TwoPints

I'll just leave this here: https://youtu.be/0UZgENcr3Q0

Shame we wouldn't get the benefit of such a wonderful trade agreement with Canada if we left the EU.

Made me chuckle

Yes

When I first watched it on MotD, I thought Forster was at fault too but on watching back, there was a Chelsea player in front of him who I think Forster thought might get a touch. He therefore hesitated for a split second and by then it was too late. Just been over to the Chelsea forum to see if their thoughts on Costas unsportsman like behaviour in chasing the ball down and they seem to have loved it, blaming VvD for going down too easily! Now I remember why I dislike Chelsea and their support so much. Bunch of ****s. If that had happened the other way round, they'd have been up in arms and the incident would undoubtedly have been shown on MotD too.

As the Leavers are keen on press articles, here's one for you that I found in the Guardian: "The economic challenges of Brexit would be overwhelming. The Out campaign’s main economic argument – that Britain’s huge trade deficit is a secret weapon, because the EU would have more to lose than Britain from a breakdown in trade relations – is flatly wrong. Britain would need to negotiate access to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade Organization rules. Margaret Thatcher was the first to realise that Britain’s specialisation in services – not only finance, but also law, accountancy, media, architecture, pharmaceutical research and so on – makes membership in the EU single market critical. It makes little economic difference to Germany, France, or Italy whether Britain is an EU member or simply in the WTO. Britain would therefore need an EU association agreement, similar to those negotiated with Switzerland or Norway, the only two significant European economies outside the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the terms of any British deal would have to be at least as stringent as those in the existing association agreements. To grant easier terms would immediately force matching concessions to Switzerland and Norway. Worse still, any special favors for Britain would set a precedent and tempt other lukewarm EU members to make exit threats and demand renegotiation. Among the conditions accepted by Norway and Switzerland that the EU would surely regard as non-negotiable are four that completely negate the political objectives of Brexit. Norway and Switzerland must abide by all EU single market standards and regulations, without any say in their formulation. They agree to translate all relevant EU laws into their domestic legislation without consulting domestic voters. They contribute substantially to the EU budget. And they must accept unlimited EU immigration, resulting in a higher share of EU immigrants in the Swiss and Norwegian populations than in the UK. If Britain rejected these encroachments on national sovereignty, its service industries would be locked out of the single market. The French, German, and Irish governments would be particularly delighted to see UK-based banks and hedge funds shackled by EU regulations, and UK-based businesses involved in asset management, insurance, accountancy, law, and media forced to transfer their jobs, head offices, and tax payments to Paris, Frankfurt, or Dublin. When confronted with this exodus of high-value service jobs and businesses, Britain would surely balk and accept the intrusive regulations entailed by Swiss and Norwegian-style EU association agreements. Ultimately, Brexit would not only force a disruptive renegotiation of economic relations; it would also lead to a loss of political sovereignty for Britain. Or maybe just for England, given that Scotland would probably leave the UK and rejoin the EU, taking many of London’s service jobs to Edinburgh in the process. Once Britain’s political, business, and media leaders start drawing attention to these hard facts of life after Brexit, we can be confident that voters will decide to stay in the EU."

Blimey... Another one. Your latter example is indeed a statistic. The first one isn't, it's simply a number. Have a look at the definition of a statistic... actually, I'll save you the trouble: "A*statistic*(singular) is a single measure of some attribute of a*sample*" So, in your latter example, the sample is 6 matches, the number of goals conceded is the attribute. In the first one, there is no sample and therefore, no attribute of a sample, it's simply a number. You're welcome.

Wow! You really do struggle with the basics don't you! "£0 = our net contribution to the EU when we leave." is not a statistic.

Well this made me chuckle but wait for the vitriol from the Leavers: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/gruffalo-gruffalo-gruffalo?utm_term=.vsxRQ8KBJN

Yes, I do understand that hence the reason I included the quote from the CBI that made it clear it was an estimate, rather than just stating an inaccurate number as being fact. So, if we vote out, in the absence of an 'estimate' of the value of the trade deals we'd be able to arrange, we'd just be taking a bit of a flyer and hoping everything would be OK? I wonder why people aren't so keen to sign up to that! Anyway, I have somewhere to go this afternoon ? so I have to go now.

So, we're having a referendum so the British people can decide whether they want to stay in or to leave. That seems like a rather democratic process to me. If we assume, just for a moment, that we remain in, presumably we'll all still have the opportunity to vote for our MEP. That too seems quite democratic to me.

Lol if you actually had something constructive to add, people might be more inclined to listen to what you had to say.

