Brexit Referendum Superthread

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

This, to be honest, strikes me as the archetypal response to any concerns expressed about the possible ramifications of Brexit. It's never "here's my detailed analysis based on carefully-researched investigation into the facts pertaining to the argument you've made"; it's always "it'll be fine, don't worry about it".

Is there detailed analysis that contravenes what I am saying? No. No one knows for sure what will happen. What we can say is that dire warning re the ESM and the Euro have been heard and proven to be false. People are not going to refuse to sign up to trade deals with the worlds 5th, soon possibly to be 4th, largest economy on the planet.

andrew wrote: »

I don't understand this reason, as there's no evidence that this has been bad economically for the UK (that I know of).

I agree but to me it seems other factors also carry wieght like border controls etc.

djpbarry wrote: »

You think that by leaving the EU, the UK can negotiate a better trade deal with the EU than the one it currently has?
Trade is in everyone’s interest, yes. But, like all Leave campaigners, you are vastly overstating the importance of UK trade to the rest of the EU. Access to the EU market is far more important to the UK than access to the UK market is to the EU.

Next time you head down to your local hardware/diy shop see how many things are made in China. Not in the EU but has extensive trade links. Even better take Taiwan. Much much smaller and more ostracised yet manages to trade with the EU. Hans and Pierre are buying widgets from John Bull Ltd in Slough. If the UK leaves a deal will be signed like that with Norway and Switzerland and they will continue to trade.

Commence shifting of goalposts.

You said “there is not one scintilla of evidence that the UK will lose jobs because of a Brexit”. Now you’re saying only “very few” jobs will be lost? Care to put a number on “very few”?

Ok that is a direct Union paid job which compose a small minority, tiny I'd say of jobs in the UK. The vast vast majority jobs are private sector and I have seen no evidence that jobs will be lost in this sector or in the Uk government funded sector.

But you said that the UK will continue to cooperate with EU states on security matters – now you’re saying they will not?.

Oh FFS! Stop being ridiculous. If, post Brexit, police in the UK pick up the phone to Polish police about a gang operating in both countries a with a view to exchange of information joint operation will the Poles say "sorry chaps you are not in the EU" and put the phone down? Likewise the UK co-operates with many middle eastern countries and Israel, very closely with Israel, on Islamic terrorism. EU membership has zilch to do with it.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote:

Is there detailed analysis that contravenes what I am saying? No. No one knows for sure what will happen

This has become something of a go-to dismissal of any suggested negative consequence of Brexit. The same logic mysteriously doesn't apply to benefits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lemming

Palmach wrote: »

I agree but to me it seems other factors also carry wieght like border controls etc.

And I've already responded to that. The border controls thing is a red-herring by media looking for click-bait, xenophobic sorts, and the gullible who accept whatever they read on facebook as gospel.

Ok that is a direct Union paid job which compose a small minority, tiny I'd say of jobs in the UK. The vast vast majority jobs are private sector and I have seen no evidence that jobs will be lost in this sector or in the Uk government funded sector.

You'd say? You've personally seen no evidence of jobs likely to be lost? Right... whatever you're having yourself so.

Have youever stopped to have a a cursory moment of reflection on the UK car industry (such as it exists now) and just who the major players are? Or Rolls Royce and BAE who are heavily involved in partnerships with continental companies? Or the employer of several friends whom I shall not name. These are BIG employers with actual revenue generation, not services industry jobs. We're talking tens of thousands of jobs and skillsets that are not readily replacable. They are very much at risk. The likes of RR and BAE I have no doubt will survive, but at what cost after they've been forced to rationalise?

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

No one knows for sure what will happen.

If the Leave campaign were in any way honest, that would be their slogan.

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

Next time you head down to your local hardware/diy shop see how many things are made in China. Not in the EU but has extensive trade links. Even better take Taiwan. Much much smaller and more ostracised yet manages to trade with the EU.

But in neither case is the trade “free”.

You, and others, keep missing this fundamental point. Absolutely nobody is suggesting that trade between the UK and EU will cease in the event of Brexit. However, what is being argued is that a trade deal negotiated between the UK and the EU post-Brexit could not possibly be more beneficial to the UK than that which currently exists.

