‘Brexit’: The Vote That Could Sink Britain's Economy
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Just look at my country, Holland. Pretty much all important decisions are made by the EU. An example: we cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow. The EU wants to force quotas on countries and if they don't accept the quotas, they want to give the countries fines.
The EU is undemocratic and if one values freedom, one should stay as far away from the EU as possible, even if it would be at some cost of the economy (though I'd say this is speculation).
Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
> We cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow.
Seems to me much of this sentiment about leaving the EU is merely fear for being overrun by non-natives.
Talking about 'This fear mongering has got to stop'...
Blaming a lacking in public services on migrants is not fair, while it's true to say that we have experienced a rise in immigration levels over the last decade, we are talking about a rise from 4 million in 1993 to 8 million in 2014, out of a population of 64 million, well under 10%.
To blame all the failings of our state on that small section of society, migrants who are more likely to be of working age than our recumbent ageing population, and hence more likely to be adding to our GDP over the long term, is not only unfair, it's bad economic policy too, without immigration our country will fall to it's knees supporting legions of pensioners...
The problem is not immigrants.
Seems like the rest of Europe 'copes' with going up, as the other poster pointed out, it's not really about land, for example, take Surrey, an area with very high demand for housing, 2.6% of the total land area is golf course...
People don't want more buildings near them (nimby) ... what do you do then? They are the ones you need to convince to vote IN, not me.
Basingstoke golf course is being replaced with houses.
Are customs and border control not useful any longer? Have we decided they aren't something countries should have control over?
Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress. In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
What makes "Holland" so special that it should have the ability to bar people from settling instead of "European Union", "Utrecht" or old grandma from the house across the street?
It's like wanting to dictate to China to abolish the Hukou system. I see it as unfair, but that's their own internal problem to solve.
The question is not whether the people of Holland should be stripped of that decision, but whether they should partially delegate it. And why shouldn't they?
I can delegate my finances, or I can make my own choices and maybe I feel like I'll get better served doing things myself.
I would, actually. Why should the accidents of birth determine something like that?
> Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress.
Realistically that's the only reason people who talk about controlling ingress want to control it though.
> In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
Shrug. I've lived in the UK all my life, but I feel like I have more connection to Brussels than (say) Leeds. (Indeed it would take me less long to get a train there).
I've yet to hear any pro-exit talking point that isn't xenophobic, jingoistic, or at BEST just hopelessly misinformed economically.
The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. They are like a bellwether for awful ideas.
Well... yes. The rest of it is a bunch of "well, we'd likely have had a bunch of the good ideas we were forced into by EU membership anyway" which is shockingly optimistic when looking at 80s Thatcherite Britain, verging on naive.
Throw in a couple more rather unconnected points that pretend to show significance (while just showing that the less-developed world is growing faster than the developed one. Which is... yeah, obvious, but also expected)
The rest of it then swerves into dodgy anti-immigration territory. Which is odd for a "liberal" case.
I agree with it that the Brexit plan is optimistic - but I think the article demonstrates exactly why that's a bad thing: because it's stupidly optimistic and convinces itself that everything will be perfectly awesome because they want it to be.
Whereas the reality is that this is rarely the case.
It's massive risk for little upside vs no real risk for a slightly reduced short-to-medium upside.
The "good" reasons so far have been basically shown to be mostly wishful thinking with very little actual upside and a LOT of risk.
Personally I'd not like to play roulette with a country, I'll take slightly slower growth and stability, thanks.
While I'm absolutely not a supporter of the BNP or UKIP in any way, their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.
If it does, then what does it mean when both the Conservative party, as well as many high level US officials (the President, military generals, intelligence chiefs) all come out in favour of the UK staying in the EU? Does that not ring any alarm bells?
EDIT: note, I am deliberately cherry picking the supporters to make the point. I'm aware they're not the only people in support of staying in the EU. Much like I'm sure the person I'm replying to is aware that the BNP and UKIP aren't the only people in favour of leaving, and has chosen them to make his point.
True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.
> Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
That's the point. It is all speculation.
The UK is not and has never been in Schengen, so it has borders and has control of it. They just happen to have agreed to a deal with the rest of the EU to give EU citizens almost the same rights as UK citizens.
In other words, people voting LEAVE can't have a problem with border control as it is now, because the borders are controlled. The problem is of a very different (and sad) nature.
