EU referendum

[buctootim]

Everyone now and then then their contempt for traditional working class people slips out..

 

 

"Their"? You mean "your". I talked about the thick and old - it was you and mash who took that to mean working class. Careful how you go on that high horse thicky and oldy.

[CB Fry]

And the EU will do exactly the same as with the Irish and say "they didn't understand the question, they must take it again.....until they give the right answer"...they do have previous for this.

Nah. Not with the UK. Ireland is EU small fry and bullyable. The UK is very different - if we vote, conclusively (55%) then that will be it - the EUoccracy know that the British have never loved it and it will let us go if the people vote for it.

 

Keeping Ireland in is easy. Forcing the UK to stay in those circumstances would be total stupidity for the EU (or any British government) to even consider. Not happening.

[Orange]

So, to summarise.

 

On the one hand we have the clear majority of opinion within British industry, every serious financial analysis of the situation that I am aware of and the leaders of all our main political parties - bar UKIP of course - warning of the potential dangers to the future welfare of our economy should the British people vote to leave the EU.

 

Set against all that I see little more than a emotive appeal to our sense of island independence, some (probably spurious) claims about border control coupled with vague talk of Britain doing better on its own somehow. The small matter of the very real threat to the continued existence of the United Kingdom - as we now know it - has hardly even been discussed on here as yet.

 

The truth is we have to live with the EU whether we are members of that organisation or not. Those who disapprove of the way the EU currently operates would do better perhaps to concentrate their efforts on arguing for the constructive REFORM of the EU rather than our destructive RETREAT from it. Clearly the only effective way we can influence that reform process is from within rather than without.

 

I know you want to make this into some UKIP vs ' every Serious financial player' but if you took you head out your arse you'd see there are plenty of serious financial analysts on the Brexit side.

 

You're delusion sort of shines through when you say concerns over immigration are 'probably spurious'. As if it's irrational to be concerned about having an open door to over 500 million, many of whom in countries with crippling unemployment and lack of opportunities. All that while our population already explodes. It will be impossible for us to create a high wage society for working class people for as long as we've got an open door to countries doing as badly as Greece and Spain.

 

The whole reform thing is laughable too. We are one of 28 other states. We are outvoted every time we ever oppose anything. We have no influence over the ideological Euro federalists.

[Orange]

"Their"? You mean "your". I talked about the thick and old - it was you and mash who took that to mean working class. Careful how you go on that high horse thicky and oldy.

 

Well you're equating not having high levels of formal education with being 'thick'. I.e how dare some thicko not have a degree in sociology.

 

Do you disagree with what i thought was generally accepted, that more working class people have lower levels of education?

[buctootim]

Well you're equating not having high levels of formal education with being 'thick'. I.e how dare some thicko not have a degree in sociology.

 

Do you disagree with what i thought was generally accepted, that more working class people have lower levels of education?

 

More working class people have lower levels of education, just as more foreign born, BME, disabled and poor people do. Its largely down to opportunity and expectations. However its also true that thick people tend to have lower levels of education. The causes arent the same. I think you're reading too much into a tongue in cheek comment about Brexiteers.

[Verbal]

This should settle all the arguments.

 

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/23/leading-brexit-campaigners-coincidentally-a-shower-of-cnts/

[buctootim]

This should settle all the arguments.

 

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/23/leading-brexit-campaigners-coincidentally-a-shower-of-cnts/

 

Harsh but fair

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I know you want to make this into some UKIP vs ' every Serious financial player' but if you took you head out your arse you'd see there are plenty of serious financial analysts on the Brexit side.

 

You're delusion sort of shines through when you say concerns over immigration are 'probably spurious'. As if it's irrational to be concerned about having an open door to over 500 million, many of whom in countries with crippling unemployment and lack of opportunities. All that while our population already explodes. It will be impossible for us to create a high wage society for working class people for as long as we've got an open door to countries doing as badly as Greece and Spain.

 

The whole reform thing is laughable too. We are one of 28 other states. We are outvoted every time we ever oppose anything. We have no influence over the ideological Euro federalists.

 

The aggressive nature of your reply is both unwelcome and unnecessary.

 

I don't agree that the EU is beyond reform - indeed some kind of reform is probably inevitable sooner or later as international competition intensifies. The UK is on the right side on the argument and with clear signs of increaaing German support we will I hope pervail. But if you want to talk about who is really delusional in this debate then you need look no further than the nonsense Micheal Grove has come up with today. Apparently we can easily reach a new trade arrangement with the EU in which we get EVERYTHING any kipper (and assorted hangers-on) could dream for without any of the freedom of movement requirement or pesky interferance that others have had to agree to. It is all this straightforward and simple because we're Billy Big ******** Britain and Johnny foreigner will just have to give us what we want don't you know.

