butQuote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
thats the end of that reason to stay in thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Printable View
butQuote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
thats the end of that reason to stay in thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Troy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK83a3gwj-k
Tin foil hats on chaps
:chitown:
Motherfucker saw this in 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dapper
Always seems to be the unconventional "freaks" that see the light, yet are cast conspiracists - threatening the very core that comforts us.....the ingrained fantasies and illusions.
^Spot on
The ONLY current way to keep our freedoms is to stay as individual nations.
If we all dissolve into one big superstate then we truly will become the
One World Government that PNAC is seeking
And then we'll all be up shit creek without the proverbial.
Dangerous times now folks - keep your independence, your rights and ultimately your freedom.
Or move to Thailand and become an aching bore as well as a conspiracy theorist. You'll be as safe as piwiannoy. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dapper
Umm. Those two things are not the same. I wonder if the EU have rules about standards of education, god knows the English at least could do with some.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
The micks could do with more.
Obama visit
US President Barack Obama is expected to repeat his support for Britain's EU membership when he visits the UK next week.
Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary who is backing the Leave campaign, told BBC One's Sunday Politics: "Of course the American president is there to express what he believes is in America's interest, not Britain's interest... It's absolutely unthinkable that the United States would allow a court to overrule the Supreme Court or someone else to determine their external borders."
But former US State Department spokesman James Rubin responded: "America is a very, very large country. It's a superpower... Just because we won't do something, doesn't mean that the British shouldn't.":UK:
They just want 3 countries:
Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia
Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. On the doubleplusgood side the chocolate ration has been increased!Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Dob did you not get them memo, the war with eurasia is not until next week, bb is double ungood
America is a well known interfering bully of a country, and will do whatever it can to de-stabilize another nation, in order to gain natural resources and strategic military advantage, so increasing its arms sales and boosting its economy through foul rather than fair means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chittychangchang
Exactly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dapper
Giving up freedom in exchange for security results in losing both.
This straw-man which started with B. Johnson is very weak sauce imho, Johnson should know better since he's a US citizen and all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chittychangchang
A more apt comparison would be the right of people who feel hard done by at their state supreme courts to take their grievance up to SCOTUS. Think you got screwed at the Old Bailey? Well, thanks to the EU you get one more bite at the apple and it may be the only way for UK citizens to fight back when the establishment closes ranks to protect their own.
That's why they have the right to bear arms. To raise a militia against a bad government.Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
"The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government."
(attributed to Thomas Paine and others)
Yeah, luckily they've only had good governments so there's been no need for them to take up arms.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by chassamui
Actually Edward Abbey, a 20th Century American anarchist. Anybody who thinks Tom Paine would say anything like that has never read Tom Paine. Sadly , the proliferation of lies and ignorance on the Internet has led to the fictionalisation of politics and history. Doubly sad when you consider that the founders of the Internet believed that access to information would make for smarter people and a better world.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
If Britain leaves the EU - what effect do you think this will have on exchange rates, of particular interest what will the baht rate be?
Probably not much since the UK never left the Pound Sterling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pom
The pound is already being hammered. If the UK leave the EU, the Eu monsters will swirl in lead by Soros and will crush the pound, probably to be 1:1 with the USD. Your pension, matey, will get you significantly less baht each month. Compounded on this, TTIP will be signed by Prime minister (crowned not elected) Boris Bullingdon eton rich boy which will allow the asst stripping of the rest of the country that camoron has not already sold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pom
Stay in though.... well, we're fuck if we stay in. Properly - they will use that as the excuse to go Euro
The pound will dip for a couple of weeks, a month at most then come back stronger as the full impact of the British economy feels the 55 million pound a day burden lifted from it's shoulders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pom
The British pensioner will live well as the £ will strengthen to the good old days of 75 baht a pound.:UK:
The depth of opinion from ex pat's locally tends to agree with you , although 75 would be quite nice, personally I'd be quite happy with 65:)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChittychangchangThe pound will dip for a couple of weeks, a month at most then come back stronger as the full impact of the British economy feels the 55 million pound a day burden lifted from it's shoulders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pom
The British pensioner will live well as the £ will strengthen to the good old days of 75 baht a pound.:UK:
How much Britain will have to pay in order to maintain trade with the EU is yet to be determined. However, it will be a substantial chunk of that 55million you think will be saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chittychangchang
A link? Or is that your mates down the local?Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
I think a Brexit will cause turbulence in the markets and exchange rates during exit negotiations and beyond and, short to medium term, the Euro and the Sterling will drop 5 - 10%
Self explanatory ,I said the Ex Pats locally , sorry no link:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Great news, makes exports cheaper and Chinky stuff more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Do the polls in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland show any significant differences (for/against) Brexit?
