Quote from: Elwar on March 01, 2016, 03:11:02 PM

Quote from: mainpmf on March 01, 2016, 02:42:36 PM

Quote from: trickyriky on March 01, 2016, 12:19:53 PM

Quote from: criptix on February 29, 2016, 11:06:21 PM

After the thatcher rabate and the eu subsidies GB pays around 18 million pounds per day to the eu.

If we divide that through the 50 millions brits it makes ~0,36 pounds per day or 131,4 pounds per year for every brit and this would place GB on place 8 of the 10 net contributors.

What a high price for a domestic market of ~340 million people and freedom of travel, living and working where you want.

The funny thing:

Of course GB can get out, but they would have to negotiate all treaties again and as net effect they would have a status like the scadinavian countries:
They are part of the EU just without power to say anything.

we pay 55 million per day to the criminal mafia eu, they give us back 27.5 million per day meaning they rob us of 27.5 million per day, where you getting your numbers from??

mark my words, WE ARE LEAVING BY VOTE ON THE 23rd OR BULLETS ON THE 24th

Bullets on the 24th? Bullets against who? The EU?

But go and leave you freak, UK has never been good to anything but war.

If the vote does not have people leaving it will mean that they have been brainwashed enough that no bullets will ever fly. Propaganda is more powerful than bullets.

Or that people actually see why EU is good for them...

The pros and cons of leaving the EU

Perhaps the greatest uncertainty associated with leaving the EU is that no country has ever done it before, so no one can predict the exact result. Nevertheless, many have tried.

Trade: One of the biggest advantages of the EU is free trade between member nations, making it easier and cheaper for British companies to export their goods to Europe. Some business leaders think the boost to income outweighs the billions of pounds in membership fees Britain would save if it left the EU. The UK also risks losing some of its negotiation power internationally by leaving the trading bloc, but it would be free to establish trade agreements with non-EU countries.

Ukip leader Nigel Farage believes Britain could follow the lead of Norway, which has access to the single market but is not bound by EU laws on areas such as agriculture, justice and home affairs. But others argue that an "amicable divorce" would not be possible. The Economist says Britain would still be subject to the politics and economics of Europe, but would no longer have a seat at the table to try to influence matters.

A study by the think-tank Open Europe, which wants to see the EU radically reformed, found that the worst-case "Brexit" scenario is that the UK economy loses 2.2 per cent of its total GDP by 2030. However, it says that GDP could rise by 1.6 per cent if the UK could negotiate a free trade deal with Europe and pursued "very ambitious deregulation".

Investment: The general view is that inward investment could slow in the lead up to the vote due to the uncertainty of the outcome and its consequences, following the precedent set ahead of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Longer term, there are diverging views: pro-Europeans reckon the UK's status as one of the world's biggest financial centres will come under threat if it is no longer seen as a gateway to the EU for the likes of US banks, while Brexit campaigners argue London's unique appeal will not be diminished.

Barclays has put forward a different view, which will be seen as positive by those advocating a vote to leave. It reckons the departure of one of the union's most powerful economies would hit its finances and also boost populist anti-EU movements in other countries, the Daily Telegraph says. This would open a "Pandora's box" that could lead to the "collapse of the European project".

In this event, the UK could be seen as a safe haven from those risks, attracting investors, boosting the pound and reducing the risk that Scotland would "leave the relative safety of the UK for an increasingly uncertain EU".

Jobs: Free movement of people across the EU opens up job opportunities for UK workers willing to travel and makes it relatively easy for UK companies to employ workers from other EU countries. Ukip says this prevents the UK "managing its own borders". But, writing for the LSE, Professor Adrian Favell says limiting this freedom would deter the "brightest and the best" of the continent from coming to Britain, create complex new immigration controls and reduce the pool of candidates employers can choose from.

Regulations: Eurosceptics argue that the vast majority of small and medium sized firms do not trade with the EU but are restricted by a huge regulatory burden imposed from abroad. However, others warn that millions of jobs could be lost if global manufacturers, such as car makers, move to lower-cost EU countries, while British farmers would lose billions in EU subsidies.

Influence: Britain may lose some of its military influence many believe that America would consider Britain to be a less useful ally if it was detached from Europe.

On the plus side, The Economist says Britain would also be able to claim back its territorial fishing waters, scrap caps on limits to the number of hours people can work per week, free itself from the EU's renewable energy drive and create a freer economic market. This would turn London into a "freewheeling hub for emerging-market finance a sort of Singapore on steroids", it says.

But it concludes that the most likely outcome is that Britain would find itself "as a scratchy outsider with somewhat limited access to the single market, almost no influence and few friends. And one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again."

Security: Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who has come out in favour of Brexit, believes we are leaving the "door open" to terrorist attacks by remaining in the European Union. "This open border does not allow us to check and control people," he says.

However, a dozen senior military figures, including former chiefs of defence staff Lord Bramall and Jock Stirrup, say the opposite. In a letter released by No 10, they argue that the EU is an "increasingly important pillar of our security", especially at a time of instability in the Middle East and in the face of "resurgent Russian nationalism and aggression".

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has also said the UK benefits from being part Europe, as well as Nato and the United Nations. "It is through the EU that you exchange criminal records and passenger records and work together on counter-terrorism," he said. "We need the collective weight of the EU when you are dealing with Russian aggression or terrorism."

In contrast, Colonel Richard Kemp, writing in The Times, says these "critical bilateral relationships" would persist regardless and that it is "absurd" to suggest the EU would put its own citizens, or the UK's, at greater risk by reducing cooperation in the event of Brexit. "By leaving, we will again be able to determine who does and does not enter the UK," says Kemp, a former head of the international terrorism team at the Cabinet Office. "Failure to do so significantly increases the terrorist threat here, endangers our people and is a betrayal of this country."

http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum