Brexit or Britin

[Worthy4England]

It comes from the Bellylaugh. Noted and objective mouthpiece of everything European....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... of-how-he/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

It comes from "quote" ffs. Rock solid.

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/ar ... ooperation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referendum- ... eu-1551334" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pouring cold water over claims by Prime Minister David Cameron that the UK is more secure inside the bloc, he said that Europe could not turn its back on Britain if it left the EU because London's intelligence services "give much more" than they get in return. Dearlove led the Secret Intelligence Service from 1999 to 2004.

Dearlove was also highly critical of the EU's intelligence bodies, describing them as the "leakiest ships of state" and colanders riddled with holes. He said: "The larger powers cannot put their best intelligence material into such colanders. The British voice is nonetheless very influential because its intelligence and security community is, an will certainly remain, the strongest and most mature in Europe."

He also dismissed claims that a Brexit would harm intelligence cooperation between the UK and the EU. "It is difficult to image any of the other EU members ending the relationships they already enjoy with the UK."

[Lord Kangana]

It comes from the Bellylaugh. Noted and objective mouthpiece of everything European....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... of-how-he/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would seem to suggest that it was our security forces who failed to share important information.

How would Brexit improve that?

[Worthy4England]

Will you make your mind up - both those second links say we share intelligence with EU countries. You're first attempt was trying to tell us we don't? Which is it?

He said liaison between allies is partly driven by 'moral considerations'. For instance, if Germany learns of a terrorist plot against London, it would not withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is no longer within the bloc, he pointed out

That would, just as a passing comment, be the same doddering Sir Richard Dearlove who declared not very long ago (Jul 14) - 6 months prior to Charlie Hebdo...

that Britons spreading "blood-curdling" messages on the internet should be ignored. He told an audience in London on Monday there had been a fundamental change in the nature of Islamist extremism since the Arab spring. It had created a major political problem in the Middle East but the west, including Britain, was only "marginally affected".

We'll skip over the intelligence gathering in the UK under his leadership that allowed the IRA to actually blow up his office with an RPG.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... d-dearlove" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Brussels conference was told that the ISIS attacks on Brussels further underlines the "urgent need" for improved collaboration between Europe's intelligence services

I'm all confused again. Help Hobes! What can it all mean?

[Worthy4England]

It comes from the Bellylaugh. Noted and objective mouthpiece of everything European....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... of-how-he/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would seem to suggest that it was our security forces who failed to share important information.

How would Brexit improve that?

We could get even better at not sharing intelligence by ensuring none leaks out accidentally.

I feel more secure already.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Interestingly it appears from that that migrants are sneaking out of the UK in the back of lorries. I'd have thought Hoboh would be dancing for joy at this.

[Hoboh]

Interestingly it appears from that that migrants are sneaking out of the UK in the back of lorries. I'd have thought Hoboh would be dancing for joy at this.

I'd be laying on coaches.

Actually it was people going to Syria Jihadi John and his pal wasn't it? to evade arrest.

[Worthy4England]

Interestingly it appears from that that migrants are sneaking out of the UK in the back of lorries. I'd have thought Hoboh would be dancing for joy at this.

I'd be laying on coaches.

Actually it was people going to Syria Jihadi John and his pal wasn't it? to evade arrest.

Aye - but the bastards might still be here if we'd had really tight borders and they couldn't get out. They'd have faced full trial at the taxpayers expense and if that was all done with, now be being put up on HM Estates at the taxpayers cost. As it happens we offed the fcker and saved ourselves some cash. No pleasing some folks.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Interestingly it appears from that that migrants are sneaking out of the UK in the back of lorries. I'd have thought Hoboh would be dancing for joy at this.

I'd be laying on coaches.

Actually it was people going to Syria Jihadi John and his pal wasn't it? to evade arrest.

Nah, it said people got off in various places.

I assume you're paying for these coaches then?

[thebish]

rats in a sack...

Nigel Farage has accused the official EU leave campaign of not focusing hard enough on immigration.

The UKIP leader said Vote Leave had been "too defensive" and needed to speak about the EU's "open borders" to take the fight to the "enemy".

He said the Cabinet ministers in Vote Leave lacked credibility because of the government's record on immigration.

Mr Farage is not part of Vote Leave and is running his own UKIP campaign for an exit vote in 23 June's referendum.

[thebish]

UKIP leader Nigel Farage claims he has been sidelined by the Vote Leave campaign.

“Every time I attempt to work with them I am rebuffed and rejected,” he said in a speech.

He claims Vote Leave, which gained the official designation after a bitter battle with Mr Farage's Grassroots Out campaign, is on the "back foot" because it is not talking enough about immigration.

Asked for a response, Vote Leave said: "We wish Nigel well".

[Rjs37]

I'm actually glad Farage hasn't been involved in the official out campaign. He's just far too divisive, and bleating on and on about immigration isn't going to win any more people over to the Out vote.

I've briefly skimmed through the thread so forgive me if I've missed certain comments etc.
As a disclaimer, I'm firmly in the Out vote (probably easy to guess when you read below ), though I expect that we'll end up with a pretty convincing Remain. Likely to be between 60/40 and 65/35.

Traditionally we dislike change and uncertainty, and the people who would be responsible for making the decisions and doing the negotiations post Brexit unfortunately aren't staying unbiased and offering realistic views on what would happen. Leading to even greater uncertainty.