From March 2nd, but still...Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2016/04/864.jpg
The green area of Scotland does not take this latest development into account..
Many SNP supporters will vote LEAVE, as recommended by one of their former stalwarts, Jim Sillars, who spoke with excellent clarity and logic.
"The SNP position does not make sense ; its tactical analysis is poor, and its posture on the consequences of the result is simply incoherent."
"Nationalists face a challenge ; they must separate their loyalty to the party from their loyalty to the cause of independence.
"This will mean voting for the SNP in May and against them in June.
"When assessing what outcomes will advance the cause of independence, objectivity and logical analysis, not blind loyalty will be required."
Mr Sillars has vowed to campaign for an 'Out' vote on June 23.:bagpipe::UK:
^^Thanks. Interesting. I asked because seems to me a vote to exit will give some a reason to leave the UK and stay in the EU.
Looks to me a vote to leave the EU is going to have negative economic and political implications for some time to come.
No dog in the fight. Just my take on it.
The UK would still be able to trade freely within Europe even if it left the EU, Michael Gove has said.
The justice secretary said the UK could be part of Europe's free trade area to avoid trade tariffs, even if it was not a member of the EU single market.
The pro-Leave campaigner also said a UK exit would lead to the "democratic liberation of a whole continent".
Mr Gove used a speech in London to set out his vision of what the country would look like in the event of a vote to leave the EU on 23 June.
On trading, he said the UK would be part of the European free trade zone with access to the European single market but "free from EU regulation which costs us billions of pounds a year".
Michael Gove sets out post-exit UK-EU trade vision - BBC News
There are two possible ways to conduct economic arguments. The first is to accept that one’s opponents are genuine and intelligent, and to attempt to address their arguments as fairly and honestly as possible, even if one ultimately finds them wanting. Some of the greatest economists of the 20th century, from all sides of the ideological spectrum, including John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman, embraced this approach, to great effect.
The second is to heap ridicule on your opponents, assume that they are either nasty, stupid or “economically illiterate”, before deliberately distorting or ignoring what they have to say while carefully cherry-picking the best possible assumptions to feed into your own mathematical models to generate your favourite conclusions.
“Forget about trying to be scientific to get to the truth, or having a civil debate: the only thing that matters is winning at any cost”
Tragically, the government has now chosen this second approach on Brexit. It didn’t have to resort to this; even though I disagree, there is a credible pro-EU economic case that can be made. Yet the Treasury report on the supposed long-term impact of leaving the EU is shameful, undoubtedly the worst piece of “research” from a government department in years.
It starts off with a scandalously biased assumption: that there can be no possible economic benefits to Brexit, just costs. In other words, it’s not really a cost-benefit analysis of Brexit, but merely a cost-cost one. And not just any costs, mind: in each case, any downsides are magnified in an extreme way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...eath-contempt/
It doesn't matter a damn what the idiot Gove says. What matters is what the other EU countries say and do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chittychangchang
Tuesday 19 April 2016 04:59 GMT
The Treasury has it entirely wrong: The British economy would gain from Brexit
Patrick Minford
EU referendum 2016: The Treasury and George Osborne have it entirely wrong on the impact of leaving the EU: The British economy would gain from Brexit | City A.M.Quote:
The Treasury has produced its 200-page report about the effects of Brexit on the economy. Predictably, it is highly negative. It is sad that the Treasury, for which I once worked for a few years, has become so politicised that it is reduced to rationalising the views of George Osborne.