 

It all sounds to good to be true methinks ... probably because it almost certainly is.

 

In reality instead of the most amicable divorce in all Human history Grove can make no such as promise because any future trade arrangement with the EU would be subject to a difficult negotiation which the EU has not even begun to contemplate. Put simply, no bugger knows how those negotiations would go and the promises he is making here are little short of a fantasist wish list.

 

I will remind you that the arrangement Switzerland has reached with the EU in regard to their single market access requires them to accept the free movement of workers and (although seldom discussed) even then not being full EU members their banking section has only limited access - that is why you see so many big Swiss banks setting up in London. No one likes the bankers anymore of course, but the prospect of our (huge) banking sector facing similiar restrictions should make even the most ardent supporter of our EU exit think twice.

 

Although judging by some of the utter bilge I read on here 'thinking once' would represent a bit of a challenge for some ...

[scotty]

Most people talk of a straight 'in' or 'out' scenario. Black and White. **** or Bust.

 

In my opinion, if the 'out' vote wins, we won't be leaving the EU any time soon...

 

Cameron will go back to the EU and say, Angela my people want out, we need to renegotiate. A re-negotiation will take place. I am sure the EU would make some concessions to keep the UK in. Cameron will then come back with a new negotiated membership deal and we will have another refurendum, upon which we will vote to remain.

 

The EU have form on this. Just look what happened with the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The Irish people rejected it, the EU changed it and got voted through on a second referendum. Look at the threats to Greece to repay their debts. They didn't follow through with them and just keep kicking the can down the road.

 

An 'out' vote could result in a stronger membership negotiating position.

 

 

 

This, precisely.

 

Unfortunately, we won't vote out. But the closer the vote is, the more clout our government will have.

[Nolan]

This, precisely.

 

Unfortunately, we won't vote out. But the closer the vote is, the more clout our government will have.

Wrong. If we vote remain. We lose any sense of 'clout' full stop.

[scotty]

Wrong. If we vote remain. We lose any sense of 'clout' full stop.

 

We will vote remain. But like the jocks, who will probably have another vote on independence over the next few years, the closer the vote is the more clout they will have in westminster and the more concessions they'll get. That 45%/55% split made a difference, if it had been, say 20%/80% they'd have had no negotiating power at all.

[Sour Mash]

"Their"? You mean "your". I talked about the thick and old - it was you and mash who took that to mean working class. Careful how you go on that high horse thicky and oldy.

Bit late to backtrack now, you've made your point perfectly clear.

[moonraker]

Kindly do enlighten us, oh knowledgeable one, what aspects of sovereignty, immigration, trade, defence and anything else, are based on misunderstandings by the Brexit camp and what those misunderstandings are.

 

Then, as you have brought it up, pray do tell us what the correct position is on those subjects.

 

You see, despite your position that these things have little relevance to whether we stay or leave the EU, please accept that whatever understanding people have of these issues that is up to them, and they should not be belittled for holding their own views just because you don't agree with them.

 

You insist that the Brexit camp cannot produce any clear evidence to support what the future situation would be following our exit, but equally you should accept that neither can the remain camp support their position that somehow everything will remain the same if we stay. The European project that began as the Common Market did not remain as just that and has continued to evolve towards a Federal Europe. Despite Dave's assurances that we will not be continuing along that road, the events of the past few decades that have dragged us inexorably towards that position do not provide any real comfort that pressures will not be brought upon us to relent, nor that a future government will not be more inclined towards that position.

 

Sorry for the delay in responding, I think it has been amply demonstrated that most Brexit claims on the key issues are either false or exaggerated. What an individual politician says or does is irrelevant the issues are far bigger than petty party politics.

Edited 19 April, 2016 by moonraker

[SW5 SAINT]

Wrong. If we vote remain. We lose any sense of 'clout' full stop.

 

Surely if we vote to remain, there will be another vote in about five years time.........

[Nolan]

Surely if we vote to remain, there will be another vote in about five years time.........

There has not been a referendum on this subject since the 70's. This is our one and only opportunity to be able to be control of our laws again.

