EU referendum

[badgerx16]

Nobody knows

 

The In/Out debate summed up in 2 words.

[CB Fry]

I'm glad that you consider the line of argument as being nice, as that is what it is all about. There has been too much dismissal of the personalities on the Brexit side, rather than any attempt to argue against what they say. On here, it is the in brigade who are far more likely to display the petty insults, calling the out supporters swivel-eyed loonies and such like. Whereas the likes of Kate Hoey, Frank Field and indeed Anne Widdicombe never reached the top of the greasy pole, that doesn't mean that they weren't often more sensible, more intelligent, or more rational than many who did. Regardless of whether you consider the likes of them to be political pygmies, there are very many who have respect for their opinions because they have always talked a lot of sense on many of the issues that strike a chord with the electorate.

 

You're basing your opinion of Frank Field and Kate Hoey based entirely on the fact they happen to agree with you on one issue. That's the single, only reason you suddenly have "respect for their opinions".

[Lord Duckhunter]

Another sensible appearance from Mark Littlewood on QT last night

[Verbal]

You're basing your opinion of Frank Field and Kate Hoey based entirely on the fact they happen to agree with you on one issue. That's the single, only reason you suddenly have "respect for their opinions".

 

If the Brexiters are aiming high they'd highlight the politician with the most seniority. That accolade falls to the one and only Iain Duncan Smith, presently a murderously incompetent work and pensions secretary and arguably the worst leader of the Tory party in the last century, if not ever.

[derry]

A lot of people think that there is a debate, that there is even a campaign with figure heads and prominent supporters, that people will be swayed by the arguments misrepresented by either side. There isn't, on the 23rd June millions will go and vote for what they believe is the result they want and most likely they believe today. They are not interested in politicians etc and despise them and it won't matter what they say because most people can see through them and are set to give them a bloody nose. The debate may chunter on but I think the great majority of the voting population isn't even listening having had up to forty years to make their mind up they've already done that.

[Verbal]

A lot of people think that there is a debate, that there is even a campaign with figure heads and prominent supporters, that people will be swayed by the arguments misrepresented by either side. There isn't, on the 23rd June millions will go and vote for what they believe is the result they want and most likely they believe today. They are not interested in politicians etc and despise them and it won't matter what they say because most people can see through them and are set to give them a bloody nose. The debate may chunter on but I think the great majority of the voting population isn't even listening having had up to forty years to make their mind up they've already done that.

 

Completely wrong. There are plenty of people presently in the 'remain' camp who are sceptical of how well EU institutions work but are likely to vote to remain so long as the Brexit campaign lacks either credible leadership or, even more astonishingly, a credible argument. If either turns up, you may see opinion moving more decisively in favour of Brexit.

 

Similarly, there are plenty of people who'd situate themselves naturally in the leave camp but who may vote to remain because they are voting for their jobs rather than what for many is the ephemeral concept of Westminster's sovereignty. (Ask a Brexiter who they've been directly affected by the EU having stolen this sovereignty from central London and they stare at their shoes).

 

That the Brexiters repeatedly overplay their hand was well illustrated this week. The EU has apparently robbed Parliament of all powers, say the leading halfwits of Brexit - we're now led by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Yet there was Osborne on Tuesday giving a very long speech about all the decisions he and the Tory government had made all on their lonesomes.

 

How can that be possible, 'kippers? Did we all just dream it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yet there was Osborne on Tuesday giving a very long speech about all the decisions he and the Tory government had made all on their lonesomes.

 

How can that be possible, 'kippers? Did we all just dream it?

 

Dear oh dear , do you really believe everyone wanting out is a kipper?

 

Personally I believe the uk chancellor should decide vat rates & on which products , you're happy to let Europeans do it for us .

[bridge too far]

For your delight and edification, a timely article by my old buddy Bryan Gould

 

http://www.bryangould.com/the-left-case-for-brexit/

[Verbal]

Dear oh dear , do you really believe everyone wanting out is a kipper?

 

Personally I believe the uk chancellor should decide vat rates & on which products , you're happy to let Europeans do it for us .

 

What parallel universe do you live in? I remember a few days ago you were utterly baffled by how tax had anything to do with fiscal policy. Now, the differing rates of VAT in countries across the EU is something you've decided to disinvent for the sake, presumably, of the comforts of 'kippersville.

 

Meanwhile, I see the LSE report I linked to a few days ago, which one of the other closet 'kippers on here laughably refused even to look at it, is getting some attention because it gives an actual cost for each family in Britain if we pull out: £6,400. You may call it 'project fear', but how about challenging its economic assumptions and modelling - the way proper critics do?

 

Too much to ask?

[Lord Duckhunter]

What parallel universe do you live in? I remember a few days ago you were utterly baffled by how tax had anything to do with fiscal policy. Now, the differing rates of VAT in countries across the EU is something you've decided to disinvent for the sake, presumably, of the comforts of '

 

Too much to ask?

 

What on earth are you on about you plum . It was you that tried to claim the US had monetary union but not fiscal Union.

 

If you don't know the EU's rules around VAT there's not really a lot of point in continuing with this . I suggest you do some research , understand it & then we can debate the merits of it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If the Brexiters are aiming high they'd highlight the politician with the most seniority. That accolade falls to the one and only Iain Duncan Smith, presently a murderously incompetent work and pensions secretary and arguably the worst leader of the Tory party in the last century, if not ever.

