Brexit - really?

General de Gaulle had it about right. He didn't want us to join because he knew our hearts were not in Europe. "We are amongst them but not of them" to quote Churchill. Nick Robinson, BBC political editor, did a superb two-part program on the EU history. It was fascinating to learn about the political shenanigans and skullduggery (and buggery?) to get us to join. We should not have joined.

Unless the referendum is a clear 80/20 majority we should remain as we are and rethink the whole process. What is killing the UK, at present, is that we are a divided nation, eg Tory/Labour, In/Out of Europe, Christian/Muslim, Gay marriage/traditional beliefs. Just think how well we could perform if we had an identity, a goal, a purpose, to bind one nation together. I think this concept is the reason why the Americans are voting for Chairman Trump. We all need to belong to something and to be proud and confident of who and what we are.

I am fascinated - so if all of these individuals and institutions are wrong, (and by implication Trump is right), why have we not seen the research to back this up? Can you please enlighten us, Martin?

Okay Brian, so you have dismissed the B of E (and its Canadian Governor). Please complete the task with all the other institutions saying we would be worse off if we leave. Hint - it's a long list.

(You might also want to follow up with the list of those institutions saying we would be better off alone - hint: it's a short list)

apart from the pleasantly liberal "bias" of the BBC, most of British "opinion" seems to be filtered through Murdoch spectacles. Just like in the 80's the British do what their tabloids tell'em to do.

As for the myopic expats who still think they live in the UK and will benefit by the isolation that the UK will experience upon exiting - and as I would like to say to all those who embarassingly complain in shops about their servers not speaking English... "Go back home if you don't like it, YOU are the foreigner here". I'm here because I love the French way of life and here's a cat for you pigeons... I personally think a Federation of Europe would be a good idea.

https://vimeo.com/user14444354/review/166378572/11244b88d0

https://vimeo.com/user14444354/review/166378572/11244b88d0

I must say that I think the quality of life for the UK population in general has improved since joining the EU despite the fact that the UK has had to pay out. Is it just coincidental or would this general improvement have happened anyway? Whichever, I can't really see where EU membership has lowered my personal wellbeing. Most EU rules are annoying rather than suppressive!

Nick asks "where is the reasearch to back this up".

C'mon Nick - reasearch supplies what the paymaster of that research demands.

Smoking was good for you in times gone by - and even now many people still are convinced that flouride is good for you. Both of these views have been wrongly skewed by the powerful 'choosing' the results they want from so called reasearch.

You can approach this by either reading and quoting sources like 'news' papers and TV or you can formulate your own views - yes by listning to both these mainstream sources but adding to it the views of independent sources via the internet.

Research the research, there's plenty of credible evidence based research. But clearly you don't want to believe that or you wouldn't throw such spurious comments allegedly "supporting" you view. For the record smoking kills and EVIDENCE proves it along with published research. Fluoridation IS good for you (like many things too much isn't a good thing but have a look at http://skepticproject.com/articles/health/fluoride/ for some debunking of the myths you clearly believe. "Research supplies what the research paymaster demands" some yes but what an insult to the millions of scientists who follow good scientific practice!

I don't think it is entirely coincidental, though probably much of it would have happened anyway, due to the productivity gains delivered by technology, from the 1980s to 2000s, and then even more dramatically from the arrival of the mass internet, and connected world. Not only are we able to conduct this type of forum :-), but the growth in the global market through instant communication, transactions and trade has had a massive impact on business, and of course on lifestyles. The smartphone and apps have created huge new businesses, sometimes reaching $B valuations within MONTHs, and these businesses have very little respect for - or need for - borders. Order an iPhone from Apple's online store in France, and you will be buying a US-designed product from an Irish company, which likely ships direct from China, where it was assembled a day or so previously from components sourced from 20 - 30 other countries. Try doing that in 1980.

So to while we can argue about the economics (actually I think it is a clear win for Remain), the decision should really focus on the reality of the connected world we live in (not an idealised 1950s version, which is gone).

This means we need democracies to be able to control these tech behemoths. So if Google abuses its monopoly to favour its own sellers, it must be slapped down. If Facebook adds bias (human or algorithmic) to News Feeds, our elected institutions need to have the muscle to react. The tax system is broken for multinationals: paying corporation tax against profits allows companies to choose where they pay - Apple pays about 26% corporation tax overall, but not much of this is in Europe. This needs addressing. Google and Facebook have no physical products, so they have even more choice as to where to pay.

