# Brexit...thoughts??



## gasman1065 (Mar 23, 2011)

As the vote gets ever closer and the news seems to suggest an out vote , what are peoples thoughts on us expats who are working over here , will we have to go back? will some sort of deal be sorted out for working expats in the EU ...i would be interested in peoples thoughts ...hopefully in 5 weeks i will not be forced to go back to the UK ( WHAT A DREADFUL THOUGHT)


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

gasman1065 said:


> As the vote gets ever closer and the news seems to suggest an out vote , what are peoples thoughts on us expats who are working over here , will we have to go back? will some sort of deal be sorted out for working expats in the EU ...i would be interested in peoples thoughts ...hopefully in 5 weeks i will not be forced to go back to the UK ( WHAT A DREADFUL THOUGHT)


Will also be interesting to see what will happen to all the Brit expats that is not registered here. Estimated figure 10-15000 perhaps more


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

We've got a major debate going on in the spanish forum http://www.expatforum.com/expats/la...expats-if-uk-leaves-eu-brexit-referendum.html Over 3000 posts and quite fiery in parts!

Jo xxx


----------



## gasman1065 (Mar 23, 2011)

Hi Jo, I've looked at the Spanish forum ... I suppose we will all be in the dark until June 24th ( hate the thought of returning to the UK )


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

gasman1065 said:


> Hi Jo, I've looked at the Spanish forum ... I suppose we will all be in the dark until June 24th ( hate the thought of returning to the UK )


I dont blame you - we returned back to England from Spain and I hate it, I really hate it!! However, with all of the expats, immigrants, foreigners............ whatever you chose to call them, its very unlikely that there will be any mass exodus - if there is any such thing, it will be gradual, but I suspect it will be those who are planning to relocate who will have the problems, not those who are established, there's too many in all of the EU countries??!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## gasman1065 (Mar 23, 2011)

I think you are right Jo, It would become an admin nightmare and where would they put everyone , 4.5 million Brits back to the UK would not be an easy task , that's not taking into account costs of flights , moving furniture back , pets etc , most people would not be able to cover these costs


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

gasman1065 said:


> I think you are right Jo, It would become an admin nightmare and where would they put everyone , 4.5 million Brits back to the UK would not be an easy task , that's not taking into account costs of flights , moving furniture back , pets etc , most people would not be able to cover these costs


 Quite and of course the expats/eu citizens who at present live in the Uk would have to return to their countries too, which would cause even more of a mess.............. So no, I think everyone is safe - certainly those who are already there and established.

Jo xxx


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

There were plenty of Brits living and working here before Cyprus joined the EU so there is no reason to expect that Brexit will affect those who are already here. We may need some additional papers, visas etc to carry on living here but I see absolutely no reason why Cyprus would want all of the Brits who already live here to leave.
Any Brits wanting to come here to live will probably have to apply for visas and jump through the odd hoop or two if Brexit does happen.


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

If Brexit does happen Dennis and I will apply for Cypriot citizenship so that we will still have all benefits of being EU citizens.
You need to have resided permanently in Cyprus for 7 years to get citizenship.


----------



## howard32 (May 2, 2016)

Slightly off topic, but I'm in the process of applying for a long-stay visa. My appointment at immigration is mid-June. I'm now wondering if I'm wasting my time/money not least due to the referendum uncertainty. I don't work in Cyprus, as my income is derived from my U.K business, but there is occasion when I exceed the permitted 90-day stay. I heard a horror story last week were another Brit had done the same, and had remained for around 7 months. Upon leaving Paphos airport he was fined for the overstay and had his passport stamped with the date he would be permitted to return (& not before). Has anyone heard of this happening on a regular basis or heard a similar tale? It's prompted me to make the application as I have a home & car here, & would be devastated if I had to wait 180 days before returning - but I could do without having to open bank account/provide bank statements etc. especially if we have to make further applications due to leaving EU.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

Veronica said:


> If Brexit does happen Dennis and I will apply for Cypriot citizenship so that we will still have all benefits of being EU citizens.
> You need to have resided permanently in Cyprus for 7 years to get citizenship.


And then application take at least five years. Its a looong Process


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

Veronica said:


> There were plenty of Brits living and working here before Cyprus joined the EU so there is no reason to expect that Brexit will affect those who are already here. We may need some additional papers, visas etc to carry on living here but I see absolutely no reason why Cyprus would want all of the Brits who already live here to leave.
> Any Brits wanting to come here to live will probably have to apply for visas and jump through the odd hoop or two if Brexit does happen.


I think the biggest obstacles will be healthcare and jobs.

Healthcare for pensioners because UK perhaps is not very keen to pay the healthcare for UK pensioners like they do today. That is an EU thing.

Jobs. Perhaps Cyprus is not so keen to grant working permits if they don't have to. Today's laws for non-EU is strict


----------



## hopefulx2 (May 6, 2015)

Veronica said:


> If Brexit does happen Dennis and I will apply for Cypriot citizenship so that we will still have all benefits of being EU citizens.
> You need to have resided permanently in Cyprus for 7 years to get citizenship.


Make that 5 years.

CIVIL REGISTRY AND MIGRATION DEPARTMENT - Migration Section


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

hopefulx2 said:


> Make that 5 years.
> 
> CIVIL REGISTRY AND MIGRATION DEPARTMENT - Migration Section


I'm talking about Citizenship not PR. Cypriot passport etc.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

Veronica said:


> I'm talking about Citizenship not PR. Cypriot passport etc.


You want Cypriot passport? If so it take 5 years or more after application


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

It takes 1.5 to 2 years.


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> I think the biggest obstacles will be healthcare and jobs.
> 
> Healthcare for pensioners because UK perhaps is not very keen to pay the healthcare for UK pensioners like they do today. That is an EU thing


Have you any evidence for this?

My understanding is they had reciprocal healthcare arrangements prior to the EU. Logically I see no benefit for the UK refusing to pay and having hoards of ex-pats returning on a health basis when they will have to pay anyway.

Pete


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> Have you any evidence for this?
> 
> My understanding is they had reciprocal healthcare arrangements prior to the EU. Logically I see no benefit for the UK refusing to pay and having hoards of ex-pats returning on a health basis when they will have to pay anyway.
> 
> Pete


I just follow the debate. UK gave expats extra money for fuel also, which is now gone. You could get NHS for 2,5 years as an Expat, that is now gone. Why should they not save on the healthcare also.

I don't bother one bit if you are in or out. But I must say I will pity the Brits when they face the consequences. The latest now is that the Sterling will lose 25%. 

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/eur/3858-hsbc-and-ubs-forecast-parity-in-euro-to-pound.

Don't lean back and think it will be as in the past, Past is gone long ago. Britain is no empire anymore, But ofc it is your choice


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

An interesting thing is that Veronica and Dennis don't seem to trust the UK after a Brexit. They will rather be Cypriot citizens


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

Actually some time ago the rules for PENSIONER expats changed so that they can go to the UK for medical treatment no matter which country in the world they live in. 
It is different for younger people who even now have to have medical insurance unless they are paying social. So even if pensioners are no longer entitled to medical care here they can go back to the UK for treatment.
We choose to pay for our own treatment as we don't like the general hospital. We pay as we go for smaller stuff and have insurance for the big nasty things in case they ever occur. 
I really can't see that Brexit will change things too much for most expats. 
But time will tell, we will have to wait and see what happens. (Unless someone has a crystal ball and can tell us)


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> I just follow the debate. UK gave expats extra money for fuel also, which is now gone. You could get NHS for 2,5 years as an Expat, that is now gone. Why should they not save on the healthcare also.
> 
> I don't bother one bit if you are in or out. But I must say I will pity the Brits when they face the consequences. The latest now is that the Sterling will lose 25%.
> 
> ...


