BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Financial markets are more about uncertainty so the irresponsible thing was calling the referendum. What has been said since is irrelevant.

Produce a reputable source to back up your claim that a post Brexit currency crisis will result in greater foreign direct investment.

Again show me a reputable source to explain why you think it will be no worse than a General Election?

The Bank of Japan could say one of many things that would crash stock markets world wide but don't as they promote trust and confidence in the world wide economy. To say what the BoE and Chancellor have said is irrelevant is idiotic. They should be promoting independence and producing positive messages to calm the markets for both scenarios. They did not talk down the actions they were taking in the banking crisis!

I have no problem with the IFS, OECD, etc making their predictions but those at the financial controls of our economy should be neutral and acting responsibly in the countries interest not talking down one side for political gain.

The PWC report said that at 2030 a remain vote will mean the economy will have grown by 41% but under a brexit vote we will have grown by 39%. I think that comes within the influence of a general election when you are looking that far out.

I will let the personal insult slide or we will both end up getting banned.

Nothing they say will reverse market sentiment - check out our departure from the ERM or the recent Swiss franc issues.

Your PWC report is supporting one of our previous debates that in 14 years time the UK economy will only be 2% smaller post Brexit than if we had stayed in. That is of course assuming a bounce back after after the initial shock.

Mr Surrey Commuter I get the impression that you work in 'the city'. One would surely have to posses a modicum of intelligence for this, although I couldn't possibly comment.
I OBSERVE that nearly all of your posts are influenced by finance and the world which you and yours inhabit and benefit from. It would be very refreshing to hear your thoughts on local health services, local schools, the local jobs market and how membership of the EU has benefited or not. When I mean 'local', I mean out in the rough old provinces, not a dormitory of London.

I will take your post as a quest for knowledge and not merely provocative. I will be open and would be interested to hear your background.

Nope I don't work in "the City" but I do have a degree in economics and work totally unrelated work with economists/analysts so get first hand insight into their forecasts and thinking. I am also a pension fund trustee so get to sit in a room with financial professionals who despair at the thought of brexit.

If you look at it through the above prism my posts are about the economy (not finance). You need economic prosperity to fund the NHS, education and provide jobs. In most peoples opinion membership of the EU has benefited the UK economy and that leaving will be bad for it. Therefore you will see a worsening of public services and less jobs.

Most peoples' view should actually read. It's what we've been used to for the last 40 odd years. So in actual fact you have no idea how our economy would have performed outside of the Common Market, EEC, EC or EU. Your facts and figured are purely based on the status quo.

Can you please give me an explanation as to why the EU decimated the UK Fishing fleet and only allows what remains of the fleet to take 12% of the fish stocks within UK territorial waters. Denmark can take double this in OUR waters. Plus the entire Spanish fishing fleet was renewed all with funding from the EU of which the UK is one of only 3 nett contributors.
How has the EU membership been good for this part of the UK industry?

veronese68

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Surrey Commuter I get the impression that you work in 'the city'. One would surely have to posses a modicum of intelligence for this, although I couldn't possibly comment.
I OBSERVE that nearly all of your posts are influenced by finance and the world which you and yours inhabit and benefit from. It would be very refreshing to hear your thoughts on local health services, local schools, the local jobs market and how membership of the EU has benefited or not. When I mean 'local', I mean out in the rough old provinces, not a dormitory of London.

I will take your post as a quest for knowledge and not merely provocative. I will be open and would be interested to hear your background.

Nope I don't work in "the City" but I do have a degree in economics and work totally unrelated work with economists/analysts so get first hand insight into their forecasts and thinking. I am also a pension fund trustee so get to sit in a room with financial professionals who despair at the thought of brexit.

If you look at it through the above prism my posts are about the economy (not finance). You need economic prosperity to fund the NHS, education and provide jobs. In most peoples opinion membership of the EU has benefited the UK economy and that leaving will be bad for it. Therefore you will see a worsening of public services and less jobs.