Anyone who feels that the UK alone is able to tackle these is living in the past.

This is why localism is a backward-looking and simplistic viewpoint that will inevitably flounder on the rocks of today's connected reality. "Take back control ?" And how exactly would the UK alone be able to counter the might of Google, Facebook, Apple etc? Or address the other major global - even existential - challenges we face: pandemics, mass migration, cyber and financial security.

We have a Brit up there, sitting in a (multinational) tin can, watching the world go by - Tim Peake sees no borders. Borders are a human construct, largely of the 20th century (no passports were necessary for international travel before 1910, I believe). And didn't the 20th century turn out well! Borders ---> Nationalism ---> Wars - only religion has caused more wars over the centuries.

So come on humans, let's try to think a little bigger. We live on a small planet, and if we insist on fragmenting ourselves to "take back control" of our little fiefdoms, there will be no human 22nd century.

..which is where I started from - look at who is saying it, and why.

Tell me why Obama would have been so direct? Remember he is a Democrat, not naturally aligned with Cameron. He is also reaching the end of his term, so has little to prove.

Or Hilary Clinton?

What about the World Bank?

The next high-growth Asian tiger, Vietnam?

South African head of the Oxford Martin School?

And please don't get fooled into that old non-sequitor: something else proved to be wrong in the past, therefore this proposition is wrong. Remember that you can always find far more well-researched predictions that were right than those that were wrong.

Im very familiar with the TTIP, as it's just like the TPP/TPPA in the region I'm currently based in.
I've also listened to many impassioned and emotive statements about the subject.
I've also read the majority of the framework of the trade agreement.
As well as 2 independent pros vs cons summaries of the draft agreement.

from my impartial reading, if not leaning a little towards the anti camp, Ive come to the conclusion that far too many making those emotive statements have not actually read the draft documents. But instead based their position on others emotive statements.
As Hillary recently said, your entitled to opinion, but you not entitled to make up your own facts.

IMO

Ive not been resident in the UK since 2001. Having been in New Zealand up until now.- Now that was a bad idea. The easiest way to make a small fortune in NZ, is to arrive with a larger one. This place will bleed you dry and smile and tell you they are doing you a favour by letting you live here, all the while slagging you off and not always behind your back.
I recall when living in the UK, in Leicester area in 99/00 an uproar over adopting the metric system in the markets. It was almost a peasants revolt. Stall holder refusing to display metric alongside "proper" imperial and customers refusing to use the word kilogram.
The ridiculous part to my mind was most people didn't buy a pound of banana or similar they asked for 6 banana. So it's irrelevant in the main.
I lived in NZ from 1966 to 1982, I went from old imperial to metric and frankly its simpler and more international.
It was hilarious listening to people argue, not unlike the current social media chatter on the new London Mayor. Apparently according to a website I was reading the other day he's going to introduce Sharia Law - FFS.

When I hear these infantile rants it puts into perspective to me why the UK needs EU more than the EU need the UK.

IMO

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/18/brexit-would-threaten-world-class-british-research-major-report-warns

Oh, 'Hillary", huh?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484

The sort of information on the Web that makes you believe in "chemtrails"

These people are surely intellectually-inferior to you.

chapeau bas, Monsieur !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89WammWN9p8

I wonder if the members who so strongly want the UK to leave the EU would return to live in the "New UK" which they fervently wish for? Or would they continue to live in an EU member state & take advantage of the benefits doing so conveys? The single currency, borderless travel within the EU, the ability to purchase from any member state through free trade are but a few.

I think the answer will be no & some feeble excuses made as to why the Brexiteers will wish it on UK citizens but stay here to avoid any possible affect on themselves. France is no Utopia but it beats the hell out of living in the UK!

If they really believed their own publicity & have removal vans on standby I might have a little more repect for their views.

is this really you Mark - the same Mark Rimmer who started this thread saying that he is 'unconvinced one way or the other' ?

that's right David - oh that and looking up at the sky from time to time to see these chemtrails with my own eyes, morph into grey coverage or the formerly blue skies.