Palmach wrote: »

If the UK leaves a deal will be signed like that with Norway and Switzerland and they will continue to trade.

Will it be better than the status quo?

Palmach wrote: »

Ok that is a direct Union paid job which compose a small minority, tiny I'd say of jobs in the UK.

“I’d say”?

Palmach wrote: »

The vast vast majority jobs are private sector and I have seen no evidence that jobs will be lost in this sector or in the Uk government funded sector.

I’ve just provided you with evidence that jobs will be lost and you dismissed it.

Palmach wrote: »

If, post Brexit, police in the UK pick up the phone to Polish police about a gang operating in both countries a with a view to exchange of information joint operation will the Poles say "sorry chaps you are not in the EU" and put the phone down?

No, but the UK will no longer be able to issue a European Arrest Warrant, for example.

Palmach

Lemming wrote: »

And I've already responded to that. The border controls thing is a red-herring by media looking for click-bait, xenophobic sorts, and the gullible who accept whatever they read on facebook as gospel.

It really isn't. If you leave the EU you can re-impose border controls. So can other countries with your citizens as well if that is a chance you are willing to take. Also you can set limits on welfare and entitlements outside the EU

Have youever stopped to have a a cursory moment of reflection on the UK car industry (such as it exists now) and just who the major players are? Or Rolls Royce and BAE who are heavily involved in partnerships with continental companies? Or the employer of several friends whom I shall not name. These are BIG employers with actual revenue generation, not services industry jobs. We're talking tens of thousands of jobs and skillsets that are not readily replacable. They are very much at risk. The likes of RR and BAE I have no doubt will survive, but at what cost after they've been forced to rationalise?

I am glad you brought up the car industry. John Redwood was asked this question on an Irish radio programme. He state all four of the big car producers had publicly said that a Brexit would not change their plans for further investment in the UK.

Palmach

djpbarry wrote: »

You, and others, keep missing this fundamental point. Absolutely nobody is suggesting that trade between the UK and EU will cease in the event of Brexit. However, what is being argued is that a trade deal negotiated between the UK and the EU post-Brexit could not possibly be more beneficial to the UK than that which currently exists.

It is not all about trade. There are benefits to choosing what you accept from the EC and you don't. That has been the Euroscepics point for a long while

“I’d say”?
I’ve just provided you with evidence that jobs will be lost and you dismissed it.
.

Well exactly how many jobs are directly funded by the EU in the UK that will be lost if there is a Brexit?

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

It really isn't. If you leave the EU you can re-impose border controls. So can other countries with your citizens as well if that is a chance you are willing to take. Also you can set limits on welfare and entitlements outside the EU

Except most EU immigrants are here to work and contribute, not drain benefits.

Palmach wrote: »

I am glad you brought up the car industry. John Redwood was asked this question on an Irish radio programme. He state all four of the big car producers had publicly said that a Brexit would not change their plans for further investment in the UK.

What about the heads of major Universities? Service providers? Banks? Major manufacturers? Pharmaceutical firms?

Palmach wrote: »

It is not all about trade. There are benefits to choosing what you accept from the EC and you don't. That has been the Euroscepics point for a long while

What imports from the EU are undesirable?

Palmach wrote: »

Well exactly how many jobs are directly funded by the EU in the UK that will be lost if there is a Brexit?

Have you a source to substantiate the claim that only a few will be lost?

Palmach

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-three-million-uk-jobs-rely-directly-our-place-eu/

From the link...................

Another report published in 2000 by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research concluded that "detailed estimates from input-output tables suggest that up to 3.2 million UK jobs are now associated directly with exports of goods and services to other EU countries." However this report acknowledges that:

"there is no a priori reason to suppose that many of these [jobs], if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU."

and...................

The most recent report Full Fact could find was conducted by Civitas in 2004. This provided an assessment of all the previous reports and concluded that "the economic impact of British withdrawal from the EU would be marginal—less than one per cent of GDP. Putting it another way, these three studies find that, for the UK, the net economic benefits of EU membership are at best marginal."

ancapailldorcha

Palmach wrote: »

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-three-million-uk-jobs-rely-directly-our-place-eu/

From the link...................

and...................