Most peoples' view should actually read. It's what we've been used to for the last 40 odd years. So in actual fact you have no idea how our economy would have performed outside of the Common Market, EEC, EC or EU. Your facts and figured are purely based on the status quo.

You asked his opinion as it is based on economics, he answered and explained his background and you have answered saying he doesn't know what he's talking about and asked a different question. What are your credentials regarding economics?

verylonglegs

Goo, you seem rather focused on the ‘city’ and financial sector for some reason so let me provide you with another view. I work in the electronic sector and for a company that is involved in manufacturing believe it or not, yes we still do some of that here. It is however for an American company. Leaving the EU would increase the chances of them deciding to no longer have a base here, they also have several more inside the EU and would want things here kept under the same trade rules. This is likely the same for many other of the foreign owned companies who have factories and technical facilities located here, who employ thousands who are highly skilled, and in fact some have come out and said it.

The only response I’ve heard from the leave group to this is ‘scaremongering’. That is pathetic, genuinely pathetic and so often repeated now it’s sounding childish. It is not even an argument of any sort. A counter argument should involve explaining exactly why this wouldn’t happen (bearing in mind this means calling the heads of these companies liars and that they don’t know their own business) or if not some sort of plan as to who would be providing alternative similar quality employment in the event of this happening. Has Boris or any other of the geniuses offered any information regarding this? Which companies will take their places? (Not UK ones, we haven’t got that many so have the leavers £bn’s to invest in new ones?) What will they offer to attract them? Can they name anyone they’ve spoken to regarding this subject? Not that I’ve heard.

Which brings me to the decision of the vote. Staying in provides known quantities, yes there is still the chance I could be unemployed, the same as with any situation, but leaving merely increases the risk with no reward whatsoever. It offers nothing at all, the cupboard for the leave argument for me and many others in a similar position is totally bare. Just some vague hope it will all be so much better.

Finally, the NHS is falling to bits as it can’t cope with all the OAPs who require long term expensive care and also those whose just don’t look after themselves anymore and are slowly eating themselves to death. Not the newcomers in their physical prime.

veronese68

verylonglegs wrote:

Goo, you seem rather focused on the ‘city’ and financial sector for some reason...

Until it's explained why that view will never align with his then he dismisses it and changes tack with no explanation.

mrfpb

One of the sensible points made during the ITV debate/slanging match last week was that Switzerland has negotiated trade deals for itself worth 7 times more than the EU has managed in the same time frame. There are advantages to being outside a block where trade is negotiated on your behalf at a snails pace in order to keep a disparate group of economies on the same page.

The fact that it is hard to quantify these advantages is what makes the Leave camp look weak. However it's more the fact that the government responsible for negotiations feels committed to putting out scare stories like Osborne's today that causes uncertainties for the population and the markets.

mamba80

Switzerland exports almost 1/2 (of its total) to EU, and like many other countries, aside from us, has a healthy manufacturing sector, some $35k per person, compared to ours of $7.5k per person.

you can only negotiate great trade deals if you ve something to trade with, as i ve said before, euro products (inc UK ones) can be found the world over, the way the OUTs are talking you d think that BMW cant sell a single car outside of the EU.

coopster_the_1st

verylonglegs wrote:

Goo, you seem rather focused on the ‘city’ and financial sector for some reason so let me provide you with another view. I work in the electronic sector and for a company that is involved in manufacturing believe it or not, yes we still do some of that here. It is however for an American company. Leaving the EU would increase the chances of them deciding to no longer have a base here, they also have several more inside the EU and would want things here kept under the same trade rules. This is likely the same for many other of the foreign owned companies who have factories and technical facilities located here, who employ thousands who are highly skilled, and in fact some have come out and said it.