Minimum wage in Poland is 410 EUR, in the UK it is 1,378 EUR
... I could keep going but you get the point. The UK is a desirable place to live. The UK is small. The UK has a housing crisis. The NHS is at breaking point (our local hospital is in crisis)... Not much of this is due to immigration, but it doesn't help that 500,000 (or so) new people turn up each year.
Together, they at least have a chance. European countries are always debating and don't speak with a single voice yet. But at least there is a chance for survival.
Just look at my country, Holland. Pretty much all important decisions are made by
the EU. An example: we cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many
immigrants we want to allow. The EU wants to force quotas on countries and if they
don't accept the quotas, they want to give the countries fines.
Yes, but there is no correlation between the size of a country and the standard of living of its inhabitants. The people of India, Brazil or Nigeria is not better off than the people of Norway, Singapore or Switzerland.
- It's barely in the top 40 military world powers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-det...
- It's 17th on GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... (actually below India and Brazil and not so far from Nigeria)
As part of the EU, Dutch people live in the (arguably) world's biggest economy. Outside the EU, they're just 17th and far from most of their neighbours.
You punch above your weight in football though :)
The EU is far from perfect, but we're the ones building it.
Edit: I'm not Dutch by the way
India and Brazil have very low GDP per capita, but they're absolute weight is so big that they're world players (more India than Brazil if you ask me), at least compared to rich countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, etc
I'd imagine having one of the largest ports in the world, which is Rotterdam, is a big leverage.
The Netherlands have a higher GDP than Turkey, what coolaid have you drank that you think that all of a sudden the Netherlands which is still a maritime superpower as far as trading goes cannot some how negotiate a trading agreement with the US? What enemy is encroaching on European borders that some how countries in the top 20 most developed nations can no longer stand on their own? Some how Canada, South Korea, Turkey and Israel can manage their economies, borders, and trade just fine but France or the Netherlands can't?
P.S. While not trying to stir anything no international law actually compels the EU to take in anything close to those numbers of refugees, those who come from N. Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al. are considered "economic migrants", those who actually come from war zones like Syria are not protected by international law since they've went through multiple countries mainly Turkey before they've reached the EU. And while the EU can and should help the resettlement of refugees it's also untrue to say that some how international law mandates it, international law does not allow a refugees to pick and choose where they want to be settled, if they want the protection they must register and ask for asylum in the first country outside of the conflict zone that they've been assigned too.
However the refugees currently don't even want to settle in any EU country, they specifically refused registration until they reach the UK, Germany, or Sweden, they constantly fight the police in Greece, Italy, France and other locations when they attempt to register them.
This breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to call names in arguments. It's particularly important not to do so on divisive topics like this one.
In your example you've said the EU "wants to" impose immigration quotas and "fine the countries that don't accept". How is that different from e.g. Germany imposing an immigration quota on your country? In exchange of e.g. not leaving you out of a trade agreement.
What's stopping your politicians from negotiating those quotas? Nothing, because that's what they're actually doing, but they know part of their voters are xenophobic, so they have to save face by saying "the EU told me to do it". It's politics 101.
Finally, please point me to where the EU is not a democratic entity, because I think I've missed the memo.
The EU is not a democratic entity by any stretch of the imagination, it is anti-democratic, over-ruling elected members and overriding the wishes of the people.
(Brexit - the movie). Sure, it's supporting Leave but the factual evidence is, well, just fact.
Don't get me wrong: I would prefer for the EU commission to be elected more directly by the European citizens. And I certainly wish that the European parliament had more power. But keep in mind that the only reason it's not happening is because the various EU governments don't want to give up too much power: they have full control of the EU commission, but not of the EU parliament / EU citizens...
TL;DR: power in the EU is held by the European Council, that is to say by the head of states.
EDIT: typo
And how exactly are we going to hold the head of states accountable, so one could say we control him/her?
Our government doesn't really care what the people think though. The Euro project must go on, no matter the cost.
The same thing happened just a few months ago when the Dutch people voted against the EU association treaty with Ukraine [0].
The government will still push through with the treaty. The EU project is holy and must go on. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission said the following on the Lisbon treaty:
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and
if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
"There can be no democratic choice against
the European treaties."
Because of its size, these flaws matter in a crisis. Balkans, Euro, Ukraine, refugees - EU response to each has been ridiculous and dangerous.