If the healthcare was an agreement which has not been cancelled it is rather a different case from the 2 examples you gave. I think you have made an assumption on the healthcare issue rather than any firm facts.

I'm glad you're able to follow the debate. All I can follow is a series of rants and veiled threats from both sides with very little evidence backing up the claims. Boris has been very prominent but has unfortunately abandoned his more respected views for some rather idiotic ones. David of late has disgraced himself in my view by talking some utter rubbish.

I do believe the British public have been badly shortchanged by the politicians who have avoided facts and spread dubious information and misinformation about this extremely important and possible life changing referendum.

The truth is nobody knows what would happen on a Brit exit particularly the economists who get involved from time to time none of whom have a particularly notable reputation for being correct.

Pete


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> If the healthcare was an agreement which has not been cancelled it is rather a different case from the 2 examples you gave. I think you have made an assumption on the healthcare issue rather than any firm facts.
> 
> I'm glad you're able to follow the debate. All I can follow is a series of rants and veiled threats from both sides with very little evidence backing up the claims. Boris has been very prominent but has unfortunately abandoned his more respected views for some rather idiotic ones. David of late has disgraced himself in my view by talking some utter rubbish.
> 
> ...


Good we can have different opinions. WE soon will see the result


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> Good we can have different opinions. WE soon will see the result


OK. I'm predicting the UK will vote to stay in.

And what is your prediction?

Pete


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> OK. I'm predicting the UK will vote to stay in.
> 
> And what is your prediction?
> 
> Pete


I don't know, no one do. And I don't bother which. If the Brits in a democratic referendum vote IN or OUT, it is up to the Brits to live with the decision


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> I don't know, no one do. And I don't bother which. If the Brits in a democratic referendum vote IN or OUT, it is up to the Brits to live with the decision


Come on, have a bit of fun. You're obviously following the "debate" so which way do you think it will go from the evidence you've seen?

Pete


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> Come on, have a bit of fun. You're obviously following the "debate" so which way do you think it will go from the evidence you've seen?
> 
> Pete


OK here we go.

I thought before that it will be an IN, but now I think it looks like it can be an OUT,

It is really the same with the Cyprob. I was quite sure there would be a solution, but now I think Erdogan will **** it up.
And I suspect Cameron will resign if it is an OUT. He don't want to be blamed when the problems start


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

As said, know one really knows what will happen but this article is quite interesting

A Brexit likely to upset Cyprus’s tourism and real estate, financial stability, experts say - Cyprus Business Mail

And one thing that would probably happen is that the EHIC card will no more for Britons and private insurance the only option for the tourists. Big save for the government and the insurance companies will cheer in champagne


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> And I suspect Cameron will resign if it is an OUT. He don't want to be blamed when the problems start


I am sure he will and this is exactly what Boris Johnson wants as it will give him the fastest path to stand for PM.

However Cameron's resignation would not be just for the reason you state as he would be in the perfect position to say that he warned about the problems and wanted to stay in.

There have been enough doom scenarios about Brexit to also say that asking the British public to make this decision is beyond their knowledge and that it is a dereliction of the duties the elected representatives were put there for.

Pete


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> And one thing that would probably happen is that the EHIC card will no more for Britons and private insurance the only option for the tourists. Big save for the government and the insurance companies will cheer in champagne


Not as big a cheer as you think as I bet the majority of tourists, particularly families with children, already take out travel insurance in order to cover a host of things in addition to their health cover.

Not as big as saving for the government as you think as tourists probably are a tiny strain on the state health services. It is the ex-pat community that uses it the most.

Pete


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> I am sure he will and this is exactly what Boris Johnson wants as it will give him the fastest path to stand for PM.
> 
> However Cameron's resignation would not be just for the reason you state as he would be in the perfect position to say that he warned about the problems and wanted to stay in.
> 
> ...


In my opinion, that goes for all referendums. We elect MP to rule the country and that is what they should do. It's called representative democracy. Not take a cowards way out and ask the people. And if it goes against them they can always blame them who voted in the referendum

Switzerland has a nice model with referendums, but that is in the constitution.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> Not as big a cheer as you think as I bet the majority of tourists, particularly families with children, already take out travel insurance in order to cover a host of things in addition to their health cover.
> 
> Not as big as saving for the government as you think as tourists probably are a tiny strain on the state health services. It is the ex-pat community that uses it the most.
> 
> Pete


The size of the saving is probably good enough to be tempting. And the travel insurances will ofc be more expensive and give more profit to the companies


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> The size of the saving is probably good enough to be tempting. And the travel insurances will ofc be more expensive and give more profit to the companies


We continue to be in opposing camps!!!

The size of the saving is likely to be completely unknown by the Cyprus Health Service and could just as easily be determined as a goodwill service.

I see no reason for travel insurance, a very established and often criticised industry in the UK to be more expensive. A bigger market with many players could even make it cheaper so your ofc may be unfounded.

If the travel insurance companies carry out more successful business I see no problem in their increased profits. That is what their companies exist for. Do you see profit as something undesirable?

Pete


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> We continue to be in opposing camps!!!
> 
> The size of the saving is likely to be completely unknown by the Cyprus Health Service and could just as easily be determined as a goodwill service.
> 
> ...



I don't bother about Cyprus health service. But there are much bigger tourist places than Cyprus. Spain with the Canary islands is one of them. Don't tell me that these savings will not matter. Cyprus is tiny in compared.

And don't tell me that the UK government will not see the possibility to save huge amounts of money in abandoning the reciprocal agreement about health care with countries like Spain, or Germany where a lot of UK expats live


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> I don't bother about Cyprus health service. But there are much bigger tourist places than Cyprus. Spain with the Canary islands is one of them. Don't tell me that these savings will not matter. Cyprus is tiny in compared.
> 
> And don't tell me that the UK government will not see the possibility to save huge amounts of money in abandoning the reciprocal agreement about health care with countries like Spain, or Germany where a lot of UK expats live


I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Cyprus as you did not mention these other places before.

However I will tell you that. The UK has reciprocal healthcare agreements with 16 other non-EU countries in place so currently it is not a motivation to save money. Why do you think this would automatically change?

One of the problems of Brexit discussions is that those not in favour of Brexit often assume that Britain would fall over and fail on exit. The economic evidence fortunately does not assume this as it is aware that Germany and the UK are the powerhouses of the EU. Just as there was perfectly good evidence to show Scotland could survive economically outside the UK so there is evidence to support Britain's prosperity outside the EU. In fact in some views there is the question of the EU's survival without Britain.

Pete


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Cyprus as you did not mention these other places before.
> 
> However I will tell you that. The UK has reciprocal healthcare agreements with 16 other non-EU countries in place so currently it is not a motivation to save money. Why do you think this would automatically change?
> 
> ...


I will say one last thing. The belief that EU would not survive without UK is crap, only crap. To believe that is to dream back to the imperial days, but the world has changed.

WE will not agree anyway so let's stop the discussion. Again I have my view, even if I don't bother about in or out. 

One thing seems clear anyway, that the assumption that the sterling will fall seem to be true, it has already started, probably on the fears of out


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Baywatch said:


> I will say one last thing. The belief that EU would not survive without UK is crap, only crap. To believe that is to dream back to the imperial days, but the world has changed.
> 
> WE will not agree anyway so let's stop the discussion. Again I have my view, even if I don't bother about in or out.
> 
> One thing seems clear anyway, that the assumption that the sterling will fall seem to be true, it has already started, probably on the fears of out


The survival of the EU without the UK is just another point of conjecture. Many of us would be delighted to see a radical change in the top-heavy, over expensive, too large, ill-defined, corrupt and interfering monster that it has become. We also know that this change will never come from within while the EU remains a gravy train for politicians and the non-elected power brigade. Therefore a major revision to the EU structure can only come following it's collapse. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that if Britain pulled out then German voters would push for the same. If Germany pulled out it is likely to collapse.

