A thread for those who are voting OUT of the EU to make it fair

Many of the politicians the other side of the Channel gave interviews a few weeks ago - did you not notice how every time they did speak Boris and co wanted to know why they dared to intervene in a UK Donestic event?

Regarding your OP, I bet I've done more hours of research than you,practical, and I think the opposite. I give you links to my research, too.

My research says we cannot have the Euro, and we can control immigration.
Welshwife, just shows how pathetic Boris is. No way can he become PM if he doesn't realise that it isn't just a domestic event. Whatever the result, it will affect the whole of the EU and beyond, even the USA, if I dare suggest it.

Just looked at the polls, Leave is ahead still.

politics.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f5ab5efdb629954eb1b8df87b&id=70b8b2068e&e=f5e4f66f33

Careful what you vote for. Brexit is the new Trump.

rosesarered they will stay ahead and get even more in front.

The disastrous regulations in the EU’s Clinical Trials Directive forced on Britain in 2004 has seen the UK global share of research plummet from 12 per cent to just one per cent.

Despite this news from the Daily Express, the vast majority of UK scientists (over 80%) want to stay in the EU. The UK has traditionally received 15% of Framework Programme funds and stands to receive around £11bn from Horizon 2020, which cannot be replicated with domestic funding.

The Clinical Trials Directive has ensured that new medicines are safer.

UK pharmaceutical industry to support the UK remaining in Europe:

www.abpi.org.uk/media-centre/newsreleases/2016/Pages/UK-pharmaceutical-industry-to-support-the-UK-remaining-in-Europe.aspx

^We believe that staying in the EU will mean that patients in the UK will be more likely to get faster access to new medicines than if we left. With the European Medicines Agency, pharmaceutical companies have a one-stop shop for centralised licencing of new medicines and treatments across Europe. If we left the EU, this would mean that the licensing of new medicines would have to be handled by a UK agency as well as a European agency. Our members have confirmed that the applications for UK license would come after the European license due to the smaller patient population in the UK.

​The UK also currently holds an enviable position as one of the premier European destinations for ground breaking research and clinical trials. An EU exit risks the breakdown of international collaboration between scientists, doctors and industry which could slow down access to new drugs for patients in the UK.^

The UK has approximately 9% of the global pharmaceutical research R & D. German pharmaceutical companies would be rubbing their hands in glee if the UK leaves the EU.

Interesting! The Daily Express article isn't about R & D at all, but clinical trials, which the article has said have gone to India.

However, 2061 people in India died as a result of serious adverse events caused during drug trials from 2008-2011. In many cases, drug companies persuade the poor, illiterate, uneducated or tribal members to be their “willing” participants.

Maybe the Daily Express journalists would prefer that the UK kills off a few hundred people every year with clinical trials.

"We believe..."

woulds that should be coulds

"risk"

"rubbing their hands with glee"

Scare story much?

Article from the Mirror - the head of Hitachi on why leaving the EU would threaten the foreign investment that created so many good quality UK jobs.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hitachi-boss-says-brexit-would-8125754#ICID=sharebar_twitter
A reminder that those who hark back to pre-EU days are thinking of a time when there were few such jobs here. Many of the industrial jobs that supported the UK economy in the 20th century are now history. As is the UK car industry, which could not modernise fast enough to stay afloat.

@thatbags

No, realism.

The whole issue of clinical trials is extremely complex. The pharmaceutical companies are huge and rich. The clinical trials are incredibly expensive and difficult to perform. One of the problems highlighted by our own Ben Goldacre is that data can sometimes be distorted or deliberately buried. Recently, and Ben's AllTrials campaign has been a major influence, the way clinical trials are conducted has been tightened up across the EU. Trials will have to be registered centrally at the start so nothing can be swept under the carpet. This is a huge victory - but there is still room for much improvement.
Because of the economic clout of the companies I would far rather trials were regulated centrally by EU scientists than left in the hands of UK politicians who inevitably get "lobbied".
EU science policy doesn't always get it right IMO - but they have tended to resist the power of big business and if they are leaning, they lean in favour of voter opinion and democratic lobbying (e.g. GMO crops).
A good example, couple of years ago the EU put its foot down with the whole food industry. No longer is any food product allowed to claim or even IMPLY a health benefit for their food products unless there is seriously solid scientific evidence for this. Benecol etc and some oat products are, I believe, the only ones to meet their high bar to date. The companies that make those little yoghurt drinks - the ones they would like us to believe will make us healthier if we have one every day - have been battling away for years with EU scientists but they have still failed to meet their very proper scientific standards. Great example of EU science protecting consumers from fraudulent marketing and advertising. If we Leave the UK scientists on the team will lose their role in the team.

