UK forum members, BREXIT?

[jancumps]

Discussing Brexit is interesting because the correct course of action is not at all obvious.

Are there any non-bias sites explaining what Brexit is?
thanks

Maybe this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/europe/britain-european-union-brexit.html?_r=0

Basically, over time, the UK leaves the EU.

What is a good unbiased source within UK? One that looks at the poll and possible outcomes and effects without being linked to In or Out?

[grumpydoc]

What is a good unbiased source within UK? One that looks at the poll and possible outcomes and effects without being linked to In or Out?

The BBC one is reasonable http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

[NivagSwerdna]

What is a good unbiased source within UK? One that looks at the poll and possible outcomes and effects without being linked to In or Out?

I don't think such a place exists.  Indeed, events are changing so fast it is difficult to predict the fate of the EU especially on it's eastern borders... just look at the deteriorating state of democracy in Turkey... unfortunately we live in an age of substantial change.

[doobedoobedo]

What is a good unbiased source within UK? One that looks at the poll and possible outcomes and effects without being linked to In or Out?

The BBC one is reasonable http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

The BBC is heavily biased in favour of Remain.

[rolycat]

What is a good unbiased source within UK? One that looks at the poll and possible outcomes and effects without being linked to In or Out?

The BBC one is reasonable http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

The BBC is heavily biased in favour of Remain.

An unqualified claim from someone in the Leave camp.

I suspect that there is an implicit bias towards the Remain position in some BBC reporting, but on the whole I have found that they do their best to present facts without slanting them in either direction. Finding an absolutely impartial source of information is probably impossible.

[tggzzz]

What is a good unbiased source within UK? One that looks at the poll and possible outcomes and effects without being linked to In or Out?

The BBC one is reasonable http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

The BBC is heavily biased in favour of Remain.

Riiiiight. Just like they are a bunch of hippie communists?

Or maybe because they point out the nonsense statements aren't backed up by solid facts and/or are lying-by-omission? (Nonsense that is spouted by both sides, IMNSHO).

[doobedoobedo]

What is a good unbiased source within UK? One that looks at the poll and possible outcomes and effects without being linked to In or Out?

The BBC one is reasonable http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

The BBC is heavily biased in favour of Remain.

Riiiiight. Just like they are a bunch of hippie communists?

Or maybe because they point out the nonsense statements aren't backed up by solid facts and/or are lying-by-omission? (Nonsense that is spouted by both sides, IMNSHO).

It's as much what they completely ignore.

Riots in Greece and France - Not newsworthy.
Switzerland withdraws it's application to join the EU - Not newsworthy.

Remain makes a claim - Very high proportion on the main news page of the website.
Leave makes a claim - Low proportion on the main news page of the website, usually only on politics sub-page, or referendum sub-sub-page.

Their explanations of how the EU works always gloss over the EU Commission. They always play down it's power and it's lack of democracy (lack of democracy is in fact never mentioned). They never mention that the only part of the EU which can propose laws has no democratic accountability at all. Or that there is no mechanism to repeal EU laws.

They do seem to have been getting less biased in the last month, as both sides have made more and more incredible claims.

[rch]

The Commission acts as a civil service, which admittedly makes them immensely powerful, but doesn't give them decision-making powers, the (elected) European Parliament comments on them and can ask for changes, and the Council of Ministers (representing the democratically elected leaders of each member country)  makes the decisions.   Not perfect, but not obviously 'undemocratic' either.

The main role of the European Court (not to be confused with the European Human Rights Court, which is nothing to do with the EU) mainly checks whether governments have stuck to what they agreed to.  If they don't like its decisions countries have to go back to the Council of Ministers and say where they would like things changed.  Democratically.

[bitslice]

To correct some misinterpretation of events:
Trump is not proposing exclusion of Muslim from entering/immigrating to the USA.  Trump is proposing a temporary halt on Muslim entering the USA until we find a good way of vetting them.  (Key words are in bold)

Yep.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233

"the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."

Jimmy Carter,  April 7 1980


This is the problem with America's SJW's, they were all born yesterday.


Also, LOL at the BBC being considered unbiased. I must say it's been a stealthy change which has made me question if it was just me or not, and I expect everyone at the BBC considers themselves neutral, but there have been too many times where echoes of literary dystopias are apparent.
Maybe it's one for history to reflect upon, such changes are hard to quantify and easy to dismiss, without hindsight nations undergoing such changes are powerless to stop it.