[Wes Tender]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I think it has been amply demonstrated that most Brexit claims on the key issues are either false or exaggerated. What an individual politician says or does is irrelevant the issues are far bigger than petty party politics.

 

Ah, so you're going to make broad sweeping statements accusing the Brexit camp of misunderstanding issues like immigration, sovereignty, trade, defence etc, and not be prepared to provide some illustrations of what these misunderstandings are, or what the correct position is.

 

I also note that you claim that most Brexit claims are exaggerated, but that you excuse the likes of George Osborne when he makes his claims that every family in the land will be thousands of pounds per annum worse off, a claim totally without any basis of fact and consistent with the general campaign of fear that is being waged by the remain lobby. I can see how the Brexit camp misunderstandings come about when they are faced with this sort of unsubstantiated twaddle.

 

But I am glad that you consider his claims as an individual politician to be irrelevant.

[moonraker]

Ah, so you're going to make broad sweeping statements accusing the Brexit camp of misunderstanding issues like immigration, sovereignty, trade, defence etc, and not be prepared to provide some illustrations of what these misunderstandings are, or what the correct position is.

 

I also note that you claim that most Brexit claims are exaggerated, but that you excuse the likes of George Osborne when he makes his claims that every family in the land will be thousands of pounds per annum worse off, a claim totally without any basis of fact and consistent with the general campaign of fear that is being waged by the remain lobby. I can see how the Brexit camp misunderstandings come about when they are faced with this sort of unsubstantiated twaddle.

 

But I am glad that you consider his claims as an individual politician to be irrelevant.

 

 

I do not excuse George at all. My position is clear, Brexit need to make the argument for leaving and to date In my opinion they have totally failed. The claims they make are false: Control of our borders, we have control of our borders; Sovereignty, even outside of the EU we will not control 100% of our laws, currently 27% of Norway’s Laws emanate from the EU, in addition we enact Laws emanating from a range of international organisations, e.g. the WTO and IMO. Trade; Brexit have no idea what will happen in negotiations, they make hopeful claims that German car manufacturers will force a deal at the least acceptable to the UK with the EU, and yesterday Michael Gove invented a whole new trade area that doesn’t exist. Defence; Brexit predict of European Super Army, they seem to base this on interoperability, asset sharing, joint training and joint operations, all things we have done since WWII.

What is your take on the Eight former US Treasury Secretaries who have unanimously stated leaving the EU will be bad for the UK. Why should I listen to The Ideologue (Farage) The Chancer (Boris) The Story Teller (Gove), The Spurned (L Fox), and The Absurd (Galloway), as opposed to the vast majority of major world leaders, 80% of studies and analysis (admittedly some dodgy), major business leaders, influential and respected foreign politicians and businessmen. I realise and respect that millions of my fellow citizens believe we should leave the EU but I really struggle to see any up side to leaving, and nothing posted on this thread or countless articles, reports and comments I have read have changed that.

Edited 20 April, 2016 by moonraker

[Wes Tender]

I do not excuse George at all. My position is clear, Brexit need to make the argument for leaving and to date In my opinion they have totally failed. The claims they make are false: Control of our borders, we have control of our borders; Sovereignty, even outside of the EU we will not control 100% of our laws, currently 27% of Norway’s Laws emanate from the EU, in addition we enact Laws emanating from a range of international organisations, e.g. the WTO and IMO. Trade; Brexit have no idea what will happen in negotiations, they make hopeful claims that German car manufacturers will force a deal at the least acceptable to the UK with the EU, and yesterday Michael Gove invented a whole new trade area that doesn’t exist. Defence; Brexit predict of European Super Army, they seem to base this on interoperability, asset sharing, joint training and joint operations, all things we have done since WWII.

What is your take on the Eight former US Treasury Secretaries who have unanimously stated leaving the EU will be bad for the UK. Why should I listen to The Ideologue (Farage) The Chancer (Boris) The Story Teller (Gove), The Spurned (L Fox), and The Absurd (Galloway), as opposed to the vast majority of major world leaders, 80% of studies and analysis (admittedly some dodgy), major business leaders, influential and respected foreign politicians and businessmen. I realise and respect that millions of my fellow citizens believe we should leave the EU but I really struggle to see any up side to leaving, and nothing posted on this thread or countless articles, reports and comments I have read have changed that.