However, as the remainers are pointing out to us every day now, the pound is falling. This will make the costs to your company cheaper, making it more competitive. With this occurring there is just as much chance more manufacturing could be moved to the UK by your company and any others. The bottom line is that location of manufacturing will be decided on a cost basis. This is the reason China so powerful in this area and nothing to do with being a member of the EU.

verylonglegs wrote:

The only response I’ve heard from the leave group to this is ‘scaremongering’. That is pathetic, genuinely pathetic and so often repeated now it’s sounding childish. It is not even an argument of any sort. A counter argument should involve explaining exactly why this wouldn’t happen (bearing in mind this means calling the heads of these companies liars and that they don’t know their own business) or if not some sort of plan as to who would be providing alternative similar quality employment in the event of this happening. Has Boris or any other of the geniuses offered any information regarding this? Which companies will take their places? (Not UK ones, we haven’t got that many so have the leavers £bn’s to invest in new ones?) What will they offer to attract them? Can they name anyone they’ve spoken to regarding this subject? Not that I’ve heard.

The issue with the remain camp approach is that it is not a new one. They won the Scottish referendum with this approach, they won the GE with this approach. The conservative leaders have decided this is the best way to win. To dismiss it just means we get more of as a way to win. I despise both sides using this form of politics however one of the reasons leave are gaining is because they are presenting a positive view. If the EU was so good for us it would be an easy sell on the positives and it would be a 'slam dunk' remain. However, the most positive the remain camp can say is 'The EU is good for us but it needs to be changed'

verylonglegs wrote:

Finally, the NHS is falling to bits as it can’t cope with all the OAPs who require long term expensive care and also those whose just don’t look after themselves anymore and are slowly eating themselves to death. Not the newcomers in their physical prime.

The NHS is failing to bits [full stop]. It is wrong to blame one demographic area as those in power knew in advance what the demographic would and could plan for this. However there is a large number being added to the list that is cannot plan for as it does not know the number or is basing its plans on a number at least 3 times smaller than reality. And while these newcomers are in their physical prime and require very little of the service, after a short while they will have families and these young pregnant females and the children do require the use of the NHS service. As well as requiring school places, GP appointments, a dentist, a house to live in and many other public services.

When you look at the bigger picture the issues in the referendum extend far beyond the economic case.

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

you can only negotiate great trade deals if you ve something to trade with, as i ve said before, euro products (inc UK ones) can be found the world over, the way the OUTs are talking you d think that BMW cant sell a single car outside of the EU.

BMW sell cars all over the world but the UK market is their second biggest(23%). It is not going to be that dissimilar to VW & Mercedes. When the most influential power in the EU has this visible benefit from our trade you can see how this is not a one sided negotiation. There are many others but lets keep this simple

Then there is Ireland as recently discussed. Any difficulties created by the EU are going to seriously impact their economy due to the level of exports to the UK. The EU cannot risk having to bail out Ireland as it will not take long for a crisis to emerge if EU policies become obstructive.

When you evaluate the wider view, you can see this will not be a one sided negotiation and the UK does not want to hurt other countries with a negative trade deal. It is only the EU coming out with words that it will punish the UK for it taking a democratic choice.

rick_chasey

Given the EU would want to make sure other nations don't follow suit, why is it in their interest to give the UK a favourable deal?

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the EU would want to make sure other nations don't follow suit, why is it in their interest to give the UK a favourable deal?

Because, as discussed elsewhere, it is not a monolithic entity as sometimes portrayed. It is a group of nations all of which will lobby for good trading terms, especially Germany. The failure to keep the UK in the EU will be seen as much the failure of the Commission as the choice of the UK, and this will be a factor in who the EU chooses to negotiate with us in the Article 50 talks, and how those talks progress.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the EU would want to make sure other nations don't follow suit, why is it in their interest to give the UK a favourable deal?

Is it in their interests to give the UK a favourable deal within the EU?
February would indicate no, and why should they? Special deals will be phased out or we will be forced to pull out eventually.

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you can only negotiate great trade deals if you ve something to trade with, as i ve said before, euro products (inc UK ones) can be found the world over, the way the OUTs are talking you d think that BMW cant sell a single car outside of the EU.