Your sterling view remains only an assumption, the markets will be influenced by dealers because that's where the value comes from. In fact you are wrong as yesterday saw a 5 cent jump in the value of sterling against the Euro.


Anders, the fact that we do not agree is fruitful for the discussion. If we agreed everything there would be nothing to discuss. I simply can't understand why you can't have a discussion of differing opinions without assuming it is an argument to the death or a mission of persuasion and then refuse to continue. I am not seeking to persuade you to change your opinions but I get a better understanding of situations when those opinions are shared. 

If you insist on stopping so be it, I will say not more to persuade you otherwise or I'm sure someone will accuse me of bullying.

Pete


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

If Brexit happens the EU will lose one of their largest contributors to the money pit. The amount of money the UK pays to the EU would build many hospital and schools and pay to staff them. In addition as the plug would be put into the immigration hole there would be fewer immigrants to put a strain on these services. 
Britain can only be better off in the long run if we leave and the EU will have to take the extra strain of propping up all the poor countries they have already let in and are still going to let in.


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

Actually at the beginning of the Brexit debate I wanted the UK to vote remain but over the last few weeks I have changed my views.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

PeteandSylv said:


> The survival of the EU without the UK is just another point of conjecture. Many of us would be delighted to see a radical change in the top-heavy, over expensive, too large, ill-defined, corrupt and interfering monster that it has become. We also know that this change will never come from within while the EU remains a gravy train for politicians and the non-elected power brigade. Therefore a major revision to the EU structure can only come following it's collapse. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that if Britain pulled out then German voters would push for the same. If Germany pulled out it is likely to collapse.
> 
> Your sterling view remains only an assumption, the markets will be influenced by dealers because that's where the value comes from. In fact you are wrong as yesterday saw a 5 cent jump in the value of sterling against the Euro.
> 
> ...


You are right that Germany and UK are the two powerhouses in Europe. But for the UK only as long as it is inside EU. Outside not.

I think I know the German mind quite well after living there 7,5 years and since then following German politics very close, and listening to German friends. Germany will not leave. They are the one that gains most from EU. 

Many of the Brits I talk to that are OUT, say that well, EU need us so much that they will see to it that nothing change if we vote out. I can just feel sorry for them. 
It takes two to tango and with the EU structure it takes all or in some cases a 2/3 majority to agree on things. Following the East European press, countries like Poland, Czech, Croatia is not at all interested to negotiate with UK


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

Veronica said:


> If Brexit happens the EU will lose one of their largest contributors to the money pit. The amount of money the UK pays to the EU would build many hospital and schools and pay to staff them. In addition as the plug would be put into the immigration hole there would be fewer immigrants to put a strain on these services.
> Britain can only be better off in the long run if we leave and the EU will have to take the extra strain of propping up all the poor countries they have already let in and are still going to let in.


Two questions Veronica. 

1. How much is the UK contributing with NETTO? You state that this money will build many hospitals

2. How would it put a plug on the immigration that is different from today? UK is an island with long shores. And France has clearly stated that in case of a Brexit, France will not take any measures to stop migrants from attempting to reach UK


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

This link will answer your first question

Britain's EU contribution to jump by £10bn as taxpayers carry burden of ailing eurozone - Telegraph

As for immigration when people from poor EU countries can no longer come to the Uk without visa and criminals from Eu countries can be deported it will just be a start for sorting out immigration problems the UK has.

As things stand the EU does not allow the UK to stop rapists, murderers and other criminal from entering the UK. Prisons are full of Eastern European criminals which put pressure on the prison system and they cant even be deported after they are released.

Utter madness.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

Veronica said:


> This link will answer your first question
> 
> Britain's EU contribution to jump by £10bn as taxpayers carry burden of ailing eurozone - Telegraph
> 
> ...



About the net contribution, perhaps it would be better to take the facts from official EU statistics then from some newspaper. 
EU statistic sa that the net UK contribution is around 4.9 billion €, France 7.1 billion, Germany 15.2 billion and Sweden 2,3 billion. Why so different figures? Well population is different so the most fair figure must be to see how much each country pay per capita or inhabitant. Then the figures get even more interesting.

UK pay 78 € per inhabitant

France pay 111 €

Germany pay 189 €

Sweden pay 252 €

How can it be so unfair? Well it turns out that the UK has a rebate of around 66% since 1985. The only country that has this. This rebate has ofc to be covered by the other members. And even if all other memberstates want it to be abolished, it can't be because the UK veto it

I will not argue with you about the other question, but for me the arguments you have is the arguments that politicians use to hide their own failures by blaming others and ofc spread by the newsmedia. Its really about failed integration politics, something that is a roblem in many countries

For EU official statistics
Net contributors to the budget? / EU Information Centre - Home

About the UK rebate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

Baywatch said:


> About the net contribution, perhaps it would be better to take the facts from official EU statistics then from some newspaper.


Definitely not! That's like telling an atheist that the bible is true because it is written in the bible that it's true. Newspapers will often report the unpalatable truth which in the past has toppled governments which are usually economical with the truth.



Baywatch said:


> EU statistic sa that the net UK contribution is around 4.9 billion €, France 7.1 billion, Germany 15.2 billion and Sweden 2,3 billion. Why so different figures? Well population is different so the most fair figure must be to see how much each country pay per capita or inhabitant. Then the figures get even more interesting.
> 
> UK pay 78 € per inhabitant
> 
> ...


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". Mark Twain writing about Benjamin Disraeli.

Of course the EU would say that wouldn't they? Statistics can be so easily manipulated to give the result that you want. When they don't, just change the question until the desired result appears. In this example, it's using population - not the national wealth, the trade gap or GDP. The U.K. is, and always has been a net contributor to the EU - before and after the rebate. If it was not so, the other 27 countries would simply wave us goodbye when we display our angst at the runaway EU budget which is proposed by unelected Eurocrats.



Baywatch said:


> How can it be so unfair? Well it turns out that the UK has a rebate of around 66% since 1985. The only country that has this. This rebate has ofc to be covered by the other members. And even if all other memberstates want it to be abolished, it can't be because the UK veto it


...and quite rightly so! However, what you failed to mention is that the UK has offered to give up the rebate, but ONLY on condition that the pathetic and iniquitous Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) be reformed. France may currently pay more into the EU budget than UK, but it receives much more than twice the CAP payments than the UK, due primarily to its inefficient farming methods.



Baywatch said:


> I will not argue with you about the other question, but for me the arguments you have is the arguments that politicians use to hide their own failures by blaming others and ofc spread by the newsmedia. Its really about failed integration politics, something that is a roblem in many countries


I agree that this is a factor, but for me, the entire argument revolves around sovereignty - a sovereign nation being able to decide its own future on important issues like border control, the economy, defence and social cohesion amongst many, many others. Some of the arguments in this thread show the perceived lack of sovereignty of EU member states. It has been said, for example, that if there was a Brexit, Cyprus will not be *allowed* to pursue reciprocal agreements on healthcare or visa free travel because the EU will block it, even though 2 sovereign nations may want it.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

David_&_Letitia said:


> Definitely not! That's like telling an atheist that the bible is true because it is written in the bible that it's true. Newspapers will often report the unpalatable truth which in the past has toppled governments which are usually economical with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will not argue anything with you. You have an opinion that is totally opposite of mine, and that is ofc your right. You support it with what you read in newspapers, as newspapers could be trusted. Newspapers ALWAYS has a political agenda and gladly twist figures so it fits their political purpose.

About the healthcare. Give me one evidence that supports that the UK or Cyprus is interested in a bilateral agreement reciprocal agreement. Or Spain.


