International BREXIT: Leave/Remain Referendum on June 23 Will Change Europe, No Matter the Outcome.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Impact of Brexit on Scots economy debated in Scotland
June 20, 2016

_90038874_panel.jpg
The potential impact of Brexit on the Scottish economy has featured in a live BBC Scotland debate ahead of Thursday's EU referendum.

The debate saw the case for Remain being put by Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and SNP MP Joanna Cherry.

They faced former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars and Conservative peer Lord Forsyth, who are both pro-Brexit.

The panel also faced questions on immigration and the possible implications for Scottish independence.

Polls have suggested the two sides are neck-and-neck as the campaign enters its final days - although Scotland still appears to be more in favour of Remain than other parts of the UK.

The leaders of all of Scotland's main political parties also want the UK to remain a member of the EU, although there are some dissenting voices within them.

The BBC Scotland debate was chaired by Glenn Campbell, and opened with a question on the economic implications of Brexit.

Ms Dugdale said the negative effect of Brexit would be seen "almost instantly" as markets opened on Friday morning if there was a vote to leave.

Ms Cherry told the audience that Scotland benefited from £16bn a year from Europe, adding: "At the moment we are part of a free market where we have access to 500 million other consumers, and this has brought massive benefits to the Scottish and the British economy.

"If we voluntarily withdraw from that free market, we will no longer have access to trading with that free market, and of course it is going to have an impact on jobs and investment, that goes without saying."

And she said it was a "no-brainer" that jobs and investment would be hit by Brexit, but would not be drawn on how many jobs she thought would be lost.

Lord Forsyth played down the chances of a major economic shock from Brexit, saying: "Despite all the scaremongering that's been going on, if you look at the markets today the pound is broadly where it was before the referendum was announced."

And Mr Sillars predicted a trade deal between the UK and EU would be reached after Brexit as it would be "lunacy" for the EU to put up trade barriers with the world's fifth largest economy.

He said the 27 EU members exported about £290bn of goods and services to the UK every year, while UK exports to the EU were worth about £228bn, so it was in the interests of both sides for an agreement to be reached.

Later in the debate, Lord Forsyth criticised the unofficial Leave campaign's Breaking Point poster as "silly" and "particularly stupid".

And Mr Sillars said UKIP leader Nigel Farage would be largely to blame if Leave lost because of his "disgraceful" attitude to immigration.

He said Scotland needed many more people to come from all over the world, which he said would be "good for us all".

Independence question

Ms Dugdale said only 5% of EU migrants claimed benefits in the UK, and claimed that the Leave campaign "make out that it's 95%".

She also stressed the importance of migrants to the NHS, saying that you were much more likely to be treated by a migrant than to be sitting next to one in the waiting room.

The panellists were also asked about the implications of Scotland voting to remain in the EU while the UK as a whole voted to leave.

Ms Cherry predicted it would lead to a "groundswell of support" for a second referendum on independence, and said an independent Scotland might not want to use the pound "if it dives after Brexit".

But Mr Sillars said the SNP would not have a mandate to hold a referendum as it was not included in its manifesto ahead of the Holyrood election, and the party had now formed a minority government.

Lord Forsyth claimed an independent Scotland would not be allowed into the EU because the country would not meet the debt criteria for membership.

And Ms Dugdale said the reasons for remaining in the UK would be "even stronger" after Brexit because people would not want to lose Scotland's biggest trading partner as well as its second biggest.

'Pressure on services'

Earlier in the day, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon argued that the UK leaving the European Union could put the NHS and workers' rights at risk.

Speaking at the Royal College of Nursing's annual congress in Glasgow, the first minister said the referendum result could have "profound consequences" for health services.

But Tom Harris, director of Scottish Vote Leave, said Ms Sturgeon was "sticking her head in the sand" by "ignoring the pressures on local health services that would result from a Remain vote".

