Reasons to Remain.

[Himaginn]

Bank of England governor says EU has helped UK economy.
The governor of the Bank of England has said that Britain's membership of the EU has re-inforced the "dynamism of the UK economy".
In a pre-hearing letter to the Treasury Committee, Mark Carney said that the relationship had helped the UK to grow.
Mr Carney said an exit was the biggest domestic risk to financial stability.

Mr Carney was also questioned about the financial sector's reaction to an exit.
He said: "One would expect some activity to move, certainly there's a logic to that and there are views that have been expressed publicly and privately by a number of institutions that they would look at it, and I'd say a number of institutions are contingency planning for that possibility."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35751919

But not to worry, hey!
We'll replace all that lost trade with global trade agreements.
And the VAT rates will be the same throughout EU, so that won't matter.
And we'll be able to choose who we want to come here. Well to the RUK anyway. Not that anyone will, but let's ignore that bit.
And there'll be a run on the banks. (BoE is already making contingency plans for it.)
And Boris will be PM. (Or maybe it'll be Jeremy.)
And we'll all be backing Britain.
I wonder who they'll get to sing it this time.

 

[PBC_1966]

You've illustrated time and time again, your obsessive obtuse obstinacy in refusing to accept documented evidence, empirical data and historical examples.

It is precisely the historical example of the old Soviet Union coupled with the way the EU is going which gives cause for concern.

 

[JohnD]

It's a funny thing that some anti-EU campaigners like to pretend that the EU was set up as a mighty empire by force of conquest, and held down by massive armies, like the Soviet Union and its satellites. This is completely wrong. It is obviously a dishonest debating trick.

One of the Trolls tried it earlier, but was unable to provide examples to match the Soviet forced collectivisation of farms, the man-made famine in Ukraine, the extermination of a generation of educated Poles, or the archipelago of gulags.

These extravagant and untrue allegations by anti-EU campaigners convince no-one.

Quite the reverse, it was initiated by men who had lived through the greatest and most destructive war the world has ever seen. The older of them had also lived through the second greatest war the world has ever seen. Their greatest goal was to make a recurrence impossible.

View media item 3017

 

[Himaginn]

Obviously jock is not a UK taxpayer, so he doesn't contribute to roadbuilding, schools or the NHS, used by people, some of whom are poorer than him.

Actually I am a UK tax payer, work for the NHS, and last year paid around £2500 in PAYE contributions. I personally donated many times to the NHS too (direct donations to ward funds and indirect to many department raffles, by donating prizes and buying tickets. I think you'd be surprised by the extra work I do (unpaid, by stopping on at the end of a 12,5 hr shift for an extra hour or so, to catch up with paperwork, and the unpaid courses I have to attend, to keep my training up to date)

I thought the migrants weren't the only concern with being IN;

It's sad and worrying that the summation of the Brexit argument is dislike of immigrants.

It's more than that, and you know it. This is just one facet of the whole argument.

Yet your main concern is immigration:

Yes, of course, but then why should we subsidize the poorer parts of the EU? There are other nations queuing to get in, principally for the handouts.
We give enough in foreign aid already.

John D would say it's because we're members of the "club" and it's our moral duty to subsidise all and sundry in Europe... We should probably take in a couple of million, zillion of these refugees too.

Scrapping parts of the social welfare programme is something that Call Me Dave has recently announced, at least with regard to EU immigrants.

And about bloody time.

If NATO and Russia get into a nuclear conflict, then we in the UK get vaporised.

Also stops the UK becoming the intended country of loads of these immigrants. I do hope if it all happens, Russia targets Bradford, Luton and Tower Hamlets.

Sadly the ECHR would, probably find in favour of a dossing immigrant, claiming he had a right to a family life here in the UK (on benefits) because he'd found an abandoned budgerigar/cat/dog flea/cockroach. They have already found in favour of illegal immigrants who have killed children whist driving a car without insurance and illegal immigrants who have murdered innocent Brits....... Didn't the victims have these same rights? (or doesn't that matter now their dead and buried??)

