EDF Straw Poll on EU Referendum

[Blah Blah]

It's like saying banks should never loan people money for mortgages because they 'might' default. Our whole global economy is build on loans, interest and repayments. The only agenda here is from those who want to leave, again cherry picking what they choose to raise fear over, and playing on some people's lack of ability to put things into perspective. It's a bit like the lie that we give 350 million a day to the EU - yet they persist with it.

[robbin]

It comes principally from national banks (for a national bailout) not from high street banks and if there is a default and a subsequent write-off of monies loaned then there is a loss to the national bank. All the WW2 loans were repaid by us to the USA with interest - we didn't default and they were not written off - you are comparing apples and oranges.

[rendelharris]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, as being of the EU, we contribute money to the

> EU. This would be used towards funding the debts

> of the country needing bailing out....bt we

> wouldn't bail them out directly. oh no. Cameron's

> agreed that.

>

> it's laughable / very scary how different people's

> opinions are and the varied levels of trust people

> have in the EU governemnt / our own government.

The February deal specifically states that if any EU funds are used in financial bailouts of Eurozone countries the UK's share will be refunded.

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

>

> >

> > We already have an agreement, made in February

> and

> > to be implemented if we vote to remain, that

> > Eurozone countries will have to bear the cost

> of

> > any future bailout, not us:

> >

> >

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu

>

> > m-36456277

>

> You really think it's that certain? It's not.

> Dodgy Dave's February 'agreement' is not in any EU

> treaty...

>

> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/

> 2016/feb/24/david-cameron-eu-deal-legally-binding-

> michael-gove-analysis-joshua-rozenberg

Interesting article you reference there, which appears to contain a swathe of expert professors and lawyers saying yes the deal is binding and, um, Michael Gove saying oh no it isn't.

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Google Martin Schultz to find out his view - he's

> the President of the European Parliament. He is

> quite clear that there is no guarantee Dodgy

> Dave's February deal will be passed (in his

> Parliament), and until then he says it is not

> binding on anyone. Blah Blah, you seem completely

> certain, so are these other people out of their

> minds?

BBC: "Following talks with UK PM David Cameron, it was put to Mr Schulz that some people in the UK were unhappy with the idea that the deal on which the referendum campaign will be based could be vetoed later by the European Parliament.

Mr Shulz disputed the idea that there was a veto and said that although no parliament could give guarantees he said that in his experience "it does go in a good direction" when there has been such an agreement between all the heads of state."

So in other words he's being cautious but saying it's pretty unlikely it wouldn't be passed. By the way, by voting to remain we don't have to promise to stay in the EU forever, if the deal were reneged upon we could pull out any time we wanted (and wouldn't, legally, need another referendum if Parliament agreed to it).

[LondonMix]

How after agreeing to this point would the EU every force the UK to pay against its will. This point is totally moot.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No. Read the article (and many others). It's

> nothing like as simple as you suggest.

[LondonMix]

???

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so, as being of the EU, we contribute money to the

> EU. This would be used towards funding the debts

> of the country needing bailing out....bt we

> wouldn't bail them out directly. oh no. Cameron's

> agreed that.

>

> it's laughable / very scary how different people's

> opinions are and the varied levels of trust people

> have in the EU governemnt / our own government.

[Blah Blah]

Exactly LM. The agreement is there and I can't see the UK ever putting up with a reversal. We can say no to Brussels. Margaret Thatcher did. But of course, it suits the leave agenda to keep with this myth that we have no power to shape anything that comes from the EU.

[fredbear]

i am out

[Azira]

The long term potential economic consquences of leaving or staying are debateable, theoretical and crystal ball gazing. You could construct a plausible argument for economnic depression for either side of the fence.

The short term economic consequences are guaranteed. This is not a matter of debate, this is based on what is actually written into EU law at the moment and the shutdown of certain markets that would follow. Based on the previous experience of 2008, the consequences of this is reasonably certain to predict.

I'm not saying people shouldn't vote out, I'm saying they need to be aware of the short term consequences of it. If you're prepared to risk it (and don't need to rely on any investment income in the next few years, such as pensions) then go for it. Just do it with your eyes open.