Fair enough, but it's a pity that us outers found it necessary to try to have our own thread in the first place! Not to worry we managed to have a bit of an amicable chat before being swamped with the usual animosity.

Why was it necessary, niggly? This is a forum; express a view and you should expect it to be challenged especially when the subject is not about the next five years but about our lifetimes and those of our children and grandchildren.

You did not need support, as some have suggested. An "out support thread", similar to others on this forum, would have been for such things as those whose family no longer speak to them because they voted out or inability to sleep now you have sent off your out postal vote.

What you were asking for was to deny others the right to speak in a particular place and to deny the right to reply to political posts. That is pretty extreme - other groups, in other times have first set themselves up as separate, then inferred others outside the group were the cause of the problems and had despicable habits - unfairness was implied in the title. These groups then seek and sometimes succeed in denying freedom to express any view other than their own.

Grass roots democracy is important and something we should all work for not try to deny to others.

Realism from your point of view, dd, not from mine. Some people have been complaining about the 'tanking' economy ever since Cameron became PM. Others have argued that the economy is doing fine. This will continue whatever the result of the referendum.

And before he became PM as well of course.

My gut feeling, for what it's worth (which is a lot, to me) is that Remainers are pessimists and Brexiters are optimists.

As my family all work in manufacturing industries and their employers have advised them to vote 'in' to protect their jobs the gleefulness of the 'out' campaigners is quite upsetting. [by the way, I will attempt to read all 24 pages later today but I'm having to go to the council house in another town to arrange a postal vote].

Gleefulness? Where? Optimism is not gleefulness.

I am all for healthy debate - I agree that forums should be open for all to post - however, some posters - not all, seem unable to accept that others hold different views and resort to insults

"You are right, Dj the Telegraph is biased but its readers tend to have a higher level of education than the readers of the downmarket tory tabloids who are more easily swayed by the Leave propoganda."

I've read good articles in the Times and elsewhere (though not in tabloids) in support of both Remain and Brexit (separate articles, obviously). I don't remember thinking any of them as propaganda but as thinking people's thoughts well expressed. So far, I'm still in favour of Brexit. I think this is because, for whatever reason except stupidity or lack of education on my part because I'm ot stupid and I have a high level of education, I find the Brexit case more appealing and more convincing. Other people find the Remain case more appealing and convincing and some people can't decide betwixt the two.

Everyone has biases, based on all kinds of life experiences. It's not a sin to be biased by one's background and one's view and hopes of life so why do people sneer when someone has a bias they dislike and don't share? Answer: because they are sneery people.

I find it hard to be optimistic about our economy when the national debt is huge and still rising rapidly, along with the interest payments. The economy is expanding very slowly (rather than contracting or flat as it was a few years ago) but it needs to expand faster if the treasury is ever going to get enough money in to make a start on reducing the debt. It just keeps climbing. If the cost of borrowing increased (it's currently low) that would make the debt grow even faster.
Hence my opinion that whatever your heart is saying, this is not the time to take a risk with the UK economy.
Where I live the house market has just started to perk up after the 2009-2010 banking crisis. For the first time a normal number of houses seem to be coming on the market and some SOLD signs are going up. We are still in recovery and don't need economic another crisis, however small you think it might be. Economists are in a great deal of agreement about this. Yesterday Janet Yellen "the most powerful woman in the world" - came out and said that Leaving would be a bad idea for the world economy. If I understand correctly she is the equivalent of our Governor of the Bank of England - with a much bigger economy in the palm of her hand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Yellenhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36463819
If she puts up interest rates then our national debt interest will be affected. Hmm.
This just sounds to me like a lousy time to try to go it alone.

My gut feeling, for what it's worth (which is a lot, to me) is that Remainers are pessimists and Brexiters are optimists.

Why do you have to make personal remarks thatbags. Of course not all of one group are pessimists or the other optimists. Some in each group will be looking from each position. You could say "out" plays to those who look backward to some golden era that never existed and are pessimistic about the future and some look forward because they truly believe we could be better on our own and look forward to the challenges. You could also say that some "remain" voters will look at globalisation and feel that our population can go further and aspire to more by going with the challenges that brings with being within the EU while some may be afraid to leave. There is no way that is will be all one way or the other.

I think it is that way that some do not even realise how far from fact their arguments are and how personal they are making them that causes them problems on here.

What personal remarks, gg? I was very careful to make my remarks general in my last post.