Some bureaucracy, organisational headaches (and yes of course, allowing those evil men in Brussles to tell us how straight our carrots can be) are a small price to pay for getting stuff done in our closely connected continent.
Taking the moral high ground with the 'undemocratic' argument gets you nowhere really. Britain has an unelected house of Parliament and many, many more historical oddities all of its own which are deeply undemocratic.
All you end up with is 'our brand of undemocracy is better than your dirty foreign one', and yes I'm aware that this is an oversimplification of sovereignty, etc, etc.
The UK, like all other small and medium sized countries, is not a unit in itself in terms of any of the issues that a nation state would normally (pretend to) govern:
- Economy; You import most of what you consume and much of what you produce is exported. - Tariffs; If you were to unilaterally increase tariffs, other countries would punish you the same way. - Language; Your language is a mixture of Germanic, Old Norse, French, Latin etc. - Education and research: You have imported most of what you learn, at any level of the educational system, and you export most of your valuable research. - Demographics; you are a diverse society. Quite many British people go abroad to work or study and many British are first, second or third generation immigrants. - Military; You depend on the good will and alliances of your neighbors and the US. Contrary to most other European states, you did manage to continue to function as a nation during WW2 but were it not for the Americans and the Russians, you would have lost to the Germans. The whole notion of military sovereignty for small countries is ridiculous. It's like a small dog barking at a bigger dog (I'm Danish, so I don't mean it as an offence).
I could go on. No matter what the issue is, the solution is International. The UK, and any other European country, benefits from the EU. The UK with its financial industry, dependence of foreign labour and dependence of export more than most.
The reason we all speak English here on HN is British colonialism. That was the preferred way to regulate and govern international relations back in the heydays of nation states. I prefer voluntary cooperation like the EU. A stronger, bigger and more democratic union, but a union.
With all due respect, the UK has the 5th largest economy in the world. Countries with weaker economies than the UK manage just fine on their own. The question isn't whether the UK can or can't do it, but rather whether we should.
One of the reasons you didn't wither any further is the EU, another is pax americana, as long as it lasts. As is the case for most of the other weaker economies that do 'just fine'.
Not all economic arrangements that the UK has made rely on the EU or the US. To give one example, the UK has one of the strongest banking sectors in the world. Aside from London, none of the top 10 financial centres of the world exist within an economic union, the closest is Luxembourg at 14th:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index
If it's not an issue for other countries to have a global financial centre outside an economic union, it's not going to be an issue for the UK either. Financial service companies based in London are unlikely to move anywhere else in the EU any time soon.
For a better perspective on the position of the UK outside the EU, consider the difference between the economies of UK and Australia. Australia has the 13th largest economy in the world, yet there aren't the same type of calls for economic unity in Oceania. How can Australia survive as an independent territory? Why can't the UK do the same?
But to imply that the only way to engage with the world is via the EU is just not true.
Almost everything you point out about the UK be it language, education, economy, immigration were true before we joined the EU (and were true before the EU) and will be true were we to leave. I've no idea what you think the EU does for us militarily. NATO, sure, but that's because of the US.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that we'd suddenly turn into a shrinking violet without the EU helping us see the big, wide world. For some of the economically smaller nations sure, the EU is fantastic. But the UK has the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world and it's not as if all the growth potential is in Europe (arguably the opposite).
Now, my personal view is that, economically, it's likely that we'd be better off in the short to medium term remaining in the EU. There are too many variables to have a meaningful long term view. Politically the EU is a mess but is likely to be a mess whether we stay or go. We're clearly not aligned politically with the bulk of the EU members but we're not going to suddenly turn into a dictatorship or a hippy commune if we left.
But to imply that the EU is the only answer for a country like the UK is as illogical as implying that the only answer is for us to leave.
Oh, and the reason we all speak English on HN is because it's the primary language of the US. If they hadn't reached economic and technical dominance in the mid-20th century I would fully expect we'd be writing in German as that was the lingua franca for scientific and technical work. There's much that the world should thank us for (by which of course I mean cricket) but this isn't one of them.
This is a genuine question. Free trade seems to me to be a somewhat nebulous term, stretched to serve a wide range of economic approaches, and I'd be interested in getting a better sense of clarity.