[Azira]

What do you mean by "national banks" rather than high street banks? In any case, the Banking Resolution and Recovery Directive means that in the first instance there is a bail-in, rather than bail-out.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It comes principally from national banks (for a

> national bailout) not from high street banks and

> if there is a default and a subsequent write-off

> of monies loaned then there is a loss to the

> national bank. All the WW2 loans were repaid by

> us to the USA with interest - we didn't default

> and they were not written off - you are comparing

> apples and oranges.

[theboycj]

I'm in

A good friend of mine came up with a great idea. If you don't have the time/inclination to find out all the facts about the EU referendum (I don't blame you) and are possibly unsure which way to vote, perhaps knowing how other notable people are thinking could help out.

Here are a few that strongly believe the UK should remain a member of the EU:

? Governor of the Bank of England

? International Monetary Fund

? Institute for Fiscal Studies

? Confederation of British Industry

? Leaders/heads of state of every single other member of the EU

? President of the United States of America

? Eight former US Treasury Secretaries

? President of China

? Prime Minister of India

? Prime Minister of Canada

? Prime Minister of Australia

? Prime Minister of Japan

? Prime Minister of New Zealand

? The chief executives of most of the top 100 companies in the UK including Marks and Spencer, BT, Asda, Vodafone, Virgin, IBM, BMW etc.

? Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations

? All living former Prime Ministers of the UK (from both parties)

? Virtually all reputable and recognised economists

? The Prime Minister of the UK

? The leader of the Labour Party

? The Leader of the Liberal Democrats

? The Leader of the Green Party

? The Leader of the Scottish National Party

? The leader of Plaid Cymru

? Leader of Sinn Fein

? Martin Lewis, that money saving dude off the telly

? The Secretary General of the TUC

? Unison

? National Union of Students

? National Union of Farmers

? Stephen Hawking

? Chief Executive of the NHS

? 300 of the most prominent international historians

? Director of Europol

? David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

? Former Directors of GCHQ

? Secretary General of Nato

? Church of England

? Church in Scotland

? Church in Wales

? Friends of the Earth

? Greenpeace

? Director General of the World Trade Organisation

? WWF

? World Bank

? OECD

Here are pretty much the only notable people who think we should leave the EU:

? Boris Johnson, who probably doesn?t really care either way, but knows he?ll become Prime Minister if the country votes to leave

? A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who carried out a brutal regime of cuts to benefits and essential support for the poorest in society as well as the disabled and sick

? The guy who was Education Secretary and every single teacher in the country hated with a furious passion for the damage he was doing to the education system

? Leader of UKIP

? BNP

? Britain First

? Donald Trump

? Keith Chegwin

? David Icke

So, as I said, if you can?t be bothered to look into the real facts and implications of all this in/out stuff, just pick the list that you most trust and vote that way. It really couldn?t be more simple.

And if you are unsure about leaving, don't.

Please repost this list, if you think it might help.

[hillary Clito]

WHICH MEMBER OF THE WWF WANTS US TO LEAVE?

MB WWF PRESIDENT PRINCE CHARLES SAXE COBURG GOTHA? (DONT FORGET THE ELEPHANT HUNTS CHARLIE)

OUR/MY GRANDPARENTS FOUGHT FOR THIS LAND

DONT SQUANDER OUR INHERITANCE

[Loz]

$hillary Clito Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> WHICH MEMBER OF THE WWF WANTS US TO LEAVE?

Ummm... Hulk Hogan? Randy Savage? Jesse Ventura? Stone Cold Steve Austin?

> MB WWF PRESIDENT PRINCE CHARLES SAXE COBURG GOTHA?

Naah, He'd be rubbish at wrestling.

[dc]

It was widely reported that the RSPB and WWF support remaining in the EU to protect British wildlife.

[LondonMix]

I agree the short term consequences are much more certain than the long term. But even the long term situation is much more likely to be worse than better.

Azira Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The long term potential economic consquences of

> leaving or staying are debateable, theoretical and

> crystal ball gazing. You could construct a

> plausible argument for economnic depression for

> either side of the fence.