I suspect we are at least one small step closer to blood on the streets than we were before, too many people are being left out of this debate between invested career politicians.

[doobedoobedo]

The Commission acts as a civil service, which admittedly makes them immensely powerful, but doesn't give them decision-making powers, the (elected) European Parliament comments on them and can ask for changes, and the Council of Ministers (representing the democratically elected leaders of each member country)  makes the decisions.   Not perfect, but not obviously 'undemocratic' either.

The main role of the European Court (not to be confused with the European Human Rights Court, which is nothing to do with the EU) mainly checks whether governments have stuck to what they agreed to.  If they don't like its decisions countries have to go back to the Council of Ministers and say where they would like things changed.  Democratically.

Except that is completely untrue.

Is the British civil service the only body able to propose laws? No. That is the job of our parliament.
Does the British civil service have agenda-setting powers? No. That is the job of our government.

So the European Commission, who you say are just a civil service, actually have the powers of our government and parliament. While the European parliament have rubber-stamping powers for those laws proposed by the commission. Now that's democracy!

[Kjelt]

If it is 50/50 as the polls indicate I wish the UK good luck in the aftermath, you still have a devided population.

[grumpydoc]

Also, LOL at the BBC being considered unbiased.

The BBC tries hard to be neutral, sometimes mind-bendingly so but it does have bias.

However the EU Reality Check section of the website is clearly trying to provide a reliable source of information with so much bullshit floating around.

I note no-one has offered an alternative.

If it is 50/50 as the polls indicate I wish the UK good luck in the aftermath, you still have a devided population.

It was always going to be close, Cameron should have learned the lessons from the Scottish referendum but was hell bent on this course

[pelule]

The BBC tries hard to be neutral, sometimes mind-bendingly so but it does have bias.

As I am also living in net paying country, I am doing worldwide business, I am not able to be neutral either. I assume nobody does.
Never the less I like to tell my opinion.
My "not neutral" position:
Out of my view the main cause of the often claimed (social) imbalance is not caused by the EC, it's cause by that people, which try to make their maximum win at the expense of the society - just one example: use any trick (even illegal sometimes) to save taxes. The "BREXIT" vote will not change that.
My "cause of the problem":
All countries in the EC are controlled by majority decisions by "the nation". But the "one voice" does simply not exist, the "stream" changes whith each press release. The nation is a huge mass of different targets and motivations.
Each individual will claim to want the best for the comunity - but that's true only, if one has not to pay for personally.
That's the problem of democracy - a much more smart person ones said:
"The worst form of government I know, is democracy, but I don't know a better one".
The EC is just a bigger version - so I am not expecting a difference result.
My "proposal":
You may try to get informed, but as the sources of information will not be neutral, you have no realistic chance. Try your best, but accept - your voting will be emotional at the end.
My "prognosis":
I am highly confident - the UK, the world and also the global markets will deal with the result, as they allways do.

[nctnico]

Still you can't deny the fact that it is more difficult to trade with a country which has a wildly fluctuating currency versus your own. I have some UK customers and suppliers and the fact they are using pounds makes doing business riskier because I can't tell how much I will make on a project exactly. If a Brexit increases the pound versus euro volatility doing business will be harder and there will probably be more tax paperwork to fill out as well if the UK exits from the EU. All in all I think a Brexit will be a step back for me.

[doobedoobedo]

Still you can't deny the fact that it is more difficult to trade with a country which has a wildly fluctuating currency versus your own. I have some UK customers and suppliers and the fact they are using pounds makes doing business riskier because I can't tell how much I will make on a project exactly. If a Brexit increases the pound versus euro volatility doing business will be harder and there will probably be more tax paperwork to fill out as well if the UK exits from the EU. All in all I think a Brexit will be a step back for me.

By all means don't do business outside the Eurozone if you're that worried.

[vodka]

Still you can't deny the fact that it is more difficult to trade with a country which has a wildly fluctuating currency versus your own. I have some UK customers and suppliers and the fact they are using pounds makes doing business riskier because I can't tell how much I will make on a project exactly. If a Brexit increases the pound versus euro volatility doing business will be harder and there will probably be more tax paperwork to fill out as well if the UK exits from the EU. All in all I think a Brexit will be a step back for me.

.