I am voting leave but not for the reasons that are spotlighted by the mainstream media. I know that in the short-term there is some risk however I believe it is surmountable. I am much more worried by what will happen to this country if we remain in the EU over the next decade.
A much more informative graph would map relative growth versus countries that didn't "join the club" (say, Norway, Switzerland or others).
I'm not British, and I'm not sure whether I'd vote for or against if I were, but it's interesting.
There is a positive vision for brexit, which about being open to the world, embracing free trade, free movement of labour, and reducing regulation.
The current version immigration system is broken. Any one with little skills can come to the UK from Europe. A doctor from outside Europe will have real difficultly. Personally I want both people.
Leaving the EU wouldn't effect our border controls, because they aren't set by the EU.
The UK isn't part of the "Schengen Area" of countries without mutual border control. The UK has control over its border policy, despite what brexit campaigners claim. It is the UK government that chooses to implement border policies which are regarded by some as "too lax", and then, sometimes, chooses to blame the EU for it.
You appear to be confusing border control and EU immigration. We control the former and not the latter.
And yet- I think the UK should leave.
From living with the British it seems to me that they really, really want to go. They want it for absurd, idiotic reasons. They 're motivated by nationalism, xenophobia, a ridiculous belief that if they kick all the foreigners off their island everything broken with the UK will magically fix itself... In short, the worse, most stupid sentiments that could ever inform such a serious decision.
And yet- they seem to want it. What's more, while they're in they're constantly disruptive and reactionary, digging in their heels and protesting every effort to bring the rest of the continent closer _as the rest of the continent wants it_. They are the grumpy man of Europe and proud of it.
So let them have their little moment. Let them wave two fingers in our collective faces. And let them get out just like they want it.
That's what they want. Let them have it.
The alternative is applying for citizenship, of course.
edit: living/leaving
(And I'm not eligible for citizenship; I move too much. I have to have 5 years behind me and intent to make this my home. I have neither.)
The only reason I'm allowed to live and work in the UK is that I'm an EU citizen. If there's a Brexit (or a Grexit for that matter) I'll have to get a working Visa, or possibly apply for a residency.
Neither is certain, and I'll be at the mercy of whoever examines my application. That's not a good place to be. And I'm worried that in a post-Brexit Britain, people will feel justified to act on xenophobic sentiment.
There will also probably be many other things that change- for instance, as an EU citizen I was eligible for a tuition fee loan for my university degree (I'm still repaying it) and I paid less for my Masters than overseas students. So there may be financial consequences also.
You also have to remember brexit is also opportunity to be even more open then we are now.
I'm looking at Switzerland or Hong Kong for future possibilities.
I'm not a xenophobic nationalist, and I don't believe that purifying the motherland will magically fix everything.
Outside of unbalanced right-wing newspapers and their vitriolic online comments sections, polls show Remain with an, admittedly unsafe, majority. We are not all foaming at the mouth screaming at foreigners for ruining everything.
That's not what all of us want.
Speaking as someone born and raised in the UK, I recognise that the attitude you speak of is prominent in our culture, but it's not what all of us want. I for one recognise that immigration has (for the most part) been a net benefit for the UK economically (and culturally, IMO). On the economic side:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-u...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/...
Immigrants are being used as a scapegoat, there's no excuse for it but at least some of us recognise it for what it is. What I find funny is if you look at the nonsense that surrounds immigration the stories aren't cohesive. You'll hear people saying that immigrants are lazy and just here to collect benefits, and you'll also hear people saying that immigrants are taking people's jobs because they're hard working and prepared to work for less. If people are going to be prejudiced, at least be consistent!
I recognise there are some issues around immigration that centre on religious differences, and those are more problematic than the economic issues, but for the most part the issues around immigration are overblown.
As an aside, I've come to realise that a lot of the problems in the UK stem from our frequently toxic mainstream news media. It's really sad to hear friends and family repeat back soundbites from the news media, with seemingly little to no awareness that those soundbites are there to reinforce prejudice rather than provide insight. I'm sure that the limited access to grown up news coverage and respectful debate lies at the core of our difficulties, everything else that's an issue stems from the lack of good quality information and an unengaged populace.
This goes to parenthepobia also.
I understand not everyone in the UK is a raging xenophobe, and I'm sorry if my comment lumps everyone together with those guys.