He said: "Research releases show that if existing levels of EU net migration continue, NHS Scotland will require an additional £309m per year by 2030 to maintain current funding levels."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36578094
 
Last edited:
I'm not British, but what a stupid fucking piece by The Independent:

Looks like they're off, but as this doesn't study the impact of these groups either way I don't care what their collective misperception is. 3.5m of 64m is a significant cut. That's about 1 out of 18 residents.


Wait, what point were you trying to prove?

I don't really have a point, I just thought I'd contribute an article I read.

But you're explaining away their wildly inaccurate perception with "well, the real numbers are scary, too!"

???

Am I reading you correctly?
 
Not right now, but countries like the Netherlands or Sweden see a lot of issue like the UK does. Or lets say they don't see it like Germany does and rely on the UK as a counterweight to Germany's influence. If the UK leaves, those countries will be left alone and might think about leaving in the future.

I guess what I should ask then is if they leave what countries does
the EU fear the most that want break away?
 
‘Brexit’ likely to fail, but EU will change
Darrell Delamaide, Special for USA TODAY
June 20, 2016

635972619841918258-AFP-550068350-80517450.JPG
The odds on British voters choosing to leave Europe in Thursday’s referendum were always fairly long, but have gotten longer after last week’s assassination of a pro-European Union Member of Parliament.

Even Nigel Farage, head of the U.K. Independence Party and a leading advocate of Britain exiting the EU, conceded that the killing of Labour Party lawmaker Jo Cox apparently by an anti-immigrant fanatic has probably stopped whatever momentum the Leave proponents had.

“We did have momentum until this terrible tragedy,” Farage told British television over the weekend. “When you are taking on the establishment, you need to have momentum. I don't know what’s going to happen over the course of the next three to four days.”

It was far from certain even before the shocking assassination in northern England last Thursday that the Leave campaign would actually convince voters to make the leap into the dark that “Brexit,” as it is known, would entail.

In a similar situation two years ago, Scottish voters backed off from the consequences of a split with England as a referendum on independence lost by more than 10 points.

Betting odds for the current referendum – generally a reliable indicator in Britain’s sophisticated betting markets – had shortened in recent weeks but still gave the "Remain" camp a 60% chance of winning, down from 70% in the weeks before. This week they have swung back to well over 70%.

Polls had emerged giving the "Leave" camp a slight edge among those with an opinion, but still left a large pool – 10% or more – as undecided, and these were likelier to break for Remain.

New polls in the wake of Cox’s murder have Remain voters on top again, and Farage’s comment indicates that the tragedy has hurt the chances of Leave advocates to win over those on the fence.

In any case, British polls have been notoriously unreliable in recent years, calling the Scottish independence vote a dead heat when in fact the "No" to independence prevailed with a comfortable margin. Polls last year forecast a hung Parliament in national elections – no party winning a majority – when in fact the Conservatives won their first outright majority in nearly a quarter century.

Ultimately, for all the noise about independence and recovering sovereignty, British voters have few compelling reasons to leave the EU, aside from the vexed issue of immigration.

The debate over Brexit, however, has clarified the choice for those who want Britain to enjoy the trade and other economic benefits of the EU – namely, that London should stay and show more forceful leadership in fixing the problems in the EU, starting with immigration.

A defeat of the Brexit referendum could give British Prime Minister David Cameron greater leverage in exercising that leadership.

For one thing, Leave supporters have already begun talking about a new referendum if this one fails – prompting a discussion of “neverendum” in the British press – and Cameron can use that threat for wresting further changes from Brussels.

Even if the Leave vote falls short, the Brexit debate and the fact that a substantial minority of British voters think the country would be better off on its own has already changed the dynamic in the EU.

Britain, and perhaps a fair number of other European countries, no longer accept – if they ever did – the goals of full-fledged political and economic integration in a European superstate that is implied in the EU treaties.

At the very least, there is likely to be an evolution toward a two-speed Europe, with those countries that choose to remain in the euro proceeding toward greater integration, and other countries receding back to a looser affiliation with a common market.