 

Just resigned over disability cuts . Says he can not support Osbornes cuts to the disabled . Says they are indefensible in a budget that benefits higher earning tax payers

Edited 18 March, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[buctootim]

He's right, but it sounds a bit odd. Why would you resign if you had fought against the cuts, then it turns out the majority are with you and the cuts are 'kicked into the long grass'? Someone is telling porkies

[buctootim]

I suggest you do some research , understand it & then we can debate the merits of it.

 

Go on then, you start. Heres a list of the differing rates set by different EU countries and their varying exemptions.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf

[derry]

He's right, but it sounds a bit odd. Why would you resign if you had fought against the cuts, then it turns out the majority are with you and the cuts are 'kicked into the long grass'? Someone is telling porkies

 

I think he just may have kicked Osborne's chances of succeeding Cameron into the long grass. He is the minister responsible and has been overruled by Osborne. At least he stands by his principles unlike May, Hammond, Javed etc who want to keep in with Cameron. If Brexit they will have to go.

[buctootim]

I think he just may have kicked Osborne's chances of succeeding Cameron into the long grass.

 

Hopefully, although Boris is committing hari kirii too - but it still doesnt explain why he has resigned. The only two options I can think of are that i) he is telling porkies or ii) he organised the backbench rebellion and was told to resign or be sacked. Even then I would have waited to be sacked and come out looking like the good guy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Go on then, you start. Heres a list of the differing rates set by different EU countries and their varying exemptions.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf

 

The EU dictate a minimum rate of 15% , although there are excemptions allowed from the EU approved list . Countries can go begging to Eurocrats for excemptions , but they're not always given . An example bring solar panels & insulation , the democratically elected British government set it at nil to stimulate growth in that industry . Laughably the EU have declared that illegal ( laughable because they're trying to hit eu targets ) . A democratically elected government could stand for election on reducing vat to 10% , win a landslide majority , but Greeks, Cypriots , French ect Eurocrats won't let them do that . They even made the Spainish introduce vat as a condition of joining .

[Wes Tender]

You're basing your opinion of Frank Field and Kate Hoey based entirely on the fact they happen to agree with you on one issue. That's the single, only reason you suddenly have "respect for their opinions".

 

No I'm not. I've always had respect for those politicians from whichever party they represent whose opinions come across as sensible and well argued. My admiration of Frank Field in particular goes back 20 years or more. Your rather poor reasoning suggests rather stupidly that if one is a Conservative, one must therefore disagree with every policy position of the opposition parties and even that every member of those parties has identical opinions on every policy issue.

[CB Fry]

No I'm not. I've always had respect for those politicians from whichever party they represent whose opinions come across as sensible and well argued. My admiration of Frank Field in particular goes back 20 years or more. Your rather poor reasoning suggests rather stupidly that if one is a Conservative, one must therefore disagree with every policy position of the opposition parties and even that every member of those parties has identical opinions on every policy issue.

 

If we're talking about "poor reasoning", let's remember this exchange started out with you suggesting Buctootim "would have been fine" with Ann Widdecombe prior her coming out for the leave campaign. Because centre-left people were all "fine" with Ann Widdecombe three days ago, but not now. Right. Great "reasoning".

 

I'm suggesting no such thing as you describe in your little strawman argument but I am suggesting you would not be swooning over Frank Field on this thread if he was on the Remain side. You'd be attacking him and not making out you have some long standing admiration for him.

 

But nows your chance. You can start naming the C-list Labour figures from the late-nineties who you "respect" but support the remain campaign. Estelle Morris maybe? Paul Boetang? Chris Smith? Charles Clarke? Jack Cunningham? Must be someone amongst that lot whose "well argued" positions you've admired for years, right?

 

Obviously it is just a gigantic coincidence that the two early-Blair era Labour politicians you have, like, always had admiration for just so happen to be up front on the Leave campaign but you can now show how you have admiration for lots of Labour politicians now and not just Frank and Kate. If it was, say, Alan Milburn and Tessa Jowell turning out for leave instead of Field and Hoey it would be them you'd suddenly pretend that you'd always respected all along and admired their well argued positions and everything, honest you have.

Edited 19 March, 2016 by CB Fry

[buctootim]

The EU dictate a minimum rate of 15% , although there are excemptions allowed from the EU approved list . Countries can go begging to Eurocrats for excemptions , but they're not always given . An example bring solar panels & insulation , the democratically elected British government set it at nil to stimulate growth in that industry . Laughably the EU have declared that illegal ( laughable because they're trying to hit eu targets ) . A democratically elected government could stand for election on reducing vat to 10% , win a landslide majority , but Greeks, Cypriots , French ect Eurocrats won't let them do that . They even made the Spainish introduce vat as a condition of joining .

 

Bit of a stretch isnt it? VAT has been at 15% or more since 1979. Yes in theory the Cypriots could try to deprive us of lowering VAT to 10% - but since it would cost £60bn pa no Chancellor ever is going to propose it- so its nett effect on us is zero. In any event taxation issues have to be unanimously passed - so the current rules exist because the British Government agreed to them . Similarly the British Government could push back on the solar panels and insulation ruling, but has decided not to at the first hurdle. That is consistent with their approach of reducing subsidies for solar and other renewables. It sounds to me as the the EC ruling suits them just fine. Is this what 'regaining sovereignty' is all about? - the right to do stuff we don't want to do anyway?