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

Baywatch said:


> I will not argue anything with you. You have an opinion that is totally opposite of mine, and that is ofc your right. You support it with what you read in newspapers, as newspapers could be trusted. Newspapers ALWAYS has a political agenda and gladly twist figures so it fits their political purpose.
> 
> About the healthcare. Give me one evidence that supports that the UK or Cyprus is interested in a bilateral agreement reciprocal agreement. Or Spain.


I do NOT support my arguments with what I read in newspapers. I actually do not read newspapers, so I don't know how you made that leap of judgement! I am acutely aware that most newspapers have a political agenda. I am also aware that politicians, governments and institutions - including the EU behemoth have a political agenda and ALL twist figures so that it fits their purpose.

There is no evidence that Cyprus or Spain are interested in bilateral reciprocal agreements and once again Anders, you are asserting that I believe in something that I do NOT and I have not said this. Of course there is no need for any bilateral agreements at present as the UK EU membership means that such agreements are not required. If Brexit happens, however, bilateral agreements may be necessary between the UK and individual countries, but there appears to be a view out there that the EU will not allow such agreements. This flies in the face of national sovereignty, which is the main argument for Brexit.

It doesn't really matter to me whether you wish to 'argue' the point with me or not. I prefer such discussions to be called debates which give a point of view rather than trying to change someone's opinion. After all, this is a Forum.

*Forum*:

Noun

1. A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Once again, you appear to refuse to engage with anyone holding different views to your own...


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

David_&_Letitia said:


> I do NOT support my arguments with what I read in newspapers. I actually do not read newspapers, so I don't know how you made that leap of judgement! I am acutely aware that most newspapers have a political agenda. I am also aware that politicians, governments and institutions - including the EU behemoth have a political agenda and ALL twist figures so that it fits their purpose.
> 
> There is no evidence that Cyprus or Spain are interested in bilateral reciprocal agreements and once again Anders, you are asserting that I believe in something that I do NOT and I have not said this. Of course there is no need for any bilateral agreements at present as the UK EU membership means that such agreements are not required. If Brexit happens, however, bilateral agreements may be necessary between the UK and individual countries, but there appears to be a view out there that the EU will not allow such agreements. This flies in the face of national sovereignty, which is the main argument for Brexit.
> 
> ...



So lets take it from the beginning

Let us sort out one thing at the time.

Are you one of them that think that nothing will change, that the special relationship between U and Cyprus will see to that as many seem to think?

If so what is this special relationship


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

Baywatch said:


> So lets take it from the beginning
> 
> Let us sort out one thing at the time.
> 
> ...


I am not one of those who believe that nothing will change, and I doubt that there are many who take this stance. Of course there will be changes on Brexit, but there will be at least 2 years for Brexit to actually take place (if there is a Yes vote) and this period will be used to clarify some of the way ahead which is uncharted territory. Who knows what the future holds?

There *is* a de facto special relationship between the UK and Cyprus because of their shared 20th century history (including the fact that the UK is a Guarantor Power to the RoC, the legal position of the SBAs - which extend beyond the military bases, the fact that Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth and the fact that there are more Cypriots living in the UK than UK expats living in Cyprus. It is in the interest of both countries to have a reciprocal agreement on various matters and it seems to me that the only obstacle would be the intervention of the EU to prevent any UK/Cyprus bilateral agreement. Do you really believe, for example, that in the event of Brexit there will be a physical border checkpoint between the SBAs and the RoC or between Northern Ireland and Eire where visas will be required? It would not make sense, but then again, it is the EU we're talking about after all...


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

David_&_Letitia said:


> I am not one of those who believe that nothing will change, and I doubt that there are many who take this stance. Of course there will be changes on Brexit, but there will be at least 2 years for Brexit to actually take place (if there is a Yes vote) and this period will be used to clarify some of the way ahead which is uncharted territory. Who knows what the future holds?
> 
> There *is* a de facto special relationship between the UK and Cyprus because of their shared 20th century history (including the fact that the UK is a Guarantor Power to the RoC, the legal position of the SBAs - which extend beyond the military bases, the fact that Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth and the fact that there are more Cypriots living in the UK than UK expats living in Cyprus. It is in the interest of both countries to have a reciprocal agreement on various matters and it seems to me that the only obstacle would be the intervention of the EU to prevent any UK/Cyprus bilateral agreement. Do you really believe, for example, that in the event of Brexit there will be a physical border checkpoint between the SBAs and the RoC or between Northern Ireland and Eire where visas will be required? It would not make sense, but then again, it is the EU we're talking about after all...


For me this is twisted history

So you mean that the colonial times, that ended 56 years ago when UK was more or less forced to give Cyprus independence because they could not handle the situation here. Even if they tried to give Cyprus away to Greece first.

Or is it the SBA:s that was forced on Cyprus in the same agreement?

Or perhaps the way that the guarantor UK handled the Turkish invasion 1974? By not interfere and let the Greek-Cypriots fight for themselves?

Make a referendum about the SBA:s among the Cypriots and you will get a 60-70% majority for return them and leave the island. The ones that will vote out is mostly the old generation that actually was there and the young generation

I also read history, but perhaps without British blinkers.
There is quite a lot of research done and articles written on these subjects, it is interesting reading.

And I have seen two polls about the SBA:s One said 80 % for return, the other one made after that Mr Cameron or who it was promised that most of the SBA:s should be returned to Cyprus if there was an agreement to reunite the country said 70%


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

Baywatch said:


> For me this is twisted history
> 
> So you mean that the colonial times, that ended 56 years ago when UK was more or less forced to give Cyprus independence because they could not handle the situation here. Even if they tried to give Cyprus away to Greece first.
> 
> ...


The SBAs are just that - *Sovereign* Base Areas. They are legally known and accepted as *British* Overseas Territories. Greece, Turkey, UK and of course the government elect of Cyprus were all signatories to the setting up of these areas on Cyprus' independence. There was no arm twisting, gun boat diplomacy or compulsion in this agreement. Of course polls will say that the SBAs should be 'returned' to Cyprus. The same polls will say that the TRNC should be 'returned' to RoC control. However, as long as Turkey continues to station troops in the TRNC, the UK will maintain its SBAs here, even though there is little strategic reason to do so any more.

As far as the Turkish invasion was concerned, I was sent to Cyprus along with my Commando Group within 12 hours of the Turkish invasion in 1974. Our mission was never to take either side but to protect the SBAs in a purely defensive way, as well as evacuating and defending UK citizens living in the RoC if they were perceived to be in danger of being affected by the conflict. Are you really suggesting that the UK - a leading NATO nation and a permanent member of the UN Security Council should have engaged in military action against Turkey - a fellow NATO member exercising its legitimate right to intervene as a Guarantor Power after the military coup here?


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

David_&_Letitia said:


> The SBAs are just that - *Sovereign* Base Areas. They are legally known and accepted as *British* Overseas Territories. Greece, Turkey, UK and of course the government elect of Cyprus were all signatories to the setting up of these areas on Cyprus' independence. There was no arm twisting, gun boat diplomacy or compulsion in this agreement. Of course polls will say that the SBAs should be 'returned' to Cyprus. The same polls will say that the TRNC should be 'returned' to RoC control. However, as long as Turkey continues to station troops in the TRNC, the UK will maintain its SBAs here, even though there is little strategic reason to do so any more.
> 
> As far as the Turkish invasion was concerned, I was sent to Cyprus along with my Commando Group within 12 hours of the Turkish invasion in 1974. Our mission was never to take either side but to protect the SBAs in a purely defensive way, as well as evacuating and defending UK citizens living in the RoC if they were perceived to be in danger of being affected by the conflict. Are you really suggesting that the UK - a leading NATO nation and a permanent member of the UN Security Council should have engaged in military action against Turkey - a fellow NATO member exercising its legitimate right to intervene as a Guarantor Power after the military coup here?



Hehe you are really amazing. WHAT had the Cyprus government for power to say no?