The principle of subsidiarity – making rules and laws at the level closest to the people – could be restored after essentially being abandoned in the quest for “ever closer union” that required more decisions to be made in Brussels.

In short, win or lose, the Brexit referendum has already changed the trajectory of Europe’s future, putting an end to the idea of a United States of Europe.

This was the message from no less an authority than Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council and so the top EU official, when he urged in a speech earlier this month to abandon “utopian dreams” like “total integration” and focus on more pragmatic measures to preserve union in Europe.

Tusk doubled down on this warning Monday in new comments about the Brexit vote. “Whatever its result is going to be, we must take a long, hard look on the future of the Union,” he said after a meeting in Lisbon. “We would be foolish if we ignored such a warning signal as the U.K. referendum.”

Brexit may fail, but the changes sought by its supporters may well prevail.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...uropean-uionn-change-united-kingdom/86139128/
 
Last edited:
Next they will be saying that the EU will need to cede power over to a global authority "Or else"
 
I guess what I should ask then is if they leave what countries does
the EU fear the most that want break away?

I would say richer countries with a relative small population like Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria. They could do it financially. If they have the desire to leave or think German has to much influence.

Italy and Spain cant leave because they would basically go bankrupt without the financial security of the EU. All the eastern European just joined and would have no interest of leaving. They are still in the honeymoon period experience growth due to the free trade with the EU.
 
Oliver's show has a entire team of fact checkers, journalists and writers. Oliver himself is an entertaining guy but he's not brainy at all, he's not the one coming up with the information.
 
Anyone else watch this today? It sounded like a corporate funded attack ad on brexit and UKIP. I am beginning to think that MP got assassinated by the EU to make the exist less sympathetic and now they've got Jon Oliver bought and paid off.
Which makes the fact that you own a lot of guns worrisome.
 
Should've called out the "economic Doom" Predictions of "in " campaign,which even left-leaning Economists call ridiculous
 
Oliver is a piece of shit. Anyone who watches that show is a pathetic self-loathing twerp. All it is is him getting on a soapbox and berating America and Americans. He's not even funny, just a bitter little weasel. Who brought this guy over here, George Soros?

Not surprised he's using his corporate-funded soapbox to attack another pet peeve of the left, though I am a bit surprised he's taking a break from attacking America for a few minutes.
 
Oliver is a piece of shit. Anyone who watches that show is a pathetic self-loathing twerp. All it is is him getting on a soapbox and berating America and Americans.
Why wouldn't a US show focus on issues in the US? Also, do your own posts not also frequently criticize the US government?
 
A bit disapointed in that piece.
I get that the primary audience, U.S citizens, are probably not that interested in pros and cons of the EU, but I don't actually think that video was as informative as it needed to be.

It also mixed some things up. The UKIP campaign displayed a picture of refugees with the slogan "breaking point", and then the piece turns to a guy explaining the free movement of workers (and EU citizens), and how the U.K is still going to have accept that if they want to be part of the inner market. Which is obvious. But free movement of EU citizens, have nothing to do with refugees. In fact the UKIP campaign is just being manipulative, made in order to reel in the racist mouthbreathers.

The EU does not control the flow of refugees, nor do they have any say in immigration policies. The only thing the EU has done, was to inact quotas in order to spread the burden from Greece and Italy. But that was not EU policy at all, that was simply each member state getting together and solving an emergency crisis (and helping out two fellow EU member states) by the way of qualified majority vote.

Anyway, I would like this piece to have been more fact based and examined the arguments for leaving and staying a lot more. I certainly agree with the sentiment, that the leave campaign is motivated by all the wrong reasons. I touched a bit upon that in the other thread here: http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/b...ave-on-june-23.3176729/page-10#post-117609707
 
Why wouldn't a US show focus on issues in the US? Also, do your own posts not also frequently criticize the US government?

He's not criticizing the US government, he's criticizing conservatives in general, whether they be public servants or private citizens as a group. Oliver comes to this country and gets paid large sums of money to insult half the country. It's pathetic on our part, really.

