to argue the case on its merits as you see it and to challenge opinions where you need further answers...

I'm getting fed up of everything everyone ever says on the EU question being labelled as "scaremongering" - it's a very lazy argument IMO...

[bobo the clown]

^^^ well said.

.... & without any irony whatsoever. Well done.

[thebish]

meanwhile, Brexit and football - a heady mix!!

British football could be radically changed if the UK votes to leave the European Union, according to experts and leading voices in the game.
Some fear so-called Brexit could lead to more than 400 players losing the right to play in the UK, while others say it may give home talent a chance.
The UK will decide if it wants to stay in the EU in a referendum on 23 June.
"Leaving the EU will have a much bigger effect on football than people think," said football agent Rachel Anderson.
"We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits.
"The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent."

Players with an EU passport are currently free to play in the UK. Those without must meet Home Office criteria, the most important being that they are established internationals for leading nations.
Analysis of squads in the first two tiers in England and the Scottish Premiership has revealed a total of 332 players would fail to meet the current standards.
More than 100 Premier League players would be affected with Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Watford facing losing 11 players from their squads, while Championship side Charlton Athletic would need to find 13 replacements.
In fact, only 23 of the 180 non-British EU players currently playing in the Championship would get work permits - and most of those are former internationals from Ireland or Commonwealth nations with British passports.

brexiters have dismissed this as "scaremongering" - as follows:

But supporters of the various Leave campaigns have dismissed this as scaremongering, with Brian Monteith of Leave.eu telling the BBC a post-Brexit UK would be able to lower freedom-of-movement restrictions on the rest of the world which would "broaden the talent pool, not reduce it".

but - hang on... Brexit campaigners usually say that leaving the EU is about our freedom to TIGHTEN freedom of movement rules and RESTRICT entry - not broaden it???? Are they really now saying that leaving the EU will lead us relaxing our immigration controls for the rest of the world (which would include Europe - as that's in the rest of the world?) This rsponse confuses me!

as for labelling it as scaremongering... the BBC piece argues that it might be a good thing or might be a bad thing for clubs - hardly classic scaremongering!

[Harry Genshaw]

Half of the Premier league players might have to apply for work permits? The poor loves. They'll just ask their agents to sort it.

Think I'm likely to vote out just to annoy Cameron. Spite seems as good a reason as any to vote one way or t'other

[Hoboh]

meanwhile, Brexit and football - a heady mix!!

British football could be radically changed if the UK votes to leave the European Union, according to experts and leading voices in the game.
Some fear so-called Brexit could lead to more than 400 players losing the right to play in the UK, while others say it may give home talent a chance.
The UK will decide if it wants to stay in the EU in a referendum on 23 June.
"Leaving the EU will have a much bigger effect on football than people think," said football agent Rachel Anderson.
"We're talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits.
"The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent."

Players with an EU passport are currently free to play in the UK. Those without must meet Home Office criteria, the most important being that they are established internationals for leading nations.
Analysis of squads in the first two tiers in England and the Scottish Premiership has revealed a total of 332 players would fail to meet the current standards.
More than 100 Premier League players would be affected with Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Watford facing losing 11 players from their squads, while Championship side Charlton Athletic would need to find 13 replacements.
In fact, only 23 of the 180 non-British EU players currently playing in the Championship would get work permits - and most of those are former internationals from Ireland or Commonwealth nations with British passports.

brexiters have dismissed this as "scaremongering" - as follows:

But supporters of the various Leave campaigns have dismissed this as scaremongering, with Brian Monteith of Leave.eu telling the BBC a post-Brexit UK would be able to lower freedom-of-movement restrictions on the rest of the world which would "broaden the talent pool, not reduce it".

but - hang on... Brexit campaigners usually say that leaving the EU is about our freedom to TIGHTEN freedom of movement rules and RESTRICT entry - not broaden it???? Are they really now saying that leaving the EU will lead us relaxing our immigration controls for the rest of the world (which would include Europe - as that's in the rest of the world?) This rsponse confuses me!

as for labelling it as scaremongering... the BBC piece argues that it might be a good thing or might be a bad thing for clubs - hardly classic scaremongering!

said football agent Rachel Anderson

Oh aye, not like a vested interest then?

[Worthy4England]

Well it's not like most folks on either side of the debate have any vested interests now, is it?