BMW sell cars all over the world but the UK market is their second biggest(23%). It is not going to be that dissimilar to VW & Mercedes. When the most influential power in the EU has this visible benefit from our trade you can see how this is not a one sided negotiation. There are many others but lets keep this simple

Then there is Ireland as recently discussed. Any difficulties created by the EU are going to seriously impact their economy due to the level of exports to the UK. The EU cannot risk having to bail out Ireland as it will not take long for a crisis to emerge if EU policies become obstructive.

When you evaluate the wider view, you can see this will not be a one sided negotiation and the UK does not want to hurt other countries with a negative trade deal. It is only the EU coming out with words that it will punish the UK for it taking a democratic choice.

the EU hold the cards, we would still desperately need their exports as in the case of cars, we ve a huge dealer network to support, any restrictions we put on would lead to UK job losses and of course our population will demand access (at the same cost as before) to all these nice eu imports.

on the other hand, we export little and what we do, europe, in the main, also makes, they ll make sure our goods come up against silent restrictions and they ll fill the gaps, we wont be able to retaliate or have (as we do at present) any redress.

as Rick says, the one thing we can be sure off, the EU will not give us a favourable & quick deal.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the EU would want to make sure other nations don't follow suit, why is it in their interest to give the UK a favourable deal?

Is it in their interests to give the UK a favourable deal within the EU?
February would indicate no, and why should they? Special deals will be phased out or we will be forced to pull out eventually.

It's all relative.

As I've just said, the EU wants to make sure others don't think leaving the EU is a good idea. So the nations will give the UK punitive deals to show others what happens if they leave.

The EU is a big proportion of the UK trade, but UK trade isn't that big a proportion of EU trade.

What is the incentive to allow things like banks or Fisheries access to the free market? Surely if they block the UK from getting that access, those firms will instead move to a nation inside the EU.

I just don't see how the UK has a strong position. What can the UK do once it's agreed to leave? Where's the bargaining position? It stands to lose more from no agreement than the EU does.

Pross

Has anyone else seen the latest Exit Referendum Broadcast with the 'sliding doors' approach showing someone's granny getting NHS treatment if we stay in and if we exit? In a campaign that has been defined by ridiculous claims and scaremongering by both sides it stands out as embarrassing but the problem is there are an element who will fall for it. Even ignoring the basic premise that the '£350 million a week' (the figure that excludes our rebate, money that comes back in funding for various initiatives that would have to be provided for from UK sources and whatever amount we have to pay to be members of this new trade arrangement with the EU) will be spent on the NHS instead how can they justify the different scenarios? What will happen to the NHS in the short term if EU immigrants in their workforce decide they want to return home or work elsewhere in the EU as a result of the out vote? We could end up with a shortage of qualified staff that would take years of training to replace. I think my wife is planning to vote for exit but even she laughed at the things being said.

There's also the dubious claim that £350 million could build a new hospital a week. Maybe that's true but the real cost of a hospital is in keeping it equipped and staffed to the latest standards.

Why is it these election broadcasts (by both sides) can pretty much say anything they want without censure whereas an advert for a product would be taken off the air if it made a similar standard of claim?

ugo.santalucia

Pross wrote:

Has anyone else seen the latest Exit Referendum Broadcast with the 'sliding doors' approach showing someone's granny getting NHS treatment if we stay in and if we exit? In a campaign that has been defined by ridiculous claims and scaremongering by both sides it stands out as embarrassing but the problem is there are an element who will fall for it. Even ignoring the basic premise that the '£350 million a week' (the figure that excludes our rebate, money that comes back in funding for various initiatives that would have to be provided for from UK sources and whatever amount we have to pay to be members of this new trade arrangement with the EU) will be spent on the NHS instead how can they justify the different scenarios? What will happen to the NHS in the short term if EU immigrants in their workforce decide they want to return home or work elsewhere in the EU as a result of the out vote? We could end up with a shortage of qualified staff that would take years of training to replace. I think my wife is planning to vote for exit but even she laughed at the things being said.

There's also the dubious claim that £350 million could build a new hospital a week. Maybe that's true but the real cost of a hospital is in keeping it equipped and staffed to the latest standards.