>

> The short term economic consequences are

> guaranteed. This is not a matter of debate, this

> is based on what is actually written into EU law

> at the moment and the shutdown of certain markets

> that would follow. Based on the previous

> experience of 2008, the consequences of this is

> reasonably certain to predict.

>

> I'm not saying people shouldn't vote out, I'm

> saying they need to be aware of the short term

> consequences of it. If you're prepared to risk it

> (and don't need to rely on any investment income

> in the next few years, such as pensions) then go

> for it. Just do it with your eyes open.

[Louisa]

I personally believe the long term consequences of remaining will be more dire than any risk posed by a short term shock. The EU is on borrowed time, and by leaving now we will save ourselves long term economic hardship once the Eurozone becomes unsustainable from consistent bailouts of economically weak nation states.

Louisa.

[robbin]

Azira Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What do you mean by "national banks" rather than

> high street banks? In any case, the Banking

> Resolution and Recovery Directive means that in

> the first instance there is a bail-in, rather than

> bail-out.

>

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It comes principally from national banks (for a

> > national bailout) not from high street banks

> and

> > if there is a default and a subsequent

> write-off

> > of monies loaned then there is a loss to the

> > national bank. All the WW2 loans were repaid

> by

> > us to the USA with interest - we didn't default

> > and they were not written off - you are

> comparing

> > apples and oranges.

Err, what do I mean by "national Banks" rather than "high street banks"

Hmmm, let's think... how about the following national banks: the Bank of England, Banque de France, Deutsche Bundesbank, Banca D'Italia, De Nederlandsche Bank... etc (as a few examples)

High Street Banks - (do you really need examples?)

Clear enough? I trust that question's not indicative of the limit of your knowledge of the issues?!

[robbin]

Oh, I just read your next post and it seems it is indicative!

The Directive you refer to does not relate to national banks and nations defaulting - its relates to credit institutions operating in the private sector.

Also, and in any event the point about bail-ins is absurd - you have it the wrong way round - this actually makes the point against your argument. The whole idea of a so-called 'bail-in' is that creditors take the hit - i.e. us in the UK if and when other countries start to default - then we as creditors would in your bail-in scenario get screwed!

[Azira]

Heh @ the comment about ignorance (particularly from someone who doesn't appear to know the basics of the EU insolvency and recovery regime). I think you mean "central banks" dearie.

You are quite right that the BRRD affects credit institutions, but, as you'd used the incorrect terminology, it was unclear what you were talking about. And you also don't appear to understand how BRRD works. Bail-in converts lower ranking tiers of debt into equity, so hardly the person on the street.

Before you start being rude about someone's alleged lack of knowledge on a topic, you may want to make sure you're using the correct terms.

Edited because your completely unnecessary rudeness provoked me into an unworthy retort.

[Azira]

Possibly Louisa, but the short term impact may cripple us so far that any putative future sovereign collapse is the least of our problems. As I said, I suspect in different circumstances I'd be voting out (even though that would make my area of professional specialism less important) on the democractic deficit arguments, but I don't think this is the right way to do it and the cost may mean we cut off our nose to spite our faces.

[Azira]

Honestly, what is it about this topic that seems to make people forget basic grounds of civility?

In the past week, I've had perfectly reasonable and non-aggressive posts like my query to Robbin provoke unnecessary hostility, been told to go back to where I came from despite being a long term resident here with no ties to my country of birth (not by Robbin for the avoidance of doubt), had people treat me with utter condescension when I've pointed out facts within my professional expertise, I've had people online suggest that "people like me" should have sense literally beaten into me and had one utter cretin yesterday suggest that anyone working in financial services, including cleaners and other low-paid staff, deserve to be made redundant if a crash comes because its their fault for working in banks.

I am not a frothy-mouthed proponent of leave or stay. I have tried to be respectful of everyone's opinions as I don't believe any one camp is 100% right. I've always loved this country as I felt you could have intelligent discussions about lots of issues without the predominance of rabid hostile behaviour I saw in the US. I always thought that the extreme behaviour was at the fringe. I am very sad to see I am wrong.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[steveo]

I just signed this

Petition

Cancel the planned referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/123450

[Jules-and-Boo]

the deadline for that petition is September.....isn't that after the event?

Do you not imagine that would start a riot?