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/topics/rates_en.htm

Edited 19 March, 2016 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

. Is this what 'regaining sovereignty' is all about? - the right to do stuff we don't want to do anyway?

]

 

Is that the best you can do?

 

If you can not decide who enters your country , who leaves you country , can not decide who you pay your benefits to, if your courts aren't supreme, , and can not set your own indirect taxes , you can hardly call yourself an independent nation .

[Wes Tender]

If we're talking about "poor reasoning", let's remember this exchange started out with you suggesting Buctootim "would have been fine" with Ann Widdecombe prior her coming out for the leave campaign. Because centre-left people were all "fine" with Ann Widdecombe three days ago, but not now. Right. Great "reasoning".

 

I'm suggesting no such thing as you describe in your little strawman argument but I am suggesting you would not be swooning over Frank Field on this thread if he was on the Remain side. You'd be attacking him and not making out you have some long standing admiration for him.

 

But nows your chance. You can start naming the C-list Labour figures from the late-nineties who you "respect" but support the remain campaign. Estelle Morris maybe? Paul Boetang? Chris Smith? Charles Clarke? Jack Cunningham? Must be someone amongst that lot whose "well argued" positions you've admired for years, right?

 

Obviously it is just a gigantic coincidence that the two early-Blair era Labour politicians you have, like, always had admiration for just so happen to be up front on the Leave campaign but you can now show how you have admiration for lots of Labour politicians now and not just Frank and Kate. If it was, say, Alan Milburn and Tessa Jowell turning out for leave instead of Field and Hoey it would be them you'd suddenly pretend that you'd always respected all along and admired their well argued positions and everything, honest you have.

 

Typical Fry. Take a small issue on personalities and then require huge lists of other people who I may have had a respect for historically. Your usual fudge, and totally proving the point that others recognise but you choose to ignore, that this referendum is not about personalities, not about party politics, but about the single issue of whether we should remain a part of the EU, or leave it.

 

The character assassinations appear to be the MO of the Stay brigade mostly and the simple truth that somebody has already lost the debate if they have to resort to calling their opponents silly names, can also be extended to it being lost if they have to resort to infantile character assassinations.

 

And please do not try and decide what my thoughts would be in some imaginary situation that your feeble mind conjures up. It might make you feel good to live in your own little dream-world of fabricated scenarios, but frankly it makes you look a little self-obsessed if you think that it makes you look clever; it doesn't.

[CB Fry]

Typical Fry. Take a small issue on personalities and then require huge lists of other people who I may have had a respect for historically. Your usual fudge, and totally proving the point that others recognise but you choose to ignore, that this referendum is not about personalities, not about party politics, but about the single issue of whether we should remain a part of the EU, or leave it.

 

The character assassinations appear to be the MO of the Stay brigade mostly and the simple truth that somebody has already lost the debate if they have to resort to calling their opponents silly names, can also be extended to it being lost if they have to resort to infantile character assassinations.

 

And please do not try and decide what my thoughts would be in some imaginary situation that your feeble mind conjures up. It might make you feel good to live in your own little dream-world of fabricated scenarios, but frankly it makes you look a little self-obsessed if you think that it makes you look clever; it doesn't.

 

Not really. You wouldn't be claiming twenty years of hero worship of Frank Field if he had come out from Remain and you've admitted it.

 

And if it "isnt about personalities" why are you going on about Frank Field's personality?

 

And let's remember again, this exchange started with the imaginary situation that you conjured up in your feeble mind that someone like Buctootim was "fine" with Ann Widdecombe before she came out for leave.

 

Always a pleasure.

Edited 19 March, 2016 by CB Fry

[Orange]

Completely wrong. There are plenty of people presently in the 'remain' camp who are sceptical of how well EU institutions work but are likely to vote to remain so long as the Brexit campaign lacks either credible leadership or, even more astonishingly, a credible argument. If either turns up, you may see opinion moving more decisively in favour of Brexit.

 

Similarly, there are plenty of people who'd situate themselves naturally in the leave camp but who may vote to remain because they are voting for their jobs rather than what for many is the ephemeral concept of Westminster's sovereignty. (Ask a Brexiter who they've been directly affected by the EU having stolen this sovereignty from central London and they stare at their shoes).

 

That the Brexiters repeatedly overplay their hand was well illustrated this week. The EU has apparently robbed Parliament of all powers, say the leading halfwits of Brexit - we're now led by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Yet there was Osborne on Tuesday giving a very long speech about all the decisions he and the Tory government had made all on their lonesomes.

 

How can that be possible, 'kippers? Did we all just dream it?

 

So 'sceptical' they all wanted us to join the Euro?

[Verbal]

So 'sceptical' they all wanted us to join the Euro?

 

Now this is just another example of what I mean with the 'kippers on here. Your post makes absolutely no sense unless interpreted as some weird conspiracy theory, and I suggest you go and read my quoted post again. It's a 'kipper meme on here to jump to some bizarre conclusion not supported by facts or anything anyone else actually says.

 

Let me try again to help you out: I was saying that the vote is much more complex than that people who vote to remain are all happy with how EU institutions work. It's part of an epically stupid argument, over-reached by 'kippers, who say that anyone who's thinking of voting to remain must in some way be barnstorming enthusiasts for the way the EU is presently constituted. Very few, if any, are - actually I've not encountered a single one.