Why is it these election broadcasts (by both sides) can pretty much say anything they want without censure whereas an advert for a product would be taken off the air if it made a similar standard of claim?

I have seen it... it's embarrassing. I also don't understand why, if they claim this is for the future of the nation, for the next generation, for the next 20-40 years... then why they specifically target those who don't have 20-40 years to live?
It seems to me the leave campaign has given up on the younger generations, which is just not right, the message comes across as: let your granny decide about your future...

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

I just don't see how the UK has a strong position. What can the UK do once it's agreed to leave? Where's the bargaining position? It stands to lose more from no agreement than the EU does.

I don't disagree as much as you think I do. I just think a large section of this Country do not want to be part of a Federal Europe (which I think is coming regardless of what is said), and other European Countries dislike our favourable conditions.
Conditions which were negotiated for under a position of strength, ie the threat of withdrawl. Take away that threat with a remain vote and we are weak within the EU.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the EU would want to make sure other nations don't follow suit, why is it in their interest to give the UK a favourable deal?

Is it in their interests to give the UK a favourable deal within the EU?
February would indicate no, and why should they? Special deals will be phased out or we will be forced to pull out eventually.

It's all relative.

As I've just said, the EU wants to make sure others don't think leaving the EU is a good idea. So the nations will give the UK punitive deals to show others what happens if they leave.

The EU is a big proportion of the UK trade, but UK trade isn't that big a proportion of EU trade.

What is the incentive to allow things like banks or Fisheries access to the free market? Surely if they block the UK from getting that access, those firms will instead move to a nation inside the EU.

I just don't see how the UK has a strong position. What can the UK do once it's agreed to leave? Where's the bargaining position? It stands to lose more from no agreement than the EU does.

The UK is a fairly large market for the EU no? The fact that we buy a lot of their stuff surely gives us at least a start of sorts. If an overly punitive deal is struck, could that not hurt the economy of the EU as well?

We'd also be leaving a reasonably big hole in the EU budget, given we are net contributors.

ddraver

I confess this is dangerously close to Social Science, but I ve never met anyone who bought a BMW, Mercedes, Porsche etc becasue it was a good value option. People buy them because they re just a little bit exclusive (like many of us buy Colnagos rather than Planet X).

No one is going to avoid buying a BMW and buy a Toyota because of a bit of price hike. Germany (if necessary, which I suspect it isnt) could support BMW through the reduction in UK sales for the 2 years where everybody sulked but in 1 or 2 years we would be buying (more expensive) BMWs as we were before anyway

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

you can only negotiate great trade deals if you ve something to trade with, as i ve said before, euro products (inc UK ones) can be found the world over, the way the OUTs are talking you d think that BMW cant sell a single car outside of the EU.

BMW sell cars all over the world but the UK market is their second biggest(23%). It is not going to be that dissimilar to VW & Mercedes. When the most influential power in the EU has this visible benefit from our trade you can see how this is not a one sided negotiation. There are many others but lets keep this simple

Then there is Ireland as recently discussed. Any difficulties created by the EU are going to seriously impact their economy due to the level of exports to the UK. The EU cannot risk having to bail out Ireland as it will not take long for a crisis to emerge if EU policies become obstructive.

When you evaluate the wider view, you can see this will not be a one sided negotiation and the UK does not want to hurt other countries with a negative trade deal. It is only the EU coming out with words that it will punish the UK for it taking a democratic choice.

the EU hold the cards, we would still desperately need their exports as in the case of cars, we ve a huge dealer network to support, any restrictions we put on would lead to UK job losses and of course our population will demand access (at the same cost as before) to all these nice eu imports.

on the other hand, we export little and what we do, europe, in the main, also makes, they ll make sure our goods come up against silent restrictions and they ll fill the gaps, we wont be able to retaliate or have (as we do at present) any redress.

as Rick says, the one thing we can be sure off, the EU will not give us a favourable & quick deal.

The EU does not negotiate as one entity. It would be negotiating as 27 individuals all looking after their own interests under the Umbrella of the EU.