Simply , the pro-Brexit say that is maneouver from  Contra-Brexit with the goal to scare the british people for changing the poll.
 But  the view of the corporations with the several variations of the pound may interpret that isn't profitable to do bussiness with britishes.

I always say that the democracy is the new religious of the XXI century ,you only have to have faith on her

[zapta]

All in all I think a Brexit will be a step back for me.

Your interest it mine do not matter here. It's about what is good for the UK and how it's citizens see the future of their country.

It's their country.

[nctnico]

Still you can't deny the fact that it is more difficult to trade with a country which has a wildly fluctuating currency versus your own. I have some UK customers and suppliers and the fact they are using pounds makes doing business riskier because I can't tell how much I will make on a project exactly. If a Brexit increases the pound versus euro volatility doing business will be harder and there will probably be more tax paperwork to fill out as well if the UK exits from the EU. All in all I think a Brexit will be a step back for me.

By all means don't do business outside the Eurozone if you're that worried.

I'm not worried. Just stating the impact a Brexit is likely to have on my small business. Sure hurdles can be overcome but if I have the choice to buy hassle free from Germany or have to deal with extra paperwork, banking costs and exhance rate fluctuations then the outcome is easy to predict: buy from Germany.

[Galenbo]

... Just stating the impact a Brexit is likely to have on my small business. Sure hurdles can be overcome but if I have the choice to buy hassle free from Germany or have to deal with extra paperwork, banking costs and exhance rate fluctuations then the outcome is easy to predict: buy from Germany.

Except when Holland leaves EU too (I mean, they kick out the EU bureaucrats)
Imagine to have to deal with extra paperwork, banking costs and exhance rate fluctuations just to do some business with one of those remaining overpriced bigstate EU countries.

[rch]

The Commission acts as a civil service, which admittedly makes them immensely powerful, but doesn't give them decision-making powers, the (elected) European Parliament comments on them and can ask for changes, and the Council of Ministers (representing the democratically elected leaders of each member country)  makes the decisions.   Not perfect, but not obviously 'undemocratic' either.

The main role of the European Court (not to be confused with the European Human Rights Court, which is nothing to do with the EU) mainly checks whether governments have stuck to what they agreed to.  If they don't like its decisions countries have to go back to the Council of Ministers and say where they would like things changed.  Democratically.

Except that is completely untrue.

Is the British civil service the only body able to propose laws? No. That is the job of our parliament.
Does the British civil service have agenda-setting powers? No. That is the job of our government.

So the European Commission, who you say are just a civil service, actually have the powers of our government and parliament. While the European parliament have rubber-stamping powers for those laws proposed by the commission. Now that's democracy!

Actually in our system when a minister wants to bring in a new law it is the civil service that drafts it.  And quite often it is the civil service that suggests it!   Did you ever watch "Yes, Minister"?

And they do the cabinet agendas etc.   

Secondly, do you really believe the Commission dreams up many ideas that Cameron, Merkel or Hollande  haven't hinted might be welcome?    TTIP for instance sounds a remarkably Anglo-Saxon initiative.

[doobedoobedo]

The Commission acts as a civil service, which admittedly makes them immensely powerful, but doesn't give them decision-making powers, the (elected) European Parliament comments on them and can ask for changes, and the Council of Ministers (representing the democratically elected leaders of each member country)  makes the decisions.   Not perfect, but not obviously 'undemocratic' either.

The main role of the European Court (not to be confused with the European Human Rights Court, which is nothing to do with the EU) mainly checks whether governments have stuck to what they agreed to.  If they don't like its decisions countries have to go back to the Council of Ministers and say where they would like things changed.  Democratically.

Except that is completely untrue.

Is the British civil service the only body able to propose laws? No. That is the job of our parliament.
Does the British civil service have agenda-setting powers? No. That is the job of our government.

So the European Commission, who you say are just a civil service, actually have the powers of our government and parliament. While the European parliament have rubber-stamping powers for those laws proposed by the commission. Now that's democracy!

Actually in our system when a minister wants to bring in a new law it is the civil service that drafts it.  And quite often it is the civil service that suggests it!   Did you ever watch "Yes, Minister"?

And they do the cabinet agendas etc.   

Secondly, do you really believe the Commission dreams up many ideas that Cameron, Merkel or Hollande  haven't hinted might be welcome?    TTIP for instance sounds a remarkably Anglo-Saxon initiative.

Ah so the Commission is 'Yes Minister', but without the minister. That I can believe.