 

So with that in mind, I ask for the umpteenth time on this thread, would someone please articulate a coherent, well-evidenced case for Brexit without resorting to knee-jerk 'kipper garbage? That means offering up some economic analysis from independent or even committed experts that actually models the effect of leaving the EU. Is it really beyond the far-right clan on here to find and articulate such arguments?

 

Think of the prize: there are plenty of people in the remain camp, including me, who would consider voting to leave if there were some credible economic expertise offered by the Brexit campaign. But as things stand, all we get - certainly on here - are the banalities of a narrow set of 'kipper prejudices.

 

Try harder.

[Sour Mash]

Now this is just another example of what I mean with the 'kippers on here. Your post makes absolutely no sense unless interpreted as some weird conspiracy theory, and I suggest you go and read my quoted post again. It's a 'kipper meme on here to jump to some bizarre conclusion not supported by facts or anything anyone else actually says.

 

Let me try again to help you out: I was saying that the vote is much more complex than that people who vote to remain are all happy with how EU institutions work. It's part of an epically stupid argument, over-reached by 'kippers, who say that anyone who's thinking of voting to remain must in some way be barnstorming enthusiasts for the way the EU is presently constituted. Very few, if any, are - actually I've not encountered a single one.

 

So with that in mind, I ask for the umpteenth time on this thread, would someone please articulate a coherent, well-evidenced case for Brexit without resorting to knee-jerk 'kipper garbage? That means offering up some economic analysis from independent or even committed experts that actually models the effect of leaving the EU. Is it really beyond the far-right clan on here to find and articulate such arguments?

 

Think of the prize: there are plenty of people in the remain camp, including me, who would consider voting to leave if there were some credible economic expertise offered by the Brexit campaign. But as things stand, all we get - certainly on here - are the banalities of a narrow set of 'kipper prejudices.

 

Try harder.

You still don't get it you obsessed lunatic.

[Verbal]

You still don't get it you obsessed lunatic.

 

I do apologise. I now realise that by referring frequently to closet 'kippers I'm unintentionally excluding you. In future it's be closet 'kippers and closet BNP.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to put things right.

[Orange]

Now this is just another example of what I mean with the 'kippers on here. Your post makes absolutely no sense unless interpreted as some weird conspiracy theory, and I suggest you go and read my quoted post again. It's a 'kipper meme on here to jump to some bizarre conclusion not supported by facts or anything anyone else actually says.

 

Let me try again to help you out: I was saying that the vote is much more complex than that people who vote to remain are all happy with how EU institutions work. It's part of an epically stupid argument, over-reached by 'kippers, who say that anyone who's thinking of voting to remain must in some way be barnstorming enthusiasts for the way the EU is presently constituted. Very few, if any, are - actually I've not encountered a single one.

 

So with that in mind, I ask for the umpteenth time on this thread, would someone please articulate a coherent, well-evidenced case for Brexit without resorting to knee-jerk 'kipper garbage? That means offering up some economic analysis from independent or even committed experts that actually models the effect of leaving the EU. Is it really beyond the far-right clan on here to find and articulate such arguments?

 

Think of the prize: there are plenty of people in the remain camp, including me, who would consider voting to leave if there were some credible economic expertise offered by the Brexit campaign. But as things stand, all we get - certainly on here - are the banalities of a narrow set of 'kipper prejudices.

 

Try harder.

 

I know you're on a wind up but i'll try again anyway.

 

You made out in your post that many people on the IN side are 'reluctantly' backing staying, and far from being enthusiastic about the project are backing staying because its the 'responsible, stable' choice blah blah.

 

That's simply a laughable claim when you look at the majority of the main cheerleaders for staying in Blair/A Johnson/Clegg/Ken Clarke/Heseltine/Branson/Madelson/CBI/Goldmansachs etc etc the list goes on, they all wanted us to join this disastrous currency. My point is though, they wanted us to give away such a huge part of our sovereignty and power (without ever asking the people i might add), and hand it to the institutions of Brussels and the European Central Bank. They have always been fanatical about the project, they love the idea of a centralised European state, NOTHING has changed, its not some 'wild conspiracy' as you say, it's simply the truth and you only have to look at their support for the Euro to understand that. So you painting this image that they're 'reluctantly backing what's safer for jobs and the economy' is ridiculous.

 

The foundation of the economic argument is a pretty simple one. You don't have to be in political union to trade and co-operate with other countries. They'd be a 2 year period where nothing would change, whilst we negotiated a deal where both parties benefit, including the swathes of European industry who want access to our 60+ million market of consumers.

[Sour Mash]

I do apologise. I now realise that by referring frequently to closet 'kippers I'm unintentionally excluding you. In future it's be closet 'kippers and closet BNP.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to put things right.

As I said, obsessed weirdo. How's the mental health issues these days?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I know you're on a wind up but i'll try again anyway.

 

You made out in your post that many people on the IN side are 'reluctantly' backing staying, and far from being enthusiastic about the project are backing staying because its the 'responsible, stable' choice blah blah.