Don't have time to read that at the moment but a report from 2004 and no reason to assume that these jobs would be lost is not the sort of guarantee someone working for an EU migrant would need.

Scofflaw

Palmach wrote: »

I am glad you brought up the car industry. John Redwood was asked this question on an Irish radio programme. He state all four of the big car producers had publicly said that a Brexit would not change their plans for further investment in the UK.

John Redwood is, perhaps, misinformed:

Toyota, one of the biggest manufacturers in Britain, has warned it will be forced to make significant cutbacks if the country votes to leave the EU.

The SMMT found 88% of large automotive companies support staying in the EU, with 73% of small and medium-sized businesses also wanting to remain. Two-thirds of SMMT members think access to EU automotive markets has a positive impact on the company.

The SMMT membership includes leading car manufacturers such as Ford, Vauxhall and Nissan, as well as Toyota. The industry relies heavily on EU exports – which accounted for 57.5% of the vehicles produced in the UK in 2015, when car manufacturing reached a 10-year high of 1.59m units.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the SMMT, said Brexit is “one of the most important issues facing UK automotive industry” and that being in Europe is “vital for the future of this industry and to secure jobs, investment and growth”.

He added: “I don’t think it’s a question about the number of jobs [that could be lost]. We are looking at the medium to long-term, the next round of investments.”

The SMMT issued its findings as it emerged that BMW, which owns Rolls-Royce Motor Cars and Mini, has written to its 8,000 staff in the UK to warn that an exit from the EU would drive up costs and prices, and could affect the company’s “employment base”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/03/uk-motor-industry-backs-uk-remaining-in-europe-survey-eu-positive-impacy

And lest that be dismissed as "oh, it's the Guardian, what do you expect", this is similar from Autocar: http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/brexit-77-uk-motor-industry-wants-britain-remain-eu

The Leave campaign's response to such issues seems to be to first claim what is not true, then dismiss any contradiction by facts with the statement that "nobody can know for sure". I daresay the same technique will be applied to Sun's egregious claim that "the Queen backs Brexit!!". I can't quite work out whether the tactic is a result of low cunning, or simply ostrich-like behaviour (except in the case of the Sun, where it's clearly the former),

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

Also you can set limits on welfare and entitlements outside the EU

You can set limits inside the EU too. You just can’t discriminate against EU citizens.

Palmach wrote: »

I am glad you brought up the car industry. John Redwood was asked this question on an Irish radio programme.

The Tory MP John Redwood is the voice of the British automotive industry?

Palmach wrote: »

It is not all about trade.

Oh, it’s not about trade anymore? Is that a concession that Mighty Blighty may not carry the same umph in trade negotiations that the EU does?

Palmach wrote: »

Well exactly how many jobs are directly funded by the EU in the UK that will be lost if there is a Brexit?

It’s impossible to provide an “exact” number. Once again, this is precisely the point. Nobody can say for sure what will happen, but, given the massive amount of goods and services that the UK exports to the EU, it seems incredibly unlikely that there will be no job losses.

Palmach wrote: »

https://fullfact.org/economy/do-three-million-uk-jobs-rely-directly-our-place-eu/

From the link...................

Another report published in 2000 by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research concluded that "detailed estimates from input-output tables suggest that up to 3.2 million UK jobs are now associated directly with exports of goods and services to other EU countries." However this report acknowledges that:

"there is no a priori reason to suppose that many of these [jobs], if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU."

Ignoring for a moment that it is sixteen years old, the original report that those extracts are supposedly taken from is available here. I can find the first extract, but the second one is nowhere to be found.

However, the section from which the first extract is taken concludes with:

The provisional conclusion from the Institute’s model-based estimates is that the level of real gross national income would be around 1½–1¾ per cent lower outside the EU than inside, with GDP at constant prices being 2¼ per cent lower permanently than in the baseline case of continued EU membership. These estimates appear broadly equivalent to the gains that other EU economies are estimated to have made from the European integration process.

oscarBravo

Palmach wrote: »

If the UK leaves a deal will be signed like that with Norway and Switzerland and they will continue to trade.