But the truth is that the UK society has indulged in this sort of attitude for a long time. Like you say, ZenoArrow, the mainstream press is constantly banging on that drum and people don't just tolerate it, they actively support it. Some challenge it, sure- but the Sun is still the paper with the highest circulation and the Mail is the second.
And now there's a referendum. It's not just a few people in the pub being a bit rude after a couple of pints. The country is officially thinking of embracing its isolationist tendencies.
I know there's good people in the UK- in fact, regardless of their love for populist rhetoric I think the majority of Brits are decent folk and I owe the country a big part of my own culture if you like. But it seems in this issue, somehow, the nasty ones have won and they'll have their way. And that's because nobody else stepped in to stop them. That's political apathy, as you say.
So maybe a Brexit will be a bit of a wake up call, or make people think again about stuff. Probably not, but in any case I really believe what I said: if this is what the majority really-really wants, they should have it.
I'm sorry the rest of you must suffer it also.
That I know a lot of young (and not so young), clever, entrepreneurial and hard-working British people that do not want that... And I don't want that for them.
I've got it easy as an EU citizen: I'll move back home or maybe another EU country if I feel like to. I'll might even buy a house in the coast from a British immigrant in Spain. I'm sure they'll start going for cheap in case of Brexit.
They, my British friends, won't have that chance. They will be stranded in an island with their careers and prospects crippled because, even if the long term is beneficial for the UK (something that no one has been able to support with decent arguments), the current generations are screwed.
At least they will get their borders (back?), so Boris Johnson, Rupert Murdoch and the dude from Wetherspoons can have free reign over the country.
Well, that's why I'm vocal about the issue. Is not so much about me, but more about my friends. I owe them this.
If we leave, to become more global. I.e free trade deals with China, India, Brazil, the English speaking commonwealth, whom share much of our laws and ways of working. Then we'd be 'quids in'.
I wonder: would for example California by itself make better trading deals with those countries then the US as a whole can establish ?
In economic theory bigger is better. Its interesting you mention only countries bigger then the UK instead of small ones. How do you think those countries look at sizes of other countries and regions ?
So you say it's a "vote for optimism", and you're VERY right. Misplaced optimism, mind.
What are these points against it? I have no idea how to vote so far.
* Better regulations. Yes, this can be handled locally, but at a large cost. * Lower prices of goods – the EU ‘Single Market’ for all member countries is a massive saving. Impossible outside of the EU.
* Free movement. Citizens are free to move from one member country to another. This is actually a massive boon to both leisure and commerce. Impossible without the EU.
* Creation of jobs - over 3.5 million jobs in the UK have been generated over the years. Not massive but the economic hit would be painful outside of the EU.
* The Structural and Investment Funds. Places all over the UK (and the EU) have been redeveloped, had economic investments, and companies funded. This is just not scalable economically outside of the EU.
* Louder voice – Britain isn't an Empire any more. It might be the 2nd largest economy in the EU (9th in the world) but without all the others it is a much smaller voice when it comes to agreements - plus it would have to negotiate agreements itself again. This is a surprisingly subtle one in terms of impact long term.
* Workers protections – the European Working Time Directive for a start but lots of other protections for EU citizens exist.
There are more, but this is a good example. Turns out btw that while EU membership costs the UK a bunch per person it actually more than makes up for it once you factor in a lot of the costs it has saved us as well.
Isn't it the 5th largest in the world? http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gd...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
We may have to wait a long time before we get this vote again, let's get out of the EU now then get our own house in order. I know it's not the ideal way to do it, but at the very least we will have restored more of our own democracy in the meantime.
I'm also tired of the fear mongering on both sides, I'd much rather we had a less divisive debate on the issues.
I don't believe you. England's outlook is one of the most dismal I have seen from all the countries in the world.
The impact seems quite real. My company is already having trouble filling up positions. Nobody applied in the last few months (my company consists largely of British and Europeans worker plus a small number of oversea workers). My speculation is that if UK is going to treat EU citizens the same as everybody else in the world, Europeans might as well head for the US.
In case you don’t know about UK visa system, I (and possibly other tech workers) am on a T2 visa. The quota for T2 last year is around 20k national wide. Good luck for all tech companies, big or small, that employ Europeans. My predication is that leaving EU is going to hit UK tech sector hard. Even if companies don’t mind paying for a T2 visa (my company paid more than 2000 pounds), good luck dealing with home office.