I could go on, and on, and on quoting you complaining about immigration.
I would guess 90% of your posts are moans about immigration, usually including some silly comment about them.
I guess none of your patients, for whom you're putting in all these extra hours, are immigrants, then.
If they are, you really expect us to believe you do it voluntary, then come on here to moan about them. Or does the extra hours, that you claim to work, fire up your hatred for immigrants?

 

[gasbanni]

ZERO
THERE ARE NO REASONS TO REMAIN.

 

[PBC_1966]

My response is exactly the same as when you first asked this question:

But you post a chart suggesting that U.K. exports to the EU would plummet to near zero and use that to imply that millions of jobs would be lost simply by withdrawing from the EU, then you say:

In jeopardy means that they could be lost. It doesn't mean they would be lost or devastation. It means there is a possibility of them being lost.

And there's a possibility that those jobs could be lost for any one a number of other reasons, including the fact that with the ever-increasing red-tape and expense to employers of remaining within the EU they may reach the point at which they simply cannot afford to keep employees in all those positions any more.

 

[jockscott]

...UK tax payer ... paid around £2500 in PAYE contributions...donated many times...extra work I do (unpaid...

but

...pay more ...than we get back...If that's not "throwing money away" then please tell me what is

So, Jock, you are "throwing money away" by your definition.

Jock doesn't mind "paying more than he gets back" and "throwing money away" in principle, he deploys the argument selectively when he just wants to bolster his anti-EU stance.

Hmmm Do you seriously not understand the difference between "donating " and "throwing away" ??? Didn't think so... I for one realise what the NHS could do with a quarter the £55 million per day , the UK government "throw" at the headless monster the EU has become.

 

[JohnD]

You have previously claimed that paying more than you get back is throwing money away.

You know that its impossible for everyone to get back more than they pay.

 

[jockscott]

You know that its impossible for everyone to get back more than they pay.

Not if your a bookmaker.

 

[JohnD]

everyone

 

[jockscott]

everyone

Not if your a Euro MP then.

 

[JohnD]

It's true there have been questions about your hero, the anti-EU Farage and his expenses.

But the moat-cleaning, duckponds and fancy dog-kennels were claimed by UK MPs. Does that mean we should all leave the UK?

You make no sense.

 

[PBC_1966]

It's a funny thing that some anti-EU campaigners like to pretend that the EU was set up as a mighty empire by force of conquest, and held down by massive armies, like the Soviet Union and its satellites. This is completely wrong. It is obviously a dishonest debating trick.

No it wasn't created that way. The evolution of the future European federal superstate is being carried out much more steathily. But just because it started out differently from the Soviet Union doesn't mean that it can't or won't become something very much like it further down the track.

Quite the reverse, it was initiated by men who had lived through the greatest and most destructive war the world has ever seen. The older of them had also lived through the second greatest war the world has ever seen. Their greatest goal was to make a recurrence impossible.

And that may be so as well, but it doesn't mean that the concept cannot be hijacked by those with rather different motives and the whole project perverted into something else.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Himaginn]

My response is exactly the same as when you first asked this question:

But you post a chart suggesting that U.K. exports to the EU would plummet to near zero and use that to imply that millions of jobs would be lost simply by withdrawing from the EU, then you say:

In jeopardy means that they could be lost. It doesn't mean they would be lost or devastation. It means there is a possibility of them being lost.

And there's a possibility that those jobs could be lost for any one a number of other reasons, including the fact that with the ever-increasing red-tape and expense to employers of remaining within the EU they may reach the point at which they simply cannot afford to keep employees in all those positions any more.

You made exactly the same points on Page 6 of the Trade with EU thread, just over a week ago!
Do you really think that you're going to receive a different response because you're making the same points again, in a different thread, on a different day?