[nctnico]

... Just stating the impact a Brexit is likely to have on my small business. Sure hurdles can be overcome but if I have the choice to buy hassle free from Germany or have to deal with extra paperwork, banking costs and exhance rate fluctuations then the outcome is easy to predict: buy from Germany.

Except when Holland leaves EU too (I mean, they kick out the EU bureaucrats)
Imagine to have to deal with extra paperwork, banking costs and exhance rate fluctuations just to do some business with one of those remaining overpriced bigstate EU countries.

I wouldn't call Germany overpriced. When I visit Germany and France I notice how many small businesses you see in the street. In Germany the restaurants and hotels are much cheaper than in the rest of West Europe.

Something else popped into my mind: how about CE when dealing with the UK in case of a Brexit? If the UK leaves the EU and I buy things from the UK I'll become the importer so I'm liable for any EMC and safety issues so basically I'd have to ask the supplier to go through a certification process and produce the paperwork instead of self-certification. The other way around is the same. And what will the UK regulations be?

[ez24]

From someone that really does not know what is going on.

Looking at the BBC link, I see that the most migrants are from Poland.

How does someone from Poland migrate to England?  Does someone just hop on a bus and arrive in England?  Do they need a passport?  I am making a guess there is no visa therefore no visa time restrictions.   Do they get unemployment and other benefits on arrival?  If so it seems a good way to redistribute wealth.

Is there anyway a US citizen can join the EU?     One thing I hate about being a US citizen is how hard it is to stay (long visit) in another country.  In my youth I traveled a lot and visa stays was always a consideration on what country I went to.   I would love to be able to just show up and not worry about getting arrested for overstaying a visa.  As far as I know there is no country where I can stay for more than a year without going through hard steps.

It would be good if there was a EU that offered honorary memberships to US citizens.  I would love to be able to stay in some of them without worrying about a visa.

[wraper]

Still you can't deny the fact that it is more difficult to trade with a country which has a wildly fluctuating currency versus your own. I have some UK customers and suppliers and the fact they are using pounds makes doing business riskier because I can't tell how much I will make on a project exactly. If a Brexit increases the pound versus euro volatility doing business will be harder and there will probably be more tax paperwork to fill out as well if the UK exits from the EU. All in all I think a Brexit will be a step back for me.

By all means don't do business outside the Eurozone if you're that worried.

Why someone should believe in UK and not worry? Want to deal (read subsidize)  with UK supplier if it becomes easier/better to deal somewhere else? Say there is supplier in Sweden, now it's 10% more expensive than someone in UK. Given all other things being about the same sure I will sure choose the deal from UK. Then after brexit, UK and Swedish suppliers still offer the same price but now UK is a pain in the ass. So for example, I still can get VAT back, but I would need to pay customs tax which can vary from small to not so small depending on the goods and which I won't be able to claim back. So given the paperwork, worrying that something will bounce at the customs, delayed delivery and say 5% customs tax, I will just say fuck it and go to Swedish supplier which now is just 5% more expensive to me but order of magnitude easier to deal with. No offence, just business.
But if there will be some trade agreement with no customs tax, then I don't know what the point was to brexit in the first place because it will be Pyrrhic victory for UK. Need to apply to the same rules as before just without any saying anymore.

[rstofer]

Something else popped into my mind: how about CE when dealing with the UK in case of a Brexit? If the UK leaves the EU and I buy things from the UK I'll become the importer so I'm liable for any EMC and safety issues so basically I'd have to ask the supplier to go through a certification process and produce the paperwork instead of self-certification. The other way around is the same. And what will the UK regulations be?

What do you do about products you buy from the US?  CE is self-certification from our companies as well.

I think reciprocity is the word of the day.  If the remaining members of EU want to make life difficult for the UK, well, reciprocity can just as well shut the EU out of the UK.  I have always wondered why the US puts up with so much crap from the EU and retaliates so little.  I suspect it is because of the disconnect between US industry and US lawmakers.  All that crap about Microsoft having to distribute another company's browser.  What's that about?  Anybody could download the browser with a single use of Microsoft's browser.  But, no, Microsoft has to change their distribution CDs AND pay a huge fine.  What a crock!  $732 million fine for distributing their own browser.  Had I been Microsoft, I would have never sold another product in Europe.  They could all run Linux for all I care.  That ought to set them back a couple of decades!