And with what right did Turkey expand its area during the second invasion?

And NATO members? Greece joined the same time as Turkey and you did not defend them? 

And you seem to defend that Turkey is here? its there right as guarantor power to protect the Turk-Cypriots? If so I think you alre quite alone, at least outside Turkey and TRNC


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

Baywatch said:


> Hehe you are really amazing. WHAT had the Cyprus government for power to say no?
> 
> And with what right did Turkey expand its area during the second invasion?
> 
> ...


Oh dear, Anders! I thought you said that you studied history. Did you conveniently 'forget' that Greece was ruled by an unelected military junta between 1967 and 1974 after a coup d'etat? Did you also 'forget' that the elected President of Cyprus (Makarios III)  had been deposed by another coup d'etat which was supported by the Greeck military junta? Are you suggesting that the UK should, under these circumstances, turn a blind eye to the overthrow of Makarios III and provide military support to the Greek military junta in seizing power in Cyprus?

I do NOT defend the Turkish occupation, and do not support it. However, under the original terms of Article 4 of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960, Turkey had the right to intervene to restore democracy in Cyprus in the event of a coup d'etat. It did this by invading after the legitimate government of Cyprus had been overthrown with help from Greece and only after failing to secure international help to restore Makarios III. Turkey's mistake was to remain after order had been restored.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

David_&_Letitia said:


> Oh dear, Anders! I thought you said that you studied history. Did you conveniently 'forget' that Greece was ruled by an unelected military junta between 1967 and 1974 after a coup d'etat? Did you also 'forget' that the elected President of Cyprus (Makarios III) had been deposed by another coup d'etat which was supported by the Greek military junta? Are you suggesting that the UK should, under these circumstances, turn a blind eye to the overthrow of Makarios III and provide military support to the Greek military junta in seizing power in Cyprus?
> 
> I do NOT defend the Turkish occupation, and do not support it. However, under the original terms of Article 4 of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960, Turkey had the right to intervene to restore democracy in Cyprus in the event of a coup d'etat. It did this by invading after the legitimate government of Cyprus had been overthrown with help from Greece and only after failing to secure international help to restore Makarios III. Turkey's mistake was to remain after order had been restored.


I am very aware of the events in Cyprus 1974. And in Greece. And that Turkey had the right to protect the Turk Cypriots because that what it was about. What I don't understand is two things, Why UK did not intervene together with Turkey, documents show that they were asked by Turkey before the first invasion. And why did UK allow Turkey to a second invasion where they expanded the invaded territory?


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

Baywatch said:


> I am very aware of the events in Cyprus 1974. And in Greece. And that Turkey had the right to protect the Turk Cypriots because that what it was about. What I don't understand is two things, Why UK did not intervene together with Turkey, documents show that they were asked by Turkey before the first invasion. And why did UK allow Turkey to a second invasion where they expanded the invaded territory?


Anders,

Whilst I am more than willing to discuss the invasion of 1974 further, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread of 'Brexit'. I first mentioned the SBAs only to illustrate the point about what may or may not happen in the event of Brexit. We seem to have gone from there to the morality/legality of the SBAs, to the morality/legality/possibility of UK intervention in 1974 which clearly had the sticky fingers of the USA all over it. 

:focus:


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

David_&_Letitia said:


> Anders,
> 
> Whilst I am more than willing to discuss the invasion of 1974 further, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread of 'Brexit'. I first mentioned the SBAs only to illustrate the point about what may or may not happen in the event of Brexit. We seem to have gone from there to the morality/legality of the SBAs, to the morality/legality/possibility of UK intervention in 1974 which clearly had the sticky fingers of the USA all over it.
> 
> :focus:


I have no time anyway, I have a new company to run. But you can be right, in my eyes the UK has always been a steady servant to the US.


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)




----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

*Please don't close the thread. There are some of us who enjoy the discussion.*

I've been wondering why the Leave Campaign only seems to have Boris's voice. Why has Farage and his rabble been so quiet?

I know Veronica has posted about leaning more towards an Exit vote and I wonder if anyone else has had their views altered either way?

I find myself tending towards Exit after sitting on the fence waiting for some decent information to appear from both sides. However I do think that I can't see any dire consequences of leaving that can't be dealt with by negotiation and I do think the EU needs a strong kick up the backside and a lot of internal unrest to try to point it at major revision and reduction back to a useful alliance that will work for the benefit of the people.

It would be great to have some other members join in the discussion.

Pete


----------



## Anncyp (May 21, 2016)

I was for staying in but the last few weeks I have changed my mind. I am fed up of all the scaremongering on both sides and I will be glad when it is over one way or another.


----------



## cardio (Sep 19, 2010)

See "Brexit the movie" on youTube


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

I feel totally ambivalent about Brexit and thus neither of us have bothered to even register to vote in the referendum.

On one hand, I detest the slow, surreptitious way that the EU has gained more power at the expense of national governments and also the exorbitant cost of maintaining this behemoth. I voted in the 1973 Referendum for us to remain in the EEC (the Common Market) but I had no say at all in closer EU integration and disagree with this. It seems to me, that the individual countries of the United Kingdom and the individual states of the United States have a common language, culture, history and ethos which binds them together as 'united' nations. This is not so in Europe. It will be even more marked if Turkey were to be allowed to join the EU.

Only in the EU can you find a Parliament that lifts and shifts its members, aides, civil servants, files etc from only place (Brussels) to another (Strasbourg). This happens every month for just 4 days before moving the whole lot back again. It costs €100M a year and happens just because France and Belgium can't agree on where the EU Parliament should sit. Of course, when they sit in Strasbourg, all hotels etc double their prices, and we are all paying for this stupidity. There are many examples of similar waste and stupidity that we know about, but no doubt many many more that we do not, yet, know about.

Like many others, I am worried about what will happen if we leave the EU - it will be a leap into the dark in many ways. However, I do not subscribe to the notion that we need to stay in the EU to trade. We have always been a great trading nation, and the EU needs our rich market more than we need theirs. In fact, the future of trade is not in Europe at all - it's in the emerging powerhouses of China, India, Brazil and Russia and the UK needs to tap into these global markets rather than the EU with its restrictive practices and tariffs.

All that said, I doubt that the referendum will result in a Brexit. I suspect that most undecided voters (who after all hold the balance of power) will stay with the status quo. The 'safe' option.


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

I agree with your views but also wonder if the referendum will have a dismal turnout. In this case I'm not sure what the rules are. Does it become invalid below say, 50% as I believe it would in The Netherlands?

I also understand that it is not binding so the government can do what it votes in any case.

Pete


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

PeteandSylv said:


> I agree with your views but also wonder if the referendum will have a dismal turnout. In this case I'm not sure what the rules are. Does it become invalid below say, 50% as I believe it would in The Netherlands?
> 
> I also understand that it is not binding so the government can do what it votes in any case.
> 
> Pete


I suspect, because of the fact that the result is not binding on the government, there is no minimum turnout required. In the event of a dismal turnout, the government would be able to use voter ambivalence to justify keeping the status quo.


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

I've checked the rules: there is no minimum turnout requirement and the referendum is won by a straight majority.

Without a minimum turnout apathy could rule the day.

Pete


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

As you alluded to in an earlier post, I think that the majority of people do not know what to vote for and the level of information from both camps is at best confusing and at worst intentionally misleading. There are people, politicians, organisations and institutions with vested interests funding the respective campaigns and these are the main ones we are getting our information from.

If you have a spare 30 mins, watch this clip of Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics in Cardiff University teaching a Parliamentary Select Committee about the economic aspects of leaving the EU. Ignore the fact that UKIP have posted the video in support of their campaign. Prof. Minford is not UKIP, but certainly knows his onions. It is extremely enlightening.