The car dealer network is tiny compared to the what car manufacturing employees. It is not comparable. The EU are not the only producer of cars. There are huge car companies outside the EU and it is very easy to see them doing what they can to increase the market size in the UK. The more cars those outside the EU sell to us, the more that will hurt Germany, France and Italy. Negotiations regarding cars from the EU is hugely in the UK's favour. This is why the public facing remain camp are not discussing/refuting this issue.

There is a EU country that is reliant on the UK being a market for them. The EU cannot afford to use that country as political capital to punish the UK. In doing so they would have to bail out that country and it is very likely they would have their own referendum and vote to leave in this situation.

If it were say Estonia leaving I could see your point of the EU having the power but the UK is so much bigger, as you know the 5th biggest economy in the world, and so much more important to the businesses of the EU countries. The political view is that we will be punished but the business reality will be to negotiate for the benefit of all countries.

coopster_the_1st

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Given the EU would want to make sure other nations don't follow suit, why is it in their interest to give the UK a favourable deal?

Is it in their interests to give the UK a favourable deal within the EU?
February would indicate no, and why should they? Special deals will be phased out or we will be forced to pull out eventually.

It's all relative.

As I've just said, the EU wants to make sure others don't think leaving the EU is a good idea. So the nations will give the UK punitive deals to show others what happens if they leave.

The EU is a big proportion of the UK trade, but UK trade isn't that big a proportion of EU trade.

What is the incentive to allow things like banks or Fisheries access to the free market? Surely if they block the UK from getting that access, those firms will instead move to a nation inside the EU.

I just don't see how the UK has a strong position. What can the UK do once it's agreed to leave? Where's the bargaining position? It stands to lose more from no agreement than the EU does.

The UK is a fairly large market for the EU no? The fact that we buy a lot of their stuff surely gives us at least a start of sorts. If an overly punitive deal is struck, could that not hurt the economy of the EU as well?

We'd also be leaving a reasonably big hole in the EU budget, given we are net contributors.

Let's clarify the above language in all the above posts. Individual countries negotiate trade deals in their best interests under a EU banner. The direction of a trade deal is dictated by each of these individual interests not that of EU.

When it is viewed like this, and this is how it works in reality, because each country is a signatory of the trade deal, not the EU, there is not the perceived power the remainers would like us to believe.

Pross

AA Gill did an article in The Times comparing the ideas of the exit campaign to someone getting divorced but wanting to carry on being able to drop around for a quickie with the ex-wife whenever you want.

As alluded to in posts above, if a country can leave and then agree all the 'good' bits without any of the 'bad' bits why on earth would anyone else stay in?

mrfpb

Pross wrote:

AA Gill did an article in The Times comparing the ideas of the exit campaign to someone getting divorced but wanting to carry on being able to drop around for a quickie with the ex-wife whenever you want.

As alluded to in posts above, if a country can leave and then agree all the 'good' bits without any of the 'bad' bits why on earth would anyone else stay in?

Given that exit from the Euro is pretty much impossible, Eurozone countries are tied into whatever shape that partnership takes. They have to stay and create the best deal they can for themselves. Many eastern Europeans are net receivers - the payouts from the European budget are bigger than their contributions. EU membership also gives them a bigger gang to be in when dealing with Russia, who they distrust and fear more than we will ever distrust the EU.

rick_chasey

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The EU does not negotiate as one entity. s.

It does with trade. That is literally the point. This is just factually incorrect from you.

coopster_the_1st

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pross wrote:

Has anyone else seen the latest Exit Referendum Broadcast with the 'sliding doors' approach showing someone's granny getting NHS treatment if we stay in and if we exit? In a campaign that has been defined by ridiculous claims and scaremongering by both sides it stands out as embarrassing but the problem is there are an element who will fall for it. Even ignoring the basic premise that the '£350 million a week' (the figure that excludes our rebate, money that comes back in funding for various initiatives that would have to be provided for from UK sources and whatever amount we have to pay to be members of this new trade arrangement with the EU) will be spent on the NHS instead how can they justify the different scenarios? What will happen to the NHS in the short term if EU immigrants in their workforce decide they want to return home or work elsewhere in the EU as a result of the out vote? We could end up with a shortage of qualified staff that would take years of training to replace. I think my wife is planning to vote for exit but even she laughed at the things being said.