Instead, they're trying to scare people, using reports suggesting that we'll be £4k+ worse off per year, even though that figure is based on GDP and just dividing that by the number of households, which if we did the same calculation now would make the average household income around £66k. Quite a bit higher than the actual figure of £44k. And they're not even saying that we'll be £4k worse off than we currently are. From what I've read into it, they're still predicting GDP growth following Brexit, just that the GDP will grow even more if we remain. And that's based on predictions 14? years in the future, when most financial predictions are usually far from accurate 12 months in the future let alone that long.

The strange thing is, there's a lot of uncertainties about whichever way we vote. We don't know what the EU will look like in 14 years time. The situation could be far worse or far better whether we stay in or leave, no-one really knows. Though admittedly it's the lesser unknown. If I was able to predict the future, then I'd be making a lot of money on the stock market right now!

Also this two years business, that's a two year notice period. We wouldn't have to give notice straight away, only if we choose to. Though DC probably would be silly enough to do it straight away. Besides there would most certainly be a second referendum following an Out vote. Either one of those "you got it wrong so here's a second chance to get it right" referendums, or one giving the British public a choice of which type of trade deal we should be making with EU, similar to the one Switzerland had when they rejected the EEA.

Lastly, and this probably does border on scaremongering, I would recommend reading up on the TTIP. The proposed trade deal between US and EU. It is a scary thing what the ramifications of it could mean. The Dutch people demanded a referendum over it, a matter of days after they last voted on a European issue - I'm not sure if they're actually getting it. I want the UK to have a trade deal with the US (whether on it's own or as part of the EU) but not one like that. And if that's all they're offering, then I'd rather be at the back of the queue.

[Rjs37]

Also for those who are on the fence, I'd thoroughly recommend the following book, it is pretty heavy on facts and figures but it covers both sides of the argument.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Europe-Everythi ... e-redirect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found it to be incredibly unbiased, actually convincing me to change my mind on a few points (in favour of staying), and explains what the likely impact would be across the various sectors and industries.

It's not likely to change any opinions of those who have already made up their minds, but it may give you more ammunition/conviction either way. I think it's useful to make a fully informed decision no matter if it's an in or out vote .

[thebish]

Lastly, and this probably does border on scaremongering, I would recommend reading up on the TTIP. The proposed trade deal between US and EU. It is a scary thing what the ramifications of it could mean. The Dutch people demanded a referendum over it, a matter of days after they last voted on a European issue - I'm not sure if they're actually getting it. I want the UK to have a trade deal with the US (whether on it's own or as part of the EU) but not one like that. And if that's all they're offering, then I'd rather be at the back of the queue.

well - yes - there are lots of potentially bad things about the TTIP... what's not clear from your response is how you expect that (from the back of the queue) we'd expect to negotiate a better deal with the US from a position of less power...

[Rjs37]

Lastly, and this probably does border on scaremongering, I would recommend reading up on the TTIP. The proposed trade deal between US and EU. It is a scary thing what the ramifications of it could mean. The Dutch people demanded a referendum over it, a matter of days after they last voted on a European issue - I'm not sure if they're actually getting it. I want the UK to have a trade deal with the US (whether on it's own or as part of the EU) but not one like that. And if that's all they're offering, then I'd rather be at the back of the queue.

well - yes - there are lots of potentially bad things about the TTIP... what's not clear from your response is how you expect that (from the back of the queue) we'd expect to negotiate a better deal with the US from a position of less power...

I didn't say that we would be able to negotiate a better deal, though I don't think we'll struggle to put a deal of some kind in place. Historically we've worked very closely with the US, a huge proportion of our trade is with the US and we are the fifth biggest economy in the world. So we would be able to negotiate a deal, but yes probably not one better than TTIP, i.e. free trade without the bad stuff from TTIP. I think it would be ignorant for anyone to suggest that we couldn't come to some kind of arrangement.

I don't know how long it would take, but certainly other important trade deals have been agreed within a much shorter time frame than the government have been mentioning. One could argue that the bureaucracy of the EU makes arranging these trade deals more complicated, especially when any member of that union will be looking after their own best interests (quite naturally).

I don't think we'd struggle to get a deal, putting the same tariffs that are currently in place between EU and US. Even if we just do that as a short term measure. That's not technically a 'better deal' by maintaining the status quo in terms of tariffs, but that would be far preferable for me, than going down a similar route to TTIP. Granted a free trade agreement minus the scary parts of TTIP would be amazing and obviously the best case scenario (in or out of EU) but I'd be satisfied with keeping it as is for now.

I'm actually hoping for Europe's benefit (whether we're in it or not) that they turn down TTIP but it strangely seems that most of the governments (including our own) are actually backing it. I think all our government are asking for is that the NHS be exempt. Something that we may struggle to fight for when we're just one voice in 28. Though because of the government backing it, we could still end up in some sort of TTIP-like arrangement following a Brexit but leaving certainly makes the prospect less likely.

[Lord Kangana]

Without Europe, we will still get lumbered by TTIP, but if you look at the cabal of outers, the likelihood is that we'll just have all the shit parts of that combined with even less social justice and even less employment rights.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I hope this has not already been posted but I did enjoy the Patrick Stewart take off of a Monty Python sketch re the European Convention of Human Rights.

[Lord Kangana]

Sadly, Monty, there are a worryingly large number of people in this country who seem to be in love with the idea of getting rid of the ECHR.

[Bijou Bob]

I'm happy to see the back of the ECHR if it's replaced with a British bill of human rights that means we are effectively in control of our own judicial processes.

[Rjs37]

There's been some comments from Theresa May (I think) that we could get rid of the ECHR without leaving the EU. It'd be interesting to see how they'd react to that as I believe that's a key part of their joining criteria.

I'm not sure they'd let us get away with that. That's like treating the EU like a pick n mix, picking and choosing which bits we want, and that would go against the direction that they're heading.