 

Brexit have made many arguments, as have UKIP and many euro-sceptics over several years. OK, you remain unconvinced by them, preferring to accept the opinions of those with vested interests in us remaining and their forecasts of dire consequences based on pure speculation should we leave. I have also digested the reasons given by the Brexit campaign and with the benefit of the perspective I have gained from seeing the European project evolve since its inception, I have arrived at my own opinion that we would be better off leaving it. I would be happy to stay if the EU underwent substantial reforms, but that is not going to happen, so we are backed into a corner by the EU and it will be their fault if we leave.

 

Just to pick you up on some of your claims; you say that we have control of our borders. So we can refuse the free movement of EU citizens from entering our country without any limitations on their numbers? We have not suffered any loss of Sovereignty, so therefore we cannot gain it back? Yet again, Norway (as Switzerland often is too) is cited as an example of what would face us if we left, and we would be helpless apparently in negotiating a different position, despite being considerably bigger than Norway as a trading partner. Trade; of course we will have the support of the German car manufacturers and other major European corporations whose products are exported to us in considerable volumes when it comes to negotiating post-Brexit trading arrangements. You are naive to believe that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us to the detriment of their sales. I took it that this whole new trade area that Michael Gove invented was the rest of the World that we currently do not trade with in any volume and I am surprised to hear that it does not exist.

 

My take on the eight former US Treasury Secretaries? I take it with a giant pinch of salt, especially as Call me Dave pleaded with Obama to support his remain campaign and all of a sudden this appears just before his visit.

 

Regarding your reluctance to listen to those you listed, I would recommend you to note what they say before condemning it just because of who it is saying it, but I also note that your position is to mistrust any individual politician's opinion, so presumably that also covers ex-US individual politicians, who are probably as capable, if not more capable of talking through their arses as our lot.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Brexit have made many arguments, as have UKIP and many euro-sceptics over several years. OK, you remain unconvinced by them, preferring to accept the opinions of those with vested interests in us remaining and their forecasts of dire consequences based on pure speculation should we leave. I have also digested the reasons given by the Brexit campaign and with the benefit of the perspective I have gained from seeing the European project evolve since its inception, I have arrived at my own opinion that we would be better off leaving it. I would be happy to stay if the EU underwent substantial reforms, but that is not going to happen, so we are backed into a corner by the EU and it will be their fault if we leave.

 

Just to pick you up on some of your claims; you say that we have control of our borders. So we can refuse the free movement of EU citizens from entering our country without any limitations on their numbers? We have not suffered any loss of Sovereignty, so therefore we cannot gain it back? Yet again, Norway (as Switzerland often is too) is cited as an example of what would face us if we left, and we would be helpless apparently in negotiating a different position, despite being considerably bigger than Norway as a trading partner. Trade; of course we will have the support of the German car manufacturers and other major European corporations whose products are exported to us in considerable volumes when it comes to negotiating post-Brexit trading arrangements. You are naive to believe that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us to the detriment of their sales. I took it that this whole new trade area that Michael Gove invented was the rest of the World that we currently do not trade with in any volume and I am surprised to hear that it does not exist.

 

My take on the eight former US Treasury Secretaries? I take it with a giant pinch of salt, especially as Call me Dave pleaded with Obama to support his remain campaign and all of a sudden this appears just before his visit.

 

Regarding your reluctance to listen to those you listed, I would recommend you to note what they say before condemning it just because of who it is saying it, but I also note that your position is to mistrust any individual politician's opinion, so presumably that also covers ex-US individual politicians, who are probably as capable, if not more capable of talking through their arses as our lot.

 

So I see the opinion of a group of (highly distinguished) US Treasury officials is yet another piece of evidence you intend to stuff into the bulging "inconvenient truth" file then, along with anything else you don't really want to consider properly.

 

Please explain why you feel that the difference in scale between the UK and Swiss economys should result in our getting a more favourable trading arrangement from the EU when the PRINCIPLE of single market access would remain the exactly same regardless? Then you might also answer the point raised earlier regarding Switzerland and her financial services sector having to move en masse to the City of London in order to gain unfettered access to EU financial markets.

 

Is not also true that Grove more or less conceded yesterday that in reality the UK leaving the EU would indeed mean that we were excluded from the EU Single Market Area and that therefore HM Treasury forecasts of a significant negative outcome for our economy in the event of Brexit are highly plausible?

[moonraker]

Brexit have made many arguments, as have UKIP and many euro-sceptics over several years. OK, you remain unconvinced by them, preferring to accept the opinions of those with vested interests in us remaining and their forecasts of dire consequences based on pure speculation should we leave. I have also digested the reasons given by the Brexit campaign and with the benefit of the perspective I have gained from seeing the European project evolve since its inception, I have arrived at my own opinion that we would be better off leaving it. I would be happy to stay if the EU underwent substantial reforms, but that is not going to happen, so we are backed into a corner by the EU and it will be their fault if we leave.