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

cardio said:


> See "Brexit the movie" on youTube


Wow! I knew that this video was available, but have only just watched the entire movie. So many things that I didn't know about the EU. From being generally anti EU but ambivalent about Brexit, this has changed my mind completely. We need out!


----------



## cardio (Sep 19, 2010)

My feelings exactly,I was middle of the road until I saw this movie.Difficult to see any other than a vote for leave


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

*The Britexit Movie*

I managed to watch the movie today. What surprised me was not being able to spot obvious things that are wrong and what facts weren't true. Given that it is exit propaganda it makes a very strong case and exposes the ridiculous nature of the EU administration better than any other commentary that I've seen.

Pete


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

David_&_Letitia said:


> If you have a spare 30 mins, watch this clip of Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics in Cardiff University teaching a Parliamentary Select Committee about the economic aspects of leaving the EU. Ignore the fact that UKIP have posted the video in support of their campaign. Prof. Minford is not UKIP, but certainly knows his onions. It is extremely enlightening.


I felt a bit uncomfortable watching this. Given that Professor Minford was invited to speak by the committee, I think their attitude to him was disgraceful. Even worse I believe that they did not understand the opinions he was putting across. They did not ask for any actual facts, figures or comparative examples to justify his views instead tried an interrogatory pose which he brushed off.

UK citizens pay a lot of money to keep these guys in their jobs and I would want better candidates than were offered. The committee came across as arrogant, foolish, rude and totally unskilled for their task.

Pete


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

PeteandSylv said:


> I felt a bit uncomfortable watching this. Given that Professor Minford was invited to speak by the committee, I think their attitude to him was disgraceful. Even worse I believe that they did not understand the opinions he was putting across. They did not ask for any actual facts, figures or comparative examples to justify his views instead tried an interrogatory pose which he brushed off.
> 
> UK citizens pay a lot of money to keep these guys in their jobs and I would want better candidates than were offered. The committee came across as arrogant, foolish, rude and totally unskilled for their task.
> 
> Pete


I totally agree. It's always a problem when they know that TV cameras are recording the proceedings for BBC Parliament. Politicians then tend to play to the camera and are not keen to be seen to be intellectually challenged, even when it's clear to all that they are!


----------



## gasman1065 (Mar 23, 2011)

Well as the date gets closer I'm still voting in , just so I make sure I don't have to go back to the UK.. I'm not taking any chances


----------



## Anncyp (May 21, 2016)

I don,t think Brexit will mean British citizens will have to leave Cyprus. we may need to get visas or some other paperwork that we don,t need now but I think we will still be able to stay here.


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

gasman1065 said:


> Well as the date gets closer I'm still voting in , just so I make sure I don't have to go back to the UK.. I'm not taking any chances


With respect I think that is the daftest reason to vote In.

To recap on some of what has been said before, Cyprus will not expel ex-pats even if it was legal for them to do so because:

a) the country needs the income that we bring

b) the housing market would collapse virtually immediately creating immediate large unemployment for the building industry, allied industries and support industries.

c) the next knock-on effect would be the damage to the tourist industry creating more unemployment, bankruptcies and hardship for Cypriots

d) the removal of ex-pat money from the banks would be damaging possibly to the extent of causing collapse fears and sparking runs on the banks. 

e) revenues from airline and allied industries would plummet as ex-pat trips and their visitors would cease. Companies like Easyjet and Ryanair finding themselves unprofitable on these routes would simply pull out.

f) All the ex-pat support industries would find themselves in severe trouble. This includes car sales and maintenance, house sales and maintenance, insurance, lawyers even the removal of just 10% of turnover from the larger supermarkets could wipe out their profits, restaurants all over the island would suffer and many tourist areas become almost ghost towns, most of the charitable organisations would also be hit many of them terminally.

So please think rationally and review all the reasons to stay in or exit the EU so that you make a properly informed decision hopefully spending some time, as I have done, to circumvent the lies and scaremongering by the politicians.

Pete


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

This may help:

The EU Referendum: Find the Facts

Pete


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

And this one is horrifying:






Pete


----------



## gasman1065 (Mar 23, 2011)

Ok Pete , I will have a look at the links , as you say there is so much scare mongering going on you don't know who to believe . At the end of the day you look after number 1, and try to do the best that doesn't harm you


----------



## Rema (Aug 12, 2012)

David_&_Letitia said:


> As you alluded to in an earlier post, I think that the majority of people do not know what to vote for and the level of information from both camps is at best confusing and at worst intentionally misleading. There are people, politicians, organisations and institutions with vested interests funding the respective campaigns and these are the main ones we are getting our information from.
> 
> If you have a spare 30 mins, watch this clip of Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics in Cardiff University teaching a Parliamentary Select Committee about the economic aspects of leaving the EU. Ignore the fact that UKIP have posted the video in support of their campaign. Prof. Minford is not UKIP, but certainly knows his onions. It is extremely enlightening.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=leKEUT1TiLU


Very interesting, however! One of the points being made by Brexit campaigners is that the EU is run by non-elected rather than elected people. I think this video shows perfectly that the non-elected professionals are better equipped to run things than any number of elected amateurs.


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Rema said:


> Very interesting, however! One of the points being made by Brexit campaigners is that the EU is run by non-elected rather than elected people. I think this video shows perfectly that the non-elected professionals are better equipped to run things than any number of elected amateurs.


I accept that the video indicates it but I don't think it shows it perfectly. After all this man being interviewed is an economist, a group that has no consensus in predicting economic futures and a rather poor record in what they predict.

Equally the elected clowns on the committee do not know how to run it, show obvious bias and were bloody rude.

And there lies the fundamental problem with democracy. To be elected you need no skills or qualifications other than a big ego and a fluent mouth. Once elected you can determine that everyone else from brain surgeons to hairdressers needs qualifications before being allowed to do their jobs. But the only group allowed to practice high level judgements affecting millions of people's lives can be totally unqualified and inexperienced. In fact they can be totally insane - didn't the German people elect Hitler and isn't there a real risk that Trump may get elected?

Progress this concept a little further and turn it on it's head and you have the EU. MEP's don't really have any function. They can spend their lives counting their salaries and filling in expense forms while delivering no value at all for the people that elected them. The real work of the EU is carried out by unelected people who may or may not be qualified for their task, have no guidance on what they propose but exist primarily to propose rules, laws and regulations that affect millions of people's lives without any accountability.

This suggests to me that democracy is a fundamentally flawed system but, and it's a big but, there is no better system to replace it. However I would like to propose that what is needed is a small amount of tinkering with democracy as it stands. Firstly ministers must be suitably qualified for their ministry, in other words Education Ministers must know rather a lot about education, Chancellors of the Exchequer must have relevant financial qualifications and so on. This would force a discipline on political parties to only allow those to stand for election with an eye on major roles that are qualified. Secondly all elected must take an oath to serve the people and be accountable by law for their actions. This hopefully would have the effect of having opposing parties working towards correct policies and solutions rather than automatically opposing each other for the sake of their party line. Of course I am proposing this for the UK as democracy in America would remain the same given that for a couple of hundred dollars you can buy a qualification.

This is a broadly brushed proposal of principle and needs lots of additional solutions added. For example who would police the actions of ministers? What to do if you have only one qualified education minister and he's caught with his trousers down and must go.

Back on topic if you think about the EU in terms of my slightly tongue in cheek comments on democracy, you might agree that as it stands the EU is undemocratic. This for me is another reason to vote for Brexit as I'd like to see a major rethink of the entire EU project. I truly believe that this cannot happen unless the EU is taken to the brink of collapse which could happen if Germany were to follow the UK out. The concept that it is better for Britain to change the EU from within is nonsensical pie in the sky.