 

That's simply a laughable claim when you look at the majority of the main cheerleaders for staying in Blair/A Johnson/Clegg/Ken Clarke/Heseltine/Branson/Madelson/CBI/Goldmansachs etc etc the list goes on, they all wanted us to join this disastrous currency. My point is though, they wanted us to give away such a huge part of our sovereignty and power (without ever asking the people i might add), and hand it to the institutions of Brussels and the European Central Bank. They have always been fanatical about the project, they love the idea of a centralised European state, NOTHING has changed, its not some 'wild conspiracy' as you say, it's simply the truth and you only have to look at their support for the Euro to understand that. So you painting this image that they're 'reluctantly backing what's safer for jobs and the economy' is ridiculous.

 

The foundation of the economic argument is a pretty simple one. You don't have to be in political union to trade and co-operate with other countries. They'd be a 2 year period where nothing would change, whilst we negotiated a deal where both parties benefit, including the swathes of European industry who want access to our 60+ million market of consumers.

 

Gordon Brown - for example - was vehemently oppossed to our joining the single currency but nevertheless supports our continuing membership of the EU. For that matter the Prime Minister has publicy stated that the UK would NEVER join the Euro while he was PM. So your linking of prominent Britex opponents with the old Euro question seems rater selective, if not misleading.

 

As for the second point, any post Britex trading arrangment we may reach with the EU is a matter of speculation rather that fact and I don't think anyone is arguing that our membership of the EU is a prerequisite of cross channel trading relations in any case - that would be silly. No, the real issue here is surely whether our current unhindered access to the EU single market area, and our influence over the rules that govern it, is significantly beneficial to UK trade or not?

 

It would seem that the clear majority opinion within British industry is that it is.

[Wes Tender]

Not really. You wouldn't be claiming twenty years of hero worship of Frank Field if he had come out from Remain and you've admitted it.

 

And if it "isnt about personalities" why are you going on about Frank Field's personality?

 

And let's remember again, this exchange started with the imaginary situation that you conjured up in your feeble mind that someone like Buctootim was "fine" with Ann Widdecombe before she came out for leave.

 

Always a pleasure.

 

I didn't

 

I hadn't

 

It didn't

 

Always happy to help you gain a clearer understanding of where your comprehension of the English language is lacking.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Gordon Brown - for example - was vehemently oppossed to our joining the single currency but nevertheless supports our continuing membership of the EU.

 

This is just complete and utter bollards . Brown set 5 economic tests that if met , he would recommend joining the Euro . That is not being vehemently opposed at all .

[Orange]

Gordon Brown - for example - was vehemently oppossed to our joining the single currency but nevertheless supports our continuing membership of the EU. For that matter the Prime Minister has publicy stated that the UK would NEVER join the Euro while he was PM. So your linking of prominent Britex opponents with the old Euro question seems rater selective, if not misleading.

 

As for the second point, any post Britex trading arrangment we may reach with the EU is a matter of speculation rather that fact and I don't think anyone is arguing that our membership of the EU is a prerequisite of cross channel trading relations in any case - that would be silly. No, the real issue here is surely whether our current unhindered access to the EU single market area, and our influence over the rules that govern it, is significantly beneficial to UK trade or not?

 

It would seem that the clear majority opinion within British industry is that it is.

 

Not really that selective though is it, i named, and could name many more, of the prominent figures on the IN side who were cheerleaders for the Euro. Who wanted to take away one of the most basic powers of a nation state democracy, and hand it to the European central bank, without so much as a vote on it. It's head in the sand stuff to deny there's any link. And it's perfectly logical for people to bare that in mind when making this decision.

[Whitey Grandad]

This is just complete and utter bollards . Brown set 5 economic tests that if met , he would recommend joining the Euro . That is not being vehemently opposed at all .

 

I think he set those tests knowing full well that we would never meet them.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Not really that selective though is it, i named, and could name many more, of the prominent figures on the IN side who were cheerleaders for the Euro. Who wanted to take away one of the most basic powers of a nation state democracy, and hand it to the European central bank, without so much as a vote on it. It's head in the sand stuff to deny there's any link. And it's perfectly logical for people to bare that in mind when making this decision.

 

 

Surely the most prominent advocates of our continued membership of the EU today are not old "has beens" (such as Micheal Hesletine for example) but rather the current the Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer - neither of whom would appear to be on the record as keen enthusiasts for this nation joining the European Single Currency. So it seems to me that the somewhat selective nature of the examples you cite is indeed rather telling.

 

But clearly some EU supporters were - back in the day - in favour of our joining the single currancy and some were not. That matter is a long settled one now and of dubious relevance to this referendum decision methinks.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

This is just complete and utter bollards . Brown set 5 economic tests that if met , he would recommend joining the Euro . That is not being vehemently opposed at all .

 

Read this - you never know you might learn something.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947831

[Wes Tender]

Surely the most prominent advocates of our continued membership of the EU today are not old "has beens" (such as Micheal Hesletine for example) but rather the current the Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer - neither of whom would appear to be on the record as keen enthusiasts for this nation joining the European Single Currency. So it seems to me that the somewhat selective nature of the examples you cite is indeed rather telling.

 

But clearly some EU supporters were - back in the day - in favour of our joining the single currancy and some were not. That matter is a long settled one now and of dubious relevance to this referendum decision methinks.

 

Cameron was so in favour of the EU, that he had threatened to campaign to leave it if we didn't get the concessions or reforms that he wanted. Most informed commentators would agree that he did not get those reforms, but only some watered down sops, which will not be honoured if we vote to stay, so Cameron is rather damaged goods in most peoples' eyes when it comes to the Stay Campaign.