 

Just to pick you up on some of your claims; you say that we have control of our borders. So we can refuse the free movement of EU citizens from entering our country without any limitations on their numbers? We have not suffered any loss of Sovereignty, so therefore we cannot gain it back? Yet again, Norway (as Switzerland often is too) is cited as an example of what would face us if we left, and we would be helpless apparently in negotiating a different position, despite being considerably bigger than Norway as a trading partner. Trade; of course we will have the support of the German car manufacturers and other major European corporations whose products are exported to us in considerable volumes when it comes to negotiating post-Brexit trading arrangements. You are naive to believe that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us to the detriment of their sales. I took it that this whole new trade area that Michael Gove invented was the rest of the World that we currently do not trade with in any volume and I am surprised to hear that it does not exist.

 

My take on the eight former US Treasury Secretaries? I take it with a giant pinch of salt, especially as Call me Dave pleaded with Obama to support his remain campaign and all of a sudden this appears just before his visit.

 

Regarding your reluctance to listen to those you listed, I would recommend you to note what they say before condemning it just because of who it is saying it, but I also note that your position is to mistrust any individual politician's opinion, so presumably that also covers ex-US individual politicians, who are probably as capable, if not more capable of talking through their arses as our lot.

 

You seem to be painting the Brexit leadership as nights in shinning armour riding to save the UK with no self interest, whilst the Remain leadership are only in it for their vested interests, a rather unsophisticated and utterly unfounded assertion. The irony of your words that the predicted outcomes made by remain are pure speculation is comical. On the balance of probability the remain predictions carry far less risk and any divergence from the predictions would be far easier to mitigate by being in the EU.

Just to counter some of your assumptions; what guarantee can you give that any future trade deal with the EU will not require freedom of movement as a condition aka Norway and Switzerland? The fact that the UK is bigger than either Norway and Switzerland, is not a guarantee of anything, and nowhere have I claimed that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us, what I would contend is that in any trade agreement negotiations the EU would be in a far stronger position than the UK, and whilst the negotiators would certainly take EU business lobby into account the political lobby will also demand some pay back that is unlikely to be in our favour.

As to Michael Gove’s new trade area, he was not referring to the rest of the world (I do listen and read what Brexiters are saying unlike you it seems) but to a European free trade area that extends from Iceland to the Russian Border, the reference he cited, giving apparent credibility to this mystical creature was a colour map of Europe showing EU trading partners. Amazingly his own reference makes no reference to a European free trade zone. It simply does not exist.

As to call me David being able to get all eight ex Republican and Democrat US Treasury Secretaries to do his bidding this is just fantasy. Please could you point me to the evidence of Cameron’s pleading with Obama on the subject, or is this just another myth. The Brexit’s ability to see conspiracies around every corner is just another feature of the campaign that convinces me to vote remain.

Finally whether it be politician, business leader, celebrity, or any over high profile individual commenting on the debate, on either side, I do listen and I read their comments. I then try to put them in context and weigh the arguments, and 90% of the time I come down in favour of remain. You on the other hand seem to be dismissing anything and everything said or written in favour of remain as conspiracy and lies.

Edited 20 April, 2016 by moonraker

[Sour Mash]

What it boils down to is why do we need to be in a political union with Romania, Greece, soon to be Turkey, to have a healthy economy?

[Wes Tender]

You seem to be painting the Brexit leadership as nights in shinning armour riding to save the UK with no self interest, whilst the Remain leadership are only in it for their vested interests, a rather unsophisticated and utterly unfounded assertion. The irony of your words that the predicted outcomes made by remain are pure speculation is comical. On the balance of probability the remain predictions carry far less risk and any divergence from the predictions would be far easier to mitigate by being in the EU.

Just to counter some of your assumptions; what guarantee can you give that any future trade deal with the EU will not require freedom of movement as a condition aka Norway and Switzerland? The fact that the UK is bigger than either Norway and Switzerland, is not a guarantee of anything, and nowhere have I claimed that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us, what I would contend is that in any trade agreement negotiations the EU would be in a far stronger position than the UK, and whilst the negotiators would certainly take EU business lobby into account the political lobby will also demand some pay back that is unlikely to be in our favour.