Leaving aside for the moment the blithe statement of unquestioned fact that such a deal is even on offer, you're talking about a deal which requires those countries to contribute to the EU budget, to implement EU directives, to allow free movement of workers - all without having a voice at the table.

This is an improvement, how?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving aside for the moment the blithe statement of unquestioned fact that such a deal is even on offer

This is exactly what I meant about the Leave campaign and its "nobody can know for sure" claim - apparently, you can know for sure as long as it's a positive for the Leave campaign.

amused,
Scofflaw

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving aside for the moment the blithe statement of unquestioned fact that such a deal is even on offer, you're talking about a deal which requires those countries to contribute to the EU budget, to implement EU directives, to allow free movement of workers - all without having a voice at the table.

This is an improvement, how?

If they signed deals with the much much smaller economies of Norway and Switzerland why would they not do so with the much much larger UK? It's not going to not happen. Furthermore there are many EU Laws Norway and Switzerland do not have to implement which I think is obvious.

View

Palmach wrote: »

If they signed deals with the much much smaller economies of Norway and Switzerland why would they not do so with the much much larger UK? It's not going to not happen. Furthermore there are many EU Laws Norway and Switzerland do not have to implement which I think is obvious.

The EU certainly did so - some 40+ years after the formation of the first EC. It could be quite a wait for the UK.

Also, those agreements were signed to make it easier for those countries to join the EU at a future date, NOT to facilitate a country who has stormed off declaring the basic principles of those agreements are completely unacceptable to it.

FreudianSlippers

Palmach wrote: »

If they signed deals with the much much smaller economies of Norway and Switzerland why would they not do so with the much much larger UK? It's not going to not happen. Furthermore there are many EU Laws Norway and Switzerland do not have to implement which I think is obvious.

This is like fantasy football style politics; it's no big deal when you can hit the reset button if your hunch isn't correct, but in the real world I wouldn't like to be relying on tenuous analogies and wishful thinking to decide the future of my country.

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

If they signed deals with the much much smaller economies of Norway and Switzerland why would they not do so with the much much larger UK?

Once again, nobody is suggesting that the EU will cease trading with the UK altogether.

What is being said is that any deal negotiated post-Brexit necessarily has to be worse than the current arrangement.

Palmach

djpbarry wrote: »

Once again, nobody is suggesting that the EU will cease trading with the UK altogether.

What is being said is that any deal negotiated post-Brexit necessarily has to be worse than the current arrangement.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

As it is in the EU's favour I'd say the UK will be glad.

View

Palmach wrote: »

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

As it is in the EU's favour I'd say the UK will be glad.

The EU is a union of sovereign nations each of which has differing trading deficits or surpluses with the U.K. Were we facing, let's say, a possible Italian exit, the MPs in Westminster would NOT vote in favour of an EU-Italy trade agreement because it was good for, let's say, Poland or Spain - rather they'd only consider doing so were it in the UK's interest.

Likewise, no Italian politician is going to vote in favour of an EU-UK trade deal because it is good for Spain or Portugal. Their main concern would be should they negotiate at all and would they get a good deal for Italy at the end. Likewise for each & every other member state.

Sand

I think the whole weakness of the Brexit position is that it claims that British diplomats can negotiate a better position with the EU from outside the tent, than inside it. It doesn't add up. If British diplomacy is equal to that task, if the British have such incredible influence and leverage to dictate terms to the other 27 members of the EU...why do they fail to win those terms within the EU?

I'm a little less convinced of the greatness of British diplomacy - the "special relationship" took a bit of a beating today with Obama not sparing British blushes by calling them on being free loaders and not up to the job the US thought they could do in Libya.

Speaking of wargames and the limits of British diplomacy - the TV "wargames" the BBC televised recently on a WW3 conflict between Russia and NATO in Latvia highlighted one major point to me. Inside the wargame room the British political, military and ex-civil service figures agonised over the response to each scenario as the wargame escalated. Every time they came up with some policy, but it was completely irrelevant as actions by the US or Russia escalated and drove the conflict. The "wargame" was between the US and Russia. The British position was a complete sideshow.

djpbarry

Palmach wrote: »

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

As it is in the EU's favour I'd say the UK will be glad.