I would never immigrate to another country and then spend all day shitting on it. Completely ungrateful. If he loathes America and her people so much, why on Earth would he move here? To capitalize off of self-loathing Americans, which there are unfortunately many of.
 
He's not criticizing the US government, he's criticizing conservatives in general, whether they be public servants or private citizens as a group. Oliver comes to this country and gets paid large sums of money to insult half the country. It's pathetic on our part, really.

I would never immigrate to another country and then spend all day shitting on it. Completely ungrateful. If he loathes America and her people so much, why on Earth would he move here? To capitalize off of self-loathing Americans, which there are unfortunately many of.
Your first paragraph contradicts your second paragraph. In your first paragraph you admit he's not shitting on the country, he's shitting on particular views. How is that ungrateful? How is that different from your posting?
 
Well clearly Jon Oliver is in the pocket of the Rothschilds and his show is in the hands of the Illuminati. I mean you've got to be blind not to see that. TS isn't batshit fucking nuts.
 
Your first paragraph contradicts your second paragraph. In your first paragraph you admit he's not shitting on the country, he's shitting on particular views. How is that ungrateful? How is that different from your posting?

I'm not contradicting myself, I just didn't feel the need to qualify "the country" in the second paragraph since I already defined what I meant by that in the first one.

You really don't see how it's different when a person born and raised in a certain country--meaning they had no choice in the matter--is different than a 40 year-old from abroad moving to that country? That's a pretty obvious difference.

Once again, I don't see the point--other than exploiting homegrown anti-Americanism for profit, which isn't very admirable--of moving from the UK to the US just to bash it. Half the country isn't a trivial portion, so when you loathe it, why come here? Just go back.
 
He's not criticizing the US government, he's criticizing conservatives in general, whether they be public servants or private citizens as a group. Oliver comes to this country and gets paid large sums of money to insult half the country. It's pathetic on our part, really.

I would never immigrate to another country and then spend all day shitting on it. Completely ungrateful. If he loathes America and her people so much, why on Earth would he move here? To capitalize off of self-loathing Americans, which there are unfortunately many of.

Well.. Half your country is really easy to criticise. Who could pass on such an obvious business opportunity?

Seriously though, he spends a lot time on his shows talking about other countries, specific companies or global events. That's not even touching on the fact that all his shows are well researched, and imo, touch on very important topics. You're really hypersensitive, if you think he's exclusively going after "your group", or needlessly insulting them.
https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight
There's really few pieces on real conservative hard working true AMERICANS. I think you're a tad too emotionally connected to your political party, if you're offended by his show.

If you want to come to my country, and do a show like his, I would be glad to set up a funding campaign for you. Every country should have a show like his.
Oh wait:


Nevermind.. Fuck John Oliver.. Fucking piece of shit.
 
I'm not contradicting myself, I just didn't feel the need to qualify "the country" in the second paragraph since I already defined what I meant by that in the first one.

You really don't see how it's different when a person born and raised in a certain country--meaning they had no choice in the matter--is different than a 40 year-old from abroad moving to that country? That's a pretty obvious difference.

Once again, I don't see the point--other than exploiting homegrown anti-Americanism for profit, which isn't very admirable--of moving from the UK to the US just to bash it. Half the country isn't a trivial portion, so when you loathe it, why come here? Just go back.
So because he chose to move here (his wife is a US military veteran), he can't criticize the country he's moved to?
That is a stupid opinion on your part. Both the fact that he lives here and the sway the US has abroad more than justifies him being able to speak his mind.
 
Seriously though, he spends a lot time on his shows talking about other countries, specific companies or global events. That's not even touching on the fact that all his shows are well researched, and imo, touch on very important topics. You're really hypersensitive, if you think he's exclusively going after "your group", or needlessly insulting them.
Yeah, I've only caught a few episodes and they've pretty much always been about global issues. Somehow I've missed most of the "America Sucks" episodes. He had a great one about how various trade agreements have prohibited developing countries from providing health information about tobacco.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top