 

In the same way that you you argue that the prominent supporters of the Euro were old "has beens", and that the Euro matter is long settled, it is fair to say that Cameron and Osborne were too junior to have been influential at that time. Therefore it is bit pointless using them in a argument which suggests that in the same way that many prominent politicians and industry leaders were wrong about the consequences of us not joining the Euro, that many of the same people could be wrong once more about our membership of this federalised EU.

 

You think that the connection between the decision to not join the Euro has little relevance to this referendum, but maybe that is because it puts casts serious doubts on those who are the main protagonists of the current fear campaign and you have more faith in their opinions than others. It's your choice to believe that if you want, as it is for those who think otherwise.

 

On another aspect of Orange's post to which you responded, what are your views on his point that had we agreed to join the Eurozone, there would have to have been a referendum to grant the electorate their say on it? And how about the successive treaties like Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon? With the resultant loss of sovereignty and the inexorable shift away from just a trading agreement and towards a Federal United States of Europe, do you not think that there should have been a referendum long before we got to this stage whereby the referendum has been forced on the Government by the overwhelming Euro-sceptic vote in the last European Elections? I would be interested to hear your views on that. Maastricht was 24 years ago, a long time ago, so probably in your eyes, of dubious relevance to the issues of the referendum now. Indeed, do you think that we ought to be having this referendum at all?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Read this - you never know you might learn something.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947831

 

Oh , so because Brown claims now he was always against , you take it as read . Personally , I believe the labour policy that if the 5 tests were met they'd join . 5 tests set by Brown . Why set tests if you're fundememtally against ?

 

Brown wasn't fundamentally against it at all , he was against joining at that time . You seem incapable of understanding that basic fact

Edited 20 March, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[Wes Tender]

Oh , so because Brown claims now he was always against , you take it as read . Personally , I believe the labour policy that if the 5 tests were met they'd join . 5 tests set by Brown . Why set tests if you're fundememtally against ?

 

Brown wasn't fundamentally against it at all , he was against joining at that time . You seem incapable of understanding that basic fact

 

I agree with you. It is very easy to have the benefit of 13 years of hindsight, but I don't recall much in the way of his threats to resign at the time if the Blair government pressed on with joining the Euro.

 

The article clearly endorses your point that Brown would have been for joining the Euro at some future time when the circumstances were right.

 

"But having considered all the arguments, we concluded unanimously that although the euro was right in principle, it could not work for Britain at that time."

 

I read it that "unanimously" included Brown.

[buctootim]

Oh , so because Brown claims now he was always against , you take it as read . Personally , I believe the labour policy that if the 5 tests were met they'd join . 5 tests set by Brown . Why set tests if you're fundememtally against ?

 

Brown wasn't fundamentally against it at all , he was against joining at that time . You seem incapable of understanding that basic fact

 

Brown was clearly always against joining the euro. It was one of the fundamental bones of contention between him and Blair, who wanted to join. The five tests were a deliberate fudge - a 'pro' spin on five conditions which were all but unachievable. Credit people with a bit of memory.

Edited 20 March, 2016 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

Brown was clearly always against joining the euro. It was one of the fundamental bones of contention between him and Blair, who wanted to join. The five tests were a deliberate fudge - a 'pro' spin on five conditions which were all but unachievable. Credit people with a bit of memory.

 

Point me in the direction of one article , quote or speech at the time ( not it hindsight ) that backs up your re writing of history , . Brown was for the euro when the time was right . That is a fact . It's easy to say " but he didn't really mean it" but that was his public line . Of course he against it now , they all are . Theyre the ones rewriting history , not the people who were against the principle .

[buctootim]

Point me in the direction of one article , quote or speech at the time ( not it hindsight ) that backs up your re writing of history , . Brown was for the euro when the time was right . That is a fact . It's easy to say " but he didn't really mean it" but that was his public line . Of course he against it now , they all are . Theyre the ones rewriting history , not the people who were against the principle .

 

Ministers in a cabinet have collective responsibility - thats the way government works. No minister is going to come out and explicitly contradict the agreed policy unless they want to be sacked / resign / do a IDS, especially given the PM was very pro. Similarly no reasonable politician is going to rule out something for all time. "When the facts change I change my mind".

 

So there isnt anything categoric from Brown saying 'I will never join the euro', its more measured than that. The five tests were a clever way of saying no whilst appearing to follow the line. If you want you can make a 'thats a load of old pony' post, but that will just deny the reality of the politics at the time. All kinds of people might be re-writing history about the euro. but Brown really was one of the sceptics.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/9109500/Five-tests-that-saved-Britain-from-the-fate-of-economic-oblivion.html

http://www.economist.com/node/1752320

Edited 20 March, 2016 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

Ministers in a cabinet have collective responsibility - thats the way government works. No minister is going to come out and explicitly contradict the agreed policy unless they want to be sacked / resign / do a IDS, especially given the PM was very pro. Similarly no reasonable politician is going to rule out something for all time. "When the facts change I change my mind".

 

So there isnt anything categoric from Brown saying 'I will never join the euro', its more measured than that. The five tests were a clever way of saying no whilst appearing to follow the line. If you want you can make a 'thats a load of old pony' post, but that will just deny the reality of the politics at the time. All kinds of people might be re-writing history about the euro. but Brown really was one of the sceptics.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/9109500/Five-tests-that-saved-Britain-from-the-fate-of-economic-oblivion.html

http://www.economist.com/node/1752320

 

One fact . Brown was in favour of the Euro in principle . Just because it became a ****storm doesn't change that . Why do you Remainians lie and spin so much . Post something concrete that shows Brown was fundememtally against , you won't because you can't .