Is this the old "the UK imports more from the EU than it exports, therefore the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU" argument?

Because it overlooks the fact that the percentage of UK exports that go to the EU is far, far higher than the percentage of EU exports that go to the UK.

Trompette

djpbarry wrote: »

The UK covers the ERC’s entire budget? Really?

Obviousely you didn't read my post in link.
So I'll repeat it here:
Imagine the following storyline:
- At regular due date, you have to give me €100 and a wide smile
- Later I will give you €45 of MY money that you will have to use only to buy your food. It will be appreciated if you say “Thank you” to me.
- Later I will give you €30 of MY money that you will have to use only to pay you bills. It will be appreciated if you say “Thank you” to me.
- Total of MY money I will give you will be around €65, 65% of your contribution.
- A large part of the rest of MY money will be for my own usage.
- Before the next due date, you will have to provide a budget. I will approve it or not. If I don't approve it, you will have to modify regarding my directives.
- From now and for the next budgets, you will have to reduce your health expenses for 25%. If you don't do, you will have to pay fees.
- Don't hesitate to tell your neighbourhood I am a good budget manager and they should hire me.

Did you get it?
You understand that in this storyline you are UK state, I am EU institutions and your neighbourhood are the countries still outside of EU.

You can find the real values EU expenditure and revenue 2014-2020. In this page, change the left drop-list from expenditure (what each country pay to institutions) to revenue (what each country receive) and the easier to understand, balance.
These figures change every year. Roughly UK State pays has average of €4.9 billions a year net contribution (UK loss this amount).

And I repeat, pro-EU will never explain that, they will let you bellive that this money is from EU institutions and due to all the mainstream media are pro-EU, so nobody will tell you.
And my storyline is true for the amount allocated to each economic department (countries can't choose what economic area to help), for the budget that should be approved, for the directives that UK government have to follow.
Outside of EU, UK state could have the same amount allocated to UK labs and other projects and have €4.9 billions more in the budget, to invest where citizen/government want.

So the answer to your above question is ????
Yes, the entire budget and more.
The UK remains one of the largest net contributors, the third one in fact. (you can sort the chart).
For me it's very difficult to understand that a lot of people don't even know this basic fact. No one answered your post. Pro-EU media do a very good job.

BTW, in case you didn't understand, sent me €100

Palmach wrote: »

Well exactly how many jobs are directly funded by the EU in the UK that will be lost if there is a Brexit?

Guess the answer.:D

View

Trompette wrote: »

Obviousely you didn't read my post in link.
So I'll repeat it here:
Imagine the following storyline:
- At regular due date, you have to give me €100 and a wide smile
- Later I will give you €45 of MY money that you will have to use only to buy your food. It will be appreciated if you say “Thank you” to me.
- Later I will give you €30 of MY money that you will have to use only to pay you bills. It will be appreciated if you say “Thank you” to me.
- Total of MY money I will give you will be around €65, 65% of your contribution.
- A large part of the rest of MY money will be for my own usage.
- Before the next due date, you will have to provide a budget. I will approve it or not. If I don't approve it, you will have to modify regarding my directives.
- From now and for the next budgets, you will have to reduce your health expenses for 25%. If you don't do, you will have to pay fees.
- Don't hesitate to tell your neighbourhood I am a good budget manager and they should hire me.

Did you get it?
You understand that in this storyline you are UK state, I am EU institutions and your neighbourhood are the countries still outside of EU.

You can find the real values EU expenditure and revenue 2014-2020. In this page, change the left drop-list from expenditure (what each country pay to institutions) to revenue (what each country receive) and the easier to understand, balance.
These figures change every year. Roughly UK State pays has average of €4.9 billions a year net contribution (UK loss this amount).

And I repeat, pro-EU will never explain that, they will let you bellive that this money is from EU institutions and due to all the mainstream media are pro-EU, so nobody will tell you.
And my storyline is true for the amount allocated to each economic department (countries can't choose what economic area to help), for the budget that should be approved, for the directives that UK government have to follow.
Outside of EU, UK state could have the same amount allocated to UK labs and other projects and have €4.9 billions more in the budget, to invest where citizen/government want.