There's also the dubious claim that £350 million could build a new hospital a week. Maybe that's true but the real cost of a hospital is in keeping it equipped and staffed to the latest standards.

Why is it these election broadcasts (by both sides) can pretty much say anything they want without censure whereas an advert for a product would be taken off the air if it made a similar standard of claim?

I have seen it... it's embarrassing. I also don't understand why, if they claim this is for the future of the nation, for the next generation, for the next 20-40 years... then why they specifically target those who don't have 20-40 years to live?
It seems to me the leave campaign has given up on the younger generations, which is just not right, the message comes across as: let your granny decide about your future...

I agree with Pross on this about there being no censure on the claims made by both sides.

However, the difference between the campaigns is that leave one presents a positive message* (I'm ignoring the £350m figure as that has been debated enough) whereas the remain one (and basing this on the empty purse of a pensioner poster*) is a negative message.

Positive messages are more influential than negative messages. And this to me sums up differences between the two sides of the campaign.

Just look at the trade negotiation posts. The remain is a negative approach whereas the leave is positive.

*I don't believe either will happen as presented hence my agreement with Pross

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The EU does not negotiate as one entity. s.

It does with trade. That is literally the point. This is just factually incorrect from you.

If that is the case why is the TTIP trade deal with America being held up by the French wanting their film industry protected (at least 20% content produced by the EU) and whether Greece has the naming right of 'feta' cheese

This is individual countries pushing their own interests. How is this possible if it is just the EU negotiating?

rick_chasey

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The EU does not negotiate as one entity. s.

It does with trade. That is literally the point. This is just factually incorrect from you.

If that is the case why is the TTIP trade deal with America being held up by the French wanting their film industry protected (at least 20% content produced by the EU) and whether Greece has the naming right of 'feta' cheese

This is individual countries pushing their own interests. How is this possible if it is just the EU negotiating?

Because, wait for it, France is part of the EU?

If me and my wife are negotiating a mortgage with a bank, and my wife insists she wants a fixed mortgage, it's still a negotiation between us as a couple and the bank.

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The EU does not negotiate as one entity. s.

It does with trade. That is literally the point. This is just factually incorrect from you.

I actually wrote:

The EU does not negotiate as one entity. It would be negotiating as 27 individuals all looking after their own interests under the Umbrella of the EU.

There is not going to be a decision by a group of Commisioners to "punish" the UK that the member states have to go along with - there is not even likely to be agreement amongst the different Presidents on how to proceed. Governments, particularly Germany, will ensure their economic interests are represented at the negotiating table. If you think cracks are showing in the Tory party over the debate, cracks exist in the commission and will only be made worse if we vote to leave.

finchy

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Just look at the trade negotiation posts. The remain is a negative approach whereas the leave is positive.

Just because a message is negative doesn't mean it's wrong.

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

I agree with Pross on this about there being no censure on the claims made by both sides.

However, the difference between the campaigns is that leave one presents a positive message* (I'm ignoring the £350m figure as that has been debated enough) whereas the remain one (and basing this on the empty purse of a pensioner poster*) is a negative message.

Positive messages are more influential than negative messages. And this to me sums up differences between the two sides of the campaign.

Just look at the trade negotiation posts. The remain is a negative approach whereas the leave is positive.

*I don't believe either will happen as presented hence my agreement with Pross

How is it negative to point out the folly of someones actions? especially when they have no return or plan B? and will effect millions of people.

to me, the OUTs are overly positive to the point of being unrealistic and certainly, your argument to leave seems to be based on supposition.

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

If me and my wife are negotiating a mortgage with a bank, and my wife insists she wants a fixed mortgage, it's still a negotiation between us as a couple and the bank.

Are you married now Rick? Congratulations!