I'll assume you understand the difference between 'an estimate' and 'made up' numbers of the like that Sour likes to bandy about. So, what is the answer, what is the estimated benefit of the super new trade deals we will put in place with the rest of the world if we leave the EU? Anyone know or would we just be taking a flyer on that if we choose to leave?

Yes they are : "According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - To put that in context, it is about 1.4% of total public spending - slightly less than the energy and climate change department's annual budget. The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn." Both figures are somewhat less than your made up £10bn figure. To put it into perspective, the highest figure here is about the same as the budget of the "Nuclear Decommissioning Authority". In the whole scheme of things, it's not a lot compared to the benefit.

Well who'd have thought. The man that accuses people of using made up figures for propoganda, using made up figures for propoganda, Here's some more numbers from the CBI, not from a newspaper: "A CBI literature review suggests that the net benefit of EU membership to the UK could be in the region of 4-5% of GDP or £62bn-£78bn a year – roughly the economies of the North East and Northern Ireland taken together." So, while leaving the EU would mean our net contribution would be zero. We'd lose the benefit of circa £62bn a year - the CBI's number, not mine. Isn't that biting your nose off to spite your face?

I'm not afraid but I'll be voting to remain in. Am I the only one? If you think people are only voting to stay in because they're afraid then you're wrong.

Abbott is always a car crash. Quite why she's still in politics is a complete mystery to me.

Honestly Hypo, of all the people that could have legitimately claimed they were undecided until this week, you're not one of them. Here's a post from another forum from May 2014: "As has been mentioned, it is positioned as an either or question when the real issue is far more complex. Most of us would vote to stay in the EU but as an institution it is broken and most of us want to fix it not abandon it. The power of Brussels is disproportionate to how most of us would want it to be split between Brussels and Westminster. The instincts of the EU are profoundly undemocratic. Some of the most powerful people in the world are making decisions in our name and we have never even heard of them. It is alarmingly corrupt; the fact that every year nobody will sign off the EU budget is brushed over annually. Most of think that somebody should be accountable. Many of us think that the principle of one size fits all cannot apply to 27 different countries and that is a fundamental flaw. Open door immigration. Most of us embrace the benefits of immigration but recognise that if you have significant variances in wealth across Europe you are at risk from sudden fluctuations in numbers entering the country. Economics say this will dilute wages and put pressure on local services and on communities. We were told 13000 Poles would arrive and a million did. It actually did wonders for our economy but lets have the right to manage the numbers. Those in the Eurozone and those out of the Eurozone cannot be governed in the same context. We think this needs to be addressed or there will be major problems in the next few decades. Lots of us want it to be an economic project not a political one and please do not tell us that we need to be in the EU or we will loose three million jobs. There is a surplus trade deficit with the EU so effectively they need us more than we need them. Yes of course we need each other. So just because I will probably vote for UKIP don't call me a racist or a fruit cake. Without them I am disenfranchised. Lets fix Europe not walk out of it.' That's not your post but your response to it was 'That's a fantastic post'. If that's not the view of someone that had made their mind up years ago, I don't know what is.

The arrogance of the Leaver campaign. 'People will only vote to stay in because they're scared'. Maybe people have weighed up the pros and cons and made their mind up on the facts? At the same time you claim people have been asking for a referendum for years but concede that the vote is likely to go to those that want to remain. So, have the majority wanted a referendum just to confirm they like the EU or is it that the more vocal (extreme?) Leavers claim that the majority have been demanding a referendum to support their case when there has been no such demand at all?

I have friends that live in the USA. It took them 12 years on the waiting list to be able to emigrate as they didn't have the necessary points/skills to go immediately. Certainly people with the right skills or money can go and live in these countries (which is what you're asking for isn't it?) but the more elderly, less well off, people that might choose to retire in the EU for example would find it considerably harder to do so if we're not in it. I'm sure I don't have the ability to just turn up in the USA, or Australia, or Canada and start working as I do throughout Europe so it is fair to say that emigration to the EU would drop if we're not in it. I suspect that's the point that was being made.

I got 90% Sanders and Clinton. 24% Trump

Yes, I have belatedly realised that.

Well that's not at all pedantic is it? Do you actually have anything constructive to add to the debate because so far I've seen nothing from you.

Same old story... The facts are either made up or propaganda and if you happen to believe any of them, then you don't understand the basics. That's not a great basis on which to build an argument against being in the EU is it? If that's your argument, I think I'll continue to get my information from elsewhere for my decision making.

Yes, I understand your point. It's a bit like saying the government don't provide the NHS, or education, but we do as taxpayers. It's what I said, just pedantic and pointless. Obviously the EU fund all of the services they provide via the money paid by the member states. I don't think anyone thinks they just magic the funds out of thin air. I just happen to believe that the benefits of being in the EU (which you clearly don't believe any of) are worth the money we pay to be in it.