So the answer to your above question is ????
Yes, the entire budget and more.
The UK remains one of the largest net contributors, the third one in fact. (you can sort the chart).
For me it's very difficult to understand that a lot of people don't even know this basic fact. No one answered your post. Pro-EU media do a very good job.

BTW, in case you didn't understand, sent me €100


Guess the answer.:D

No one is disputing that the UK is a net contibutor to the EU budget.

As one of the larger member states, the U.K. is obviously benefiting - in the opinion of the U.K. parliament - from membership of the EU, particularly in an area such as financial services where "the City" dominates EU banking generating vast profits and ensuing vast tax monies and related spending for the UK, all of which vastly outweighs the net contribution the UK makes.

To set it in context, were the UK to leave the EU and manage to secure a Norwegian style EFTA membership with EEA access arrangement to the single market (thus forfeiting their EU decision making rights in the process), the saving for the UK, on a per capita basis would amount to circa £20 per annum or 50p per week - not even enough to buy a cup of coffee!

Trompette

View wrote: »

No one is disputing that the UK is a net contibutor to the EU budget.

So, why nobody answered

Originally Posted by djpbarry
The UK covers the ERC’s entire budget? Really?

Even why this question?

Everybody should answer that this question shouldn't even take place.

So to answer to you, even they know UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, or they ignore the consequences or they want to hide the fact that UK will not loose any subvention and quite the opposite have more money.

Scofflaw

Trompette wrote: »

So, why nobody answered Even why this question?

Everybody should answer that this question shouldn't even take place.

So to answer to you, even they know UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, or they ignore the consequences or they want to hide the fact that UK will not loose any subvention and quite the opposite have more money.

It was more, I think, the phrasing. But nobody does much care about that argument, since the question is not whether the UK could make up any EU funds being spent in the UK, but whether it would choose to do so.

And there, I'm afraid, the answer does not look exactly hopeful: https://www.theguardian.com/science/science-funding-crisis

cordially,
Scofflaw

Trompette

Thank you Scofflaw for this explanation. I didn't know this. Now I better understand the posts.

However, this is no direct link with the Brexit referendum. This should not be an argument for either yes or not leaving. Am I right?
At least if there is a Brexit, UK citizen could have the choice on what level to found the national departments, not only the science research.

We have in France the same behaviour from our government that want for example to break/disrupt the work contract. They call that change "the law for modernisation" !!! Few years ago minister said this was to increase employment. Now they even don't say that.
But citizen understand more and more that all these changes are a direct implementation of the EU directives. It is possible to read that directives in the EU reports. And you know in which way this is going.

Another example: Last year, livestock farmer were protesting against the low prices (this war a direct consequence of the Russian ban). Government stepped in to set up an agreement between the big shops and the farmers. 2 hypermarkets agreed to buy the meat at a minimum price and everybody calm down. This didn't last long, only few months, shops stopped to do so. Few days ago, EU commission started an investigation against "Leclec" shop because they have break the EU law "free competition".

Government have no power any more and that imply citizen don't have either.
What do you call this type of country?

@oscarBravo
When I quote Junker in a previous post:
There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties
and you say "Not sure what the significance of this is."
do you need a textual analyse? I hope not !!!
EU is not at all democracy and I mean what we call democracy I don't mean the real democracy that doesn't exist around the world.

Have you watched this?
I have lived in your future, and it didn't work.

Scofflaw

Trompette wrote:

Thank you Scofflaw for this explanation. I didn't know this. Now I better understand the posts.

However, this is no direct link with the Brexit referendum. This should not be an argument for either yes or not leaving. Am I right?
At least if there is a Brexit, UK citizen could have the choice on what level to found the national departments, not only the science research.

It's a reasonable Brexit concern, I would say. If you were a Hungarian citizen who was concerned for democracy in Hungary, you might be equally concerned about the idea of a Hungarian exit from the EU because while the Hungarian government might choose to be less authoritarian outside the EU, the signs say the opposite.