On the other hand, I think EU is a mess. Watching the Greece debt crisis as it developed is like watching slow motion car crash, so I don’t really blame if some UK people really want to leave for good reasons.
And here goes my personal rant:
I really don't care whether the UK leaves the EU or no, but at the end of the day, I am really fed up with all the talks about immigrants taking jobs and putting pressure on the system. Heck, I pay hefty sum of tax and NI contribution but the service I receive is abysmal. The cost of living is high but the salary is not that high. I just don't feel welcomed here. I couldn't imagine making this place my home.
The referendum could be the last straw on camel's back. I would probably move to somewhere else where the weather is nicer and the pay is higher.
What's annoying is how the vote is being used irresponsibly as a tool in domestic politics.
First - Cameron calling the vote to start off with, just to please backbenchers in his own party. What a waste of money this whole exercise has been. I bet he's hoping he could turn the clock back.
Second - Boris Johnson. Come on. People are not going to vote you for PM based on your "Leave" campaign. A haircut would go much further and be far less risky.
If Cameron resigns because of a leave vote then it is highly unlikely there will be a general election as a result. Conservative party members will vote for the next PM at party conference, not the general public. So Boris won't need _your_ vote to become PM, haircut or not.
/s
[sarcasm off]
If you think about it, it's really a counter-intuitive, yet rather expected behavior when you understand what is really happening in the world where a global elite is trying to consolidate and centralize ever more control and domination in a global system of government. Humanity needs actual diversity, not this mess that the EU and globalist, jet-setting elite have fooled the mentally ill liberal and Marxist minded people into beieving is diversity. We need differences, we need actual uniqueness; not homogenization, not consolidation and centralization.
Unfortunately, the internet is actually contributing to that trend. Just look at the recent revelations about Facebook controlling the messsage, discussion, and conversation of it's users by controlling what they can see and others share with them. And that's Facebook, with triple digit million users; a number of controlled messaging and propaganda tool that all other dictators and authoritarian regimes would have lost their mind with glee over having access to.
I can't recall off the top of my head who exactly is working on it, but I believe there are some interesting efforts going on at MIT to try to reintroduce decentralization back to the internet. We really need it. Humanity is really heading to a bad place if we don't figure this out.
The EU did not really help Greece, in it's difficulties. The UK has a better starting position, but that is everybodies future, in or out, and will be worse in.
The EU, as one of the largest 'countries' in the world, has not addressed the problems of climate change. Our beaches might be cleaner, but our skies are melting the Arctic, and the world's approach to carbon mining, is 'business-as-usual'. Climate distruction and ocean acidification are not even mentioned in the governments advice pamphlet (remain), nor in TTIP.
The EU will be stronger if we vote leave.
Meanwhile the real issues are not being discussed or debated in any kind of sensible manner. The UK is spending around 350 GBP million a week (minus some small amount they get back in rebates from the EU) on supporting the EU and have no control on millions of migrants coming into the UK to benefit from its completely free NHS medical system, (even breast implants for cosmetic purposes are allowed in some cases), free schooling, very high minimum wage laws and extremely generous benefits system (including free housing).
These system are now at breaking point and there is no end in sight to the ever increasing load on the system.
Meanwhile, the politicians sling mud at each other...
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
> Based on a net contribution of €12.1 billion (£9.8 billion) in 2014, the UK Treasury estimates the 2015 rebate amounted to €6.2 billion (£4.9 billion)
That doesn't sound like a small rebate.
Even the wingnut Daily Mail says
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about €260 billion (£228 billion). It has received back in benefits just €163 billion (£143 billion).
This rebate is only counting direct payments from EU (for farm subsidies, or to fund research), and ignores other benefits we get from EU.
You can't even get around ordering stuff right when you go to Spain for vacations, never mind enjoying the freedom of movement the EU allows
You complain about immigration but you bring also a lot of people from your ex-colonies and do you really think this has something to do with the EU? And Cameron's latest deal has some provisions in relation to immigrant's benefits.
You complain about the Euro but you couldn't even be bothered with that.
You talk about "going global" while you're breaking up with your neighbours? Yes, nice one
Complaints about regulation, true, EU bureaucracy, true. But everybody else has to do that as well.
(Or, what's also likely, they will "leave" but keep a lot of similar deals in place)