[Whitey Grandad]

One fact . Brown was in favour of the Euro in principle . Just because it became a ****storm doesn't change that . Why do you Remainians lie and spin so much . Post something concrete that shows Brown was fundememtally against , you won't because you can't .

 

The conditions that he set and that he knew we'd never meet show that he was against.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The conditions that he set and that he knew we'd never meet show that he was against.

 

God , you remain clowns just don't accept simple truths . Gordon Brown was in favour of the Euro in principle , he even said it . You are welcome to your own opinions , but not facts. It was the timing he was against , that is a cast iron fact based on his words and government policy .

[CB Saint]

I do apologise. I now realise that by referring frequently to closet 'kippers I'm unintentionally excluding you. In future it's be closet 'kippers and closet BNP.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to put things right.

 

Considering you flounced off in a huff from Papsweb when Pap compared you with the EDL, maybe you should refrain from calling other posters closet BNP.

[Saint in Paradise]

I thought this quote summed up "The Left" extremely well.

 

"The Tories are lucky that the official opposition is about as competent as a blind drunk driver"

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12199009/IDS-has-made-Osbornes-downfall-a-certainty.html

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Cameron was so in favour of the EU, that he had threatened to campaign to leave it if we didn't get the concessions or reforms that he wanted. Most informed commentators would agree that he did not get those reforms, but only some watered down sops, which will not be honoured if we vote to stay, so Cameron is rather damaged goods in most peoples' eyes when it comes to the Stay Campaign.

 

In the same way that you you argue that the prominent supporters of the Euro were old "has beens", and that the Euro matter is long settled, it is fair to say that Cameron and Osborne were too junior to have been influential at that time. Therefore it is bit pointless using them in a argument which suggests that in the same way that many prominent politicians and industry leaders were wrong about the consequences of us not joining the Euro, that many of the same people could be wrong once more about our membership of this federalised EU.

 

You think that the connection between the decision to not join the Euro has little relevance to this referendum, but maybe that is because it puts casts serious doubts on those who are the main protagonists of the current fear campaign and you have more faith in their opinions than others. It's your choice to believe that if you want, as it is for those who think otherwise.

 

On another aspect of Orange's post to which you responded, what are your views on his point that had we agreed to join the Eurozone, there would have to have been a referendum to grant the electorate their say on it? And how about the successive treaties like Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon? With the resultant loss of sovereignty and the inexorable shift away from just a trading agreement and towards a Federal United States of Europe, do you not think that there should have been a referendum long before we got to this stage whereby the referendum has been forced on the Government by the overwhelming Euro-sceptic vote in the last European Elections? I would be interested to hear your views on that. Maastricht was 24 years ago, a long time ago, so probably in your eyes, of dubious relevance to the issues of the referendum now. Indeed, do you think that we ought to be having this referendum at all?

 

I would not go so far as to claim that the above argument is a feeble one - but I think it would probably qualify for some form of disability benefit.

If you are attempting to make some spurious case along the lines that because we elected not to join the single currency back in the last century that somehow implies that exiting the EU in 2016 must also be a good thing then you are clearly confusing two quite separate issues. This referendum is not about the single currency and it does not follow that our decision to retain Stirling therefore means that we should exit the EU too. This nation is under no obligation whatsoever to join the single currency now or at any time within the foreseeable future. For that matter you forgot to mention that the UK is now formaly exempted from any future EU moves towards a "ever closer union" - thanks in large part I think to the efforts of the PM. That is a valuable achievement I would have thought any Kipper on here would would approve of, but which seems oddly unpopular - probably because puritans never bother to compremise do they?

 

I suppose it is true that David Cameron and George Osborne were too junior to have played much of a part in the single currency decision of the Thatcher/Major/Blair era - being born too late is not much of a valid critism is it? Indeed, you might more profitably employ that fact as a usful pointer as to how outdated the above line of argument is. Surely what matters is what the PM and Chancellor think now and the leading roles they play in government and this coming referendum. As for the likes of Michael Heseltine and Richard Branson etc, I just don't agree at all that they are "main protagonists" in the stay campaign - Heseltine is 83 now for God's sake!

 

You complain yet again about the supposed "loss of sovereignty" that resulted from various EU treaties that the record shows the UK has agreed to and implemented over time. I can only repeat that we were party to these negotiations and these treaties have been approved by our leaders and in Parliament in our normal democratic manner. Have you ever considered that the reason generatons of senior British politicians (such as Margaret Thatcher) have signed up for these treaties is not because they were fervent european federalists hell bent on stealing your natonal sovereignty, but rather because they happened to consider these treaties to be in our national interest?

 

It is so damn easy for armchair politicians on here and in the press to critise the reform deal the PM brought back from Brussels recently. It is also utterly childish to imagine that nation states can enter into complex international negotiations and emerge from the expierence achieving 100% of everything they ever wanted. In the real world of proper grown-up "realpolitik" international agreements are almost always reached via by mixture of concession, good will, and compromise on all sides.

 

That is the way of the world.

[Whitey Grandad]

God , you remain clowns just don't accept simple truths . Gordon Brown was in favour of the Euro in principle , he even said it . You are welcome to your own opinions , but not facts. It was the timing he was against , that is a cast iron fact based on his words and government policy .