The UK has, for 43 years since accession to the EU, voluntarily and democratically followed a particular path and entered into arrangements which include such things as the research funding in question. Brexit would represent the UK (equally voluntarily and democratically) turning its back on that path and those arrangements - and if one is in favour of those current arrangements, any concern one might have over their future is of course a concern directly linked to Brexit.

Not everyone would trade the status quo for the UK government having the absolute power to determine on what level to fund national departments. You state it as if that's automatically a good thing in itself, by itself, and for no other reason beyond itself, and not everyone agrees that this is any kind of obvious truth.

Trompette wrote:

When I quote Junker in a previous post:
There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties
and you say "Not sure what the significance of this is."
do you need a textual analyse? I hope not !!!
EU is not at all democracy and I mean what we call democracy I don't mean the real democracy that doesn't exist around the world.

The quote is one of those marvellous gifts that senior EU figures from time to time give eurosceptics - a phrase which on the surface looks as anti-democratic as the eurosceptic believes the EU to be. But it does not have the significance you ascribe to it. It means the same as "pacta sunt servanda" - that is, when you have obligations freely entered into, you must abide by them, or leave. To claim this as anti-democratic requires a view of democracy as meaning "I can do whatever I vote for today, no matter what I may previously have agreed".

To be fair, the ordinary operating principle of the most parliaments is exactly that - that no parliamentary decision can be held to bind parliament if they later change their vote - but the principle does not apply to any treaty obligations, and never has done. The decision parliaments make in the case of a treaty is whether to be a party to the treaty or not - but until a parliament has decided to exit a treaty, it remains bound by the obligations of that treaty. Until the UK decides to leave the EU, it is bound by the EU treaties - or, in the case of the Jucker quote, unless Greece decides to leave the EU, it cannot simply vote not to uphold its treaty obligations. There can be no democratic choice against obligations of the European treaties - you're either party to them, and observing them, or you're not, as Juncker's second sentence makes clear. The full quote is:

Juncker wrote:

There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties. One cannot exit the euro without leaving the EU

You're either in, in which case you observe the obligations you agreed to, or you're out. We could object to the very idea of treaties on the basis that by binding parliaments they're 'anti-democratic', but I don't think that's a very good position, since it leaves us without any way of making agreements between nations. An awful lot of babies go out with that bathwater.

It is perfectly possible, on the other hand, to be opposed to the EU treaties on the basis that they put too much of what one feels should be domestic decision-making into joint decision-making at the European level, but the claim that the treaties themselves, or the EU more generally, is anti-democratic, is an emotional shorthand for that feeling rather than something which is actually true. All the obligations of the European treaties have been voluntarily and democratically entered into, and they can be (as Brexit makes clear) voluntarily and democratically exited from - and while in force, they are equally voluntary and democratic. They can be supported or opposed by any citizen whose government is subject to them, and both preferences are equally valid democratic preferences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Palmach

View wrote: »

particularly in an area such as financial services where "the City" dominates EU banking generating vast profits and ensuing vast tax monies and related spending for the UK, all of which vastly outweighs the net contribution the UK makes.
!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/city-of-london-provokes-eu-jealousy/

In spite of EU membership
not because of it. Furthermore as the article says........

The EU’s share of Britain’s financial and insurance exports is falling, and 70 per cent of the City’s business is already conducted globally.

As the EU's share of world trade continues to fall it will be less and less a factor for the City.

FreudianSlippers

Palmach wrote: »

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/city-of-london-provokes-eu-jealousy/

In spite of EU membership
not because of it. Furthermore as the article says........

What a rational and balanced piece. Oh wait...

Chris Muspratt is a researcher for the cross-party grassroots Eurosceptic campaign group Get Britain Out

There are actually zero points made in that article and no evidence to back up the flawed assertion in the headline.

In fact, the reasons for such a successful City of London are actually the same reasons why Dublin stands to benefit from Brexit:

The EU wrongfully takes credit for the City’s success. Brussels ought to look at some of the reasons why London is a global hub of finance. The capital’s timezone is ideally placed for international trade, English is the de facto language of business, and Britain has a proud history of international cooperation underpinned by English Common Law. More and more multinationals across the globe are mandating English as their common corporate language.