Pete


----------



## Rema (Aug 12, 2012)

PeteandSylv said:


> I accept that the video indicates it but I don't think it shows it perfectly. After all this man being interviewed is an economist, a group that has no consensus in predicting economic futures and a rather poor record in what they predict.
> 
> Equally the elected clowns on the committee do not know how to run it, show obvious bias and were bloody rude.
> 
> ...


Pete,
I think the only point you make that I make comment on is your proposal that ministers should have appropriate qualifications to run their ministries. Not that this is a bad thing in itself, and is possibly even a good idea. My point is, it's the job of the civil service to provide the informed input to decision making and law drafting and is why we have permanent under secretaries heading up all ministries. They are professionally qualified and are akin to the EU's body of Commissioners, all be it that both bodies sometimes make a balls up of things. The ministers are there to deliver their elected mandate, and hopefully get re-elected, and the civil service are there to carry out their whims and create the appropriate legislation which is then voted on in the house.
The way the EU works is on very much of a parallel, just on a bigger scale.


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Rema said:


> Pete,
> I think the only point you make that I make comment on is your proposal that ministers should have appropriate qualifications to run their ministries. Not that this is a bad thing in itself, and is possibly even a good idea. My point is, it's the job of the civil service to provide the informed input to decision making and law drafting and is why we have permanent under secretaries heading up all ministries. They are professionally qualified and are akin to the EU's body of Commissioners, all be it that both bodies sometimes make a balls up of things. The ministers are there to deliver their elected mandate, and hopefully get re-elected, and the civil service are there to carry out their whims and create the appropriate legislation which is then voted on in the house.
> The way the EU works is on very much of a parallel, just on a bigger scale.


I take your point on what is supposed to happen but it's not a clear cut as that. When you have a change of government you also get a change of policies dictated by the minister possibly according to election manifestoes. The civil servants then change tack and deliver based on the policy. Thus it is dictated by an unqualified individual. I saw this happen several times during my 12 years as a school governor.

From what I've read and heard of the working of the EU, the MEP's have no power to implement laws, suggest changes or anything else. This is carried out from creation to implementation by the Commissioners.

There's a parallel in business with a managing director who knows nothing about the business just relying on his managers to run it. It's likely to end in tears just like BHS.

Time for a rerun of "Yes Minister" I think.

Pete


----------



## mikehump3 (Aug 28, 2012)

My ballot paper has been marked and sent. I am quite happy to tell you that is a vote for out. Like other expats, I had to form my decision long before polling day. Without wishing to appear superior, each person living in a country allowing the exercise of a free vote should use that vote. Additionally, they should make themselves aware of the arguments and decide which claims have little or no substance.

I believe that I have done that in a quiet and dignified manner. Whilst I would rather the result be in favour of exit, should the opposite be true at least a decision was reached by a majority with a democratic right to participate.

No recriminations. Get on with the decision and canvass harder should there be another opportunity.
23 June----job done!

Mike


----------



## Rema (Aug 12, 2012)

mikehump3 said:


> My ballot paper has been marked and sent. I am quite happy to tell you that is a vote for out. Like other expats, I had to form my decision long before polling day. Without wishing to appear superior, each person living in a country allowing the exercise of a free vote should use that vote. Additionally, they should make themselves aware of the arguments and decide which claims have little or no substance.
> 
> I believe that I have done that in a quiet and dignified manner. Whilst I would rather the result be in favour of exit, should the opposite be true at least a decision was reached by a majority with a democratic right to participate.
> 
> ...


Very commendable Mike, however I rather think that the majority of people who will vote will cast their vote based on a particular personality and emotions rather than a sound assessment of the facts.
Apart from the Conservative leadership we have the CBI, Labour party, Bank of England, NFU and other unions, plus a whole range of business leaders saying "Remain" not to mention a whole phalanx of World Leaders
On the other side of the issue we have Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson supported by James Dyson and a few others saying "Leave" plus of course Putin (who wants to break the EU in any case).
Not exactly an even contest based on weight of support is it?

Lets face it, this whole campaign has been about vested interests and not what's best for the UK.


----------



## MrSpadge (Jun 7, 2015)

I've managed to reach a decision without watching any of the travelling freak shows. The Interweb is a useful tool for trawling through the history, economics and politics of the EU and our relationship with it. 

Vote is cast and posted; neither Boris nor Dave had any influence


----------



## mikehump3 (Aug 28, 2012)

Rema makes the point of research and names various sources, many or most with vested interest. Her reasoning highlights the very reason why we have a duty to read all arguments and assess their veracity. After all, the Mirror and the Telegraph can report a particular non EU story, especially one of political or social impact, and attribute quite different stories about its occurance.

Up until March I probably leaned towards Remain. My voting slip supports Leave.

As for self interest. Well Cyprus also has many retired citizens residing in the UK, not all having contributed to the NHS but enjoy those facilities. The agreement pre-dates Cyprus EU accession. Perhaps a little more initial paperwork but pre EU Cyprus was a favourite UK pensioners retirement spot. Leave (Permission) to Remain was never a problem. And what is this about visas? Too many people discussing ideas about what might possibly happen. Too few people talking about what will probably happen. And all this at LEAST 2 years after 23 June.

Mike


----------



## mikehump3 (Aug 28, 2012)

PeteandSylv said:


> *Please don't close the thread. There are some of us who enjoy the discussion.*
> 
> I've been wondering why the Leave Campaign only seems to have Boris's voice. Why has Farage and his rabble been so quiet?
> 
> ...


Why not Corbyn?

Lets keep up this lively discussion without reference to Colonial, post Colonial or any other irrelevances. In or Out and why.


----------



## Rema (Aug 12, 2012)

mikehump3 said:


> Why not Corbyn?
> 
> Lets keep up this lively discussion without reference to Colonial, post Colonial or any other irrelevances. In or Out and why.


Ok Mike, as you want to keep this one alive!

If "leave" wins then there is a pretty good chance that Cameron would step aside and Boris would assume the leadership of the Conservative party and hence become PM.
Whilst he is, I'm sure, a clever man I think this back door entry to PM ship is just what he wants to achieve. His behaviour of late has been likened to that other uncertain package across the pond.
I ask myself, would I want Boris to lead the UK? 

I also see John Lewis, amongst others, are forecasting higher produce prices based on a leave vote, this I can quite understand. Farming has moved on over the last 40 years to one where large scale production has led to lower prices, as well as various price wars amongst the supermarkets, this in turn has brought about the demise of small scale UK farming operations. The leave campaign has stated "the UK can survive on its own" however I don't see UK farmers being able to ramp up either dairy or non-dairy farming to the degree required to be self sustaining, we will still need to import food from the EU. So, on the surface no change, however what about the trade tariffs that will undoubtadly be imposed? If I were an EU farmer looking to sell to the UK I would put my prices up too. Why?, because the UK needs the food supply chain from the EU and will not be able to get it from all these other countries 'experts' say we can do trade with.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

This answered a lot of questions for me. Its unbiased and isnt full of propaganda, it simply answers some of the real issues. I guess its conclusion is that the EU needs some significant changes, as does the euro currency - it doesnt push for either "in" or "out" particularly 




Jo xxx


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Rema said:


> Ok Mike, as you want to keep this one alive!
> 
> If "leave" wins then there is a pretty good chance that Cameron would step aside and Boris would assume the leadership of the Conservative party and hence become PM.
> Whilst he is, I'm sure, a clever man I think this back door entry to PM ship is just what he wants to achieve. His behaviour of late has been likened to that other uncertain package across the pond.
> ...



I'd favour Boris over Cameron after the nonsense Cameron has spouted of late. He has lost my respect and I really want to see him go. Don't underestimate Boris. Labelled a buffoon by the media he has played on this but underneath is a sharp intelligent mind who I believe could fulfill the PM role. Alternatively there is always Clarkson !!!!