 

Did you really believe every word that Gordon Brown said? Only a true clown could do that.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

God , you remain clowns just don't accept simple truths . Gordon Brown was in favour of the Euro in principle , he even said it . You are welcome to your own opinions , but not facts. It was the timing he was against , that is a cast iron fact based on his words and government policy .

 

So let's recap.

 

According to you poor old Ted Heath was (quote) "a tratior" for taking us into the Common Market back in the day - this despite the fact that the record shows that the man fought for this country during WWII and our entry was also subsequently approved of by the British people in a referendum.

 

You are now also opining that it is a somehow a "fact" (a fact I note that you don't bother to prove) that Gordon Brown is lying when he claims that he threatened to resign rather than approve of our joining the single currency. This despite the observable "fact" that his actions as Chancellor, and then Prime Minister, are seemingly perfectly consistent with that stated claim.

 

So can the forum take it that while EU supporting circles are apparently riddled with traitors and liars (in your view) the Britex camp on the other hand you consider to be a veritable haven of sanity and sweet reason?

[Wes Tender]

I would not go so far as to claim that the above argument is a feeble one - but I think it would probably qualify for some form of disability benefit.

If you are attempting to make some spurious case along the lines that because we elected not to join the single currency back in the last century that somehow implies that exiting the EU in 2016 must also be a good thing then you are clearly confusing two quite separate issues. This referendum is not about the single currency and it does not follow that our decision to retain Stirling therefore means that we should exit the EU too. This nation is under no obligation whatsoever to join the single currency now or at any time within the foreseeable future. For that matter you forgot to mention that the UK is now formaly exempted from any future EU moves towards a "ever closer union" - thanks in large part I think to the efforts of the PM. That is a valuable achievement I would have thought any Kipper on here would would approve of, but which seems oddly unpopular - probably because puritans never bother to compremise do they?

 

I suppose it is true that David Cameron and George Osborne were too junior to have played much of a part in the single currency decision of the Thatcher/Major/Blair era - being born too late is not much of a valid critism is it? Indeed, you might more profitably employ that fact as a usful pointer as to how outdated the above line of argument is. Surely what matters is what the PM and Chancellor think now and the leading roles they play in government and this coming referendum. As for the likes of Michael Heseltine and Richard Branson etc, I just don't agree at all that they are "main protagonists" in the stay campaign - Heseltine is 83 now for God's sake!

 

You complain yet again about the supposed "loss of sovereignty" that resulted from various EU treaties that the record shows the UK has agreed to and implemented over time. I can only repeat that we were party to these negotiations and these treaties have been approved by our leaders and in Parliament in our normal democratic manner. Have you ever considered that the reason generatons of senior British politicians (such as Margaret Thatcher) have signed up for these treaties is not because they were fervent european federalists hell bent on stealing your natonal sovereignty, but rather because they happened to consider these treaties to be in our national interest?

 

It is so damn easy for armchair politicians on here and in the press to critise the reform deal the PM brought back from Brussels recently. It is also utterly childish to imagine that nation states can enter into complex international negotiations and emerge from the expierence achieving 100% of everything they ever wanted. In the real world of proper grown-up "realpolitik" international agreements are almost always reached via by mixture of concession, good will, and compromise on all sides.

 

That is the way of the world.

 

It really does sound a long time ago, the last century, doesn't it? But to those of a certain age, possibly even you, talk of the last century when one was born half way through it, resonates as being the 19th century, not events that happened anything more than 16 years ago.

 

I take on board that you are an apologist for what you consider to be democratic, that just because a government is elected to deal with the ordinary matters of a nation state, it somehow has the right to pass treaties that change the entire basis of our national sovereignty without recourse to the electorate for endorsement of those changes. That these treaties were signed because those politicians thought that they were acting in the best interests of the nation is arrogance in the extreme and now that the electorate finally have the opportunity to have their say, I sincerely hope that they teach them a lesson to show them that we are not to be taken for granted.

 

Yes it is easy for commentators to conclude that Cameron would not come back with anything near what he wanted. It was forecast in advance that he would return with thin gruel and dress it up as a successful mission before calling a referendum. This isn't just armchair warriors and the media, but also a significant percentage of politicians too. As you point out, there is difficulty in achieving a 100% success rate in negotiations such as these, which need to be reached by a mixture of concession, goodwill and compromise. But it has been a game of poker where the EU hierarchy might have badly misjudged the mood of the British electorate, who have seen that the concessions are a sham. Had Cameron played a much stronger hand by having the balls to be a man of principle and threaten to campaign to leave had we not been granted the concessions we wanted, then he might have been successful. As it stands, little concession has been achieved, no real goodwill from the EU and certainly very little in the way of concession. The better advice to these negotiations would have been to speak softly and carry a big stick. Now all of a sudden when it looks like a very close run thing, panic is starting to spread around the EU. Other nations are also being pressed by popular pressure to hold their own referenda. There is even talk of the whole entity imploding and the EU becoming a greatly diminished force in World trade without us.

 

Just a reminder though; as has already been pointed out several times to your fellow apologists for the EU, not everybody who wishes to leave is "kipper". I am a Conservative. There is also cross-party support for the Brexit campaign, but go ahead and label everybody who is against staying as UKIPers if it makes you feel good.