The modelling methods it has used to do Osborne’s bidding are the ones anyone would employ to rubbish Brexit. They involve estimating relationships over the past between such things as trade with the EU or Foreign Direct Investment, or tariffs and GDP. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my book on the UK and the EU, these estimated relationships are highly unreliable when it comes to considering a whole new world of trading rules, which is what Britain would face after leaving the EU.
The basic point you have to ask is how the whole economy would react to the main alternative to our current regional EU rules, which is global trading rules under the World Trade Organisation (WTO). For this you need the sort of model I used in my book, a global world trade model. The results from such a model are perfectly intelligible to anyone and, what is more, they tally with what we all understand about free trade: that the wider the freedom we have to trade, the better the result.
Now consider what the EU arrangements we have actually are. The EU is a protectionist organisation known as a “Customs Union”; this raises barriers through tariffs and other non-tariff means against every country outside it. These barriers raise the price of goods sold inside the EU by the protectionist margin; so prices are higher for everything bought from anywhere that is protected against in this way. This is because, to sell into the EU, you must pay the tariff and also the extra costs of the non-tariff barriers.
The gainers from this Customs Union are the EU producers inside the protective wall: like children in a walled garden, they enjoy a cosseted life. EU producers sell their products inside the EU at inflated prices.
But the losers are the consumers who pay these inflated prices. It is a matter of some irony that our chancellor praises this Customs Union as a wonderful “free trade arrangement”! It takes your breath away that he should dare say this to UK voters and consumers. But of course they are blown away by his confident rhetoric, and who are they to argue?
When we measure the extent of the EU protective wall, we find that it is rather high, quite contrary to this rhetoric. Food prices are nearly 20 per cent higher on average, and average manufactured prices a bit more than 20 per cent higher. Even assuming, as I did in my book, that there is some reduction in this protection over time, to say 10 per cent on each, the overall effect of the EU on the consumer shopping basket is to raise it by 8 per cent – around £40 a week for the average consumer.
By leaving the EU, we move to global free trade; goods come in here from all over the world at world prices, without the EU add-on. Our consumers benefit. Our producers have to earn their way in the world at the true world prices of their products: the industries that do best will be our best industries, not our most protected ones.
But even the protected ones will not fare so badly: they will face world competition at home and they can still sell to the EU and pay the external tariff, which is only about 4 per cent on average. Under WTO rules, the EU would be unable to inflict the non-tariff barriers on them because our producers do not “dump” and they completely adhere to EU regulations already.
People ask: can we rely on the WTO to police these rules? Yes we can: the WTO is an active and powerful system of international courts that all members highly respect. Since all countries, including the US and the EU, use it repeatedly against others, they obey its judgements when they go against them. It enforces non-discrimination, the “most favoured nation” principle: that is all we need outside the EU because it means we sell our goods on a world market where no-one can arbitrarily discriminate against us, including the EU.
By leaving the EU, we go to global free trade and we rid ourselves of the intrusive EU regulation that bears down most heavily on our smaller firms who cannot afford huge HR and compliance departments. The gains to our economy from this are huge, as anyone would readily expect. The trade gain amounts to 4 per cent of national income, directly enjoyed by our voters even after spending some of it helping out those affected producers, including our farmers. The gain from getting out of the heavy-handed regulation of our whole economy by the EU is more again, and a boost to our growth rate. The Treasury report gets it precisely the wrong way round.
That's been my argument and view all along on the Brexit vote, ever since Britain joined in the rip-off deal.
There was only ever a clear advantage for manufacturers, banks, landowners, share-holders and the rich in Britain's membership of that protectionist club.
[QUOTE="DrB0b"]What matters is what the other EU countries say and do.
Especially on Trade which will effect jobs and business.
No free movement of people = no free movement of trade.
Really. Amazing how we manage to sell all those billions of goods and services to Non-EU countries, eh?Quote:
No free movement of people = no free movement of trade.
Out for sure.
I dont personally know anyone who wants to stay in.
Even VIPs who are campaigning to stay in seem to think the EU is crap. Hardly a ringing endorsement is it !
The old Common Market was okay. It mutated into something horrible
I don't know anyone who voted to join in the first referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by CR7CristianoRonaldo