UK farming had to change detrimentally under the EU. It was not a supply and demand issue. I see no reason why it cannot change back or be revised forward. To my mind to pay farmers not to grow food is one of the biggest failings of the EU. Many UK prices have been too artificially low for years. Perhaps a correction to this will be more beneficial particularly if it revises greedy supermarket policies. A review of quality might be in order too. It would be nice for a UK grown tomato to have a decent texture and flavour for once.

In any trading situation supply and demand forces need to be considered. As much as we may wish to buy EU food they need to sell it. Can the EU countries afford to have the loss of sales to the large UK population? This appears to me to be reason enough to continue trading as before. Many Remain supporters talk about the tariffs that will be applied. Why? Tariffs are not compulsory, they are a choice. I do believe some people believe they are compulsory and are under the illusion that being in the EU removes them. This, of course, is not the case.

The recent article on the BBC website with Germany talking about collapse of the EU if Britain exits is music to my ears. I believe this is the only way the EU can be revised from its current structure. It simply will not change organically as there are too many vested interests against change. A collapse and reformation could perhaps get it right in the form of a union to combine European countries for the good of the people and not the bureaucrats and MEPs.

Pete


----------



## Rema (Aug 12, 2012)

PeteandSylv said:


> I'd favour Boris over Cameron after the nonsense Cameron has spouted of late. He has lost my respect and I really want to see him go. Don't underestimate Boris. Labelled a buffoon by the media he has played on this but underneath is a sharp intelligent mind who I believe could fulfill the PM role. Alternatively there is always Clarkson !!!!
> 
> UK farming had to change detrimentally under the EU. It was not a supply and demand issue. I see no reason why it cannot change back or be revised forward. To my mind to pay farmers not to grow food is one of the biggest failings of the EU. Many UK prices have been too artificially low for years. Perhaps a correction to this will be more beneficial particularly if it revises greedy supermarket policies. A review of quality might be in order too. It would be nice for a UK grown tomato to have a decent texture and flavour for once.
> 
> ...


Oh! Pete, your usual erudite and well researched approach to posts on this forum has clearly deserted you!
I don't particularly favour either Cameron or Boris, both are very clever individuals however I don't think either of them deserves to be PM given recent performance.

I never said farming was about supply and demand but rather economies of scale. This has had a dramatic effect on small holdings across the UK with both cereal producers and dairy farmers throwing in the towel as they can't compete with large scale production facilities, either here or in other member states. As for paying farmers not to produce things, do you want another wine lake or cheese mountain? If you don't compensate them somehow, rather than manage the land it turns into derelict land and they end up on the dole, so you just pay them from another pot of cash. May I suggest that to regenerate UK farming will take much longer than you maybe think, apart from the fact that most farms, especially those with seasonal labour requirements, rely heavily on the EU labour force which the leave campaign wishes to curtail. Mind you, you appear to acknowledge that the EU has kept prices (artificially) down and therefore seem to be happy that UK prices will rise (your price correction). I note that you live in Cyprus where this price increase is unlikely to affect us!
You also miss the point re tariffs too. Here we are talking about export rather than import tariffs.Of course the EU will continue to sell food, and other products, to the UK as we need these products as much as the EU wishes to retain access to the UK market. The issue is, without being in the single market then EU manufacturers will be free to raise prices, weather as a tariff or just as a mark up, it makes no difference and goes to support your idea of a general price increase in goods sold to the UK. If you don't believe me just ask folk from Norway and other non-EU countries who are bound by EU imposed tariffs.
Almost everybody seems to agree that the EU, as it currently stands, is not perfect and needs reform. I am however a believer that you need to make reform from inside not outside. I am dismayed at your desire to see the whole thing collapse, as reported by your BBC reference. Whilst reform is indeed needed I fear the utter mess that would exist for many years if this were to happen. Sorting things out will be left to the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats, the very people who created the situation in the first place. Do I have confidence in them to get it right both quickly and economically? Unfortunately NO!

Pete, we are both retired in Cyprus and live a reasonably comfortable life. I believe we should bow out of this referendum and leave the decision to the people who will be most affected by the outcome, namely the younger generations and the hundreds of thousands of people who's livelihood is geared directly to the existence of the EU.


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

Rema said:


> Oh! Pete, your usual erudite and well researched approach to posts on this forum has clearly deserted you!
> I don't particularly favour either Cameron or Boris, both are very clever individuals however I don't think either of them deserves to be PM given recent performance.
> 
> I never said farming was about supply and demand but rather economies of scale. This has had a dramatic effect on small holdings across the UK with both cereal producers and dairy farmers throwing in the towel as they can't compete with large scale production facilities, either here or in other member states. As for paying farmers not to produce things, do you want another wine lake or cheese mountain? If you don't compensate them somehow, rather than manage the land it turns into derelict land and they end up on the dole, so you just pay them from another pot of cash. May I suggest that to regenerate UK farming will take much longer than you maybe think, apart from the fact that most farms, especially those with seasonal labour requirements, rely heavily on the EU labour force which the leave campaign wishes to curtail. Mind you, you appear to acknowledge that the EU has kept prices (artificially) down and therefore seem to be happy that UK prices will rise (your price correction). I note that you live in Cyprus where this price increase is unlikely to affect us!
> ...


I'm sorry I'm disappointing you but I might counter that the status quo is not the only way which is not reflected in your views.

As far as PM's go you can only work with what you have got. My preference as I said is Boris. There is a nightmare scenario called Corbyn but I prefer not to suffer nightmares. If you can present me with another Churchill or Thatcher it would be good but please, not another Blair, Brown or Wilson.

Do I want another cheese mountain? Certainly not, that was another stupid idea of the EU. But I also abhor the concept of paying farmers to not grow food. Far better to grow suitable crops and give it away to the third world rather than handing out money to the third world that ends up in Swiss bank accounts.

As far as prices go there is a great deal of complaint of supermarkets forcing their purchase price down. This is not necessarily reflected in the retail prices. Far better to force margins to change along the supply line. The smaller farmers that you mention must adjust like any business has to and could, for example, specialise in organic or particular products sold at higher margins. Moving on to tariffs you think that suppliers could simply raise their prices. Yes, they could but this could also mean they have their product refused or sell a lot less. Prices are negotiated at every level of trade. If a product costs too much you simply don't buy it. (Except in the case of Apple where people tend to be a bit stupid!)

I'm quite happy that you think the EU could be revised from within but I wouldn't hold my breath. There is absolutely no motivation within the EU for this to happen. If it could be forced into a priority issue I am sure that this would be for PR and the vested interests inside the EU would ensure that the process stalls regularly and would never be achieved in our lifetime. That is why I prefer the more anarchical process to completely recreate the correct form of Union. I'll certainly agree that that if it were rebuilt the same way by the same people it could herald a disaster but I also like to think that there could be some real leadership and correctly negotiated principles. I'll also throw in that I believe a large number of the countries in the current EU should not be included. The mentality and workings of "Northern" countries is rather different which is why Greece, Cyprus and others sit so uncomfortably.

As far as bowing out of the referendum is concerned my answer is No I won't. My Prime Minister has asked me not to and if I had my way all voting in the UK would be compulsory as it is in Australia. The question of whether there should be a referendum at all is open to debate particularly with a strong argument that the elected representatives were put there to make these decisions and should not duck out of their responsibility.

I still haven't heard a decent argument as to why the 5th world power cannot trade it's way independently in the world away from the clutches of a repressive and corrupt EU. Perhaps, in hindsight, had the UK a strong negotiator, they might have achieved more towards the revision of the EU as the No. 2 EU nation rather than the sad few concessions that Cameron achieved.

Pete


----------



## Rema (Aug 12, 2012)

For anybody who is still to make their mind up, this is a must read and for those who have already committed I hope you made the right choice for the right reasons.

Only remains for me to say one final thing on the subject........ be careful what you wish for!

Brexit in seven charts — the economic impact - FT.com


----------