As to Michael Gove’s new trade area, he was not referring to the rest of the world (I do listen and read what Brexiters are saying unlike you it seems) but to a European free trade area that extends from Iceland to the Russian Border, the reference he cited, giving apparent credibility to this mystical creature was a colour map of Europe showing EU trading partners. Amazingly his own reference makes no reference to a European free trade zone. It simply does not exist.

As to call me David being able to get all eight ex Republican and Democrat US Treasury Secretaries to do his bidding this is just fantasy. Please could you point me to the evidence of Cameron’s pleading with Obama on the subject, or is this just another myth. The Brexit’s ability to see conspiracies around every corner is just another feature of the campaign that convinces me to vote remain.

Finally whether it be politician, business leader, celebrity, or any over high profile individual commenting on the debate, on either side, I do listen and I read their comments. I then try to put them in context and weigh the arguments, and 90% of the time I come down in favour of remain. You on the other hand seem to be dismissing anything and everything said or written in favour of remain as conspiracy and lies.

 

 

 

Nice of you to attempt to interpret what I "seem" to have said as some sort of metaphor and then to label it as unsophisticated and unfounded. I would rather that you commented on what I said than what you thought I said.

 

Of course the potential outcomes of both the remain or leave position are both speculative. Did you miss the mini-debate a few posts ago pondering on whether it would suit us better as a nation if the referendum result gave a narrow majority to either side, or whether there was a clearer majority for one position or the other?

 

Of course there is less risk involved with the status quo position, as that is the devil you know, although past history proves that the movement towards a federal Europe is what precipitated this referendum in the first place, so there is ample scope for reasoned speculation that if we remain in, that progression could well continue. But if the position you argue is accepted that there is less risk attached to our remaining in, then it follows logically that the campaign to leave has to be based on other factors apart from trade that are deemed to be significant enough that the risks are acceptable.

 

The remain campaign continually cite the examples of Norway and Switzerland ad nauseam and that has been debated to death. You can continue to consider that despite us being a considerably bigger fish in the Euro pond, we will not be able to negotiate more beneficial trading options and we will have to accept the free movement of people from within the EU as a result. My opinion is that we won't. Neither do I accept that the EU would be in a stronger bargaining position than us if we voted with a clear enough majority to leave. I think that you underestimate the power that mega-industrial corporations like the German car industry have over the politicians in their countries. As immigration is one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign, I cannot see us allowing the unfettered free movement of peoples as being acceptable and if Dave allowed it, then he would potentially pay for it at the next election (provided that he hasn't resigned first)

 

I'll have to accept your assurances that these former Yank Financial Secretaries popping up to put in their two cents worth immediately prior to their President coming over to poke his head into our affairs is just a coincidence. Or is it? I suppose one person's conspiracy theory is another person's cynical view that there are underhand tactics at work by parties with vested interests in the result. Maybe our own Chancellor has already briefed them as to the potential worst case scenario of the level of income reduction that will be suffered by every household if we left.

 

I also read avidly the opinions of the remain campaign and generally find them to be exaggerated to the worst possible scenario, based on speculation often dressed up as fact. As there is little in the way of attempt by the commentators to discuss both the pros and cons, why should I not be cynically dismissive of them?

[Batman]

What it boils down to is why do we need to be in a political union with Romania, Greece, soon to be Turkey, to have a healthy economy?

 

seriously, how else would we manage on our own. ffs

[moonraker]

Nice of you to attempt to interpret what I "seem" to have said as some sort of metaphor and then to label it as unsophisticated and unfounded. I would rather that you commented on what I said than what you thought I said.

 

Of course the potential outcomes of both the remain or leave position are both speculative. Did you miss the mini-debate a few posts ago pondering on whether it would suit us better as a nation if the referendum result gave a narrow majority to either side, or whether there was a clearer majority for one position or the other?

 

Of course there is less risk involved with the status quo position, as that is the devil you know, although past history proves that the movement towards a federal Europe is what precipitated this referendum in the first place, so there is ample scope for reasoned speculation that if we remain in, that progression could well continue. But if the position you argue is accepted that there is less risk attached to our remaining in, then it follows logically that the campaign to leave has to be based on other factors apart from trade that are deemed to be significant enough that the risks are acceptable.

 

The remain campaign continually cite the examples of Norway and Switzerland ad nauseam and that has been debated to death. You can continue to consider that despite us being a considerably bigger fish in the Euro pond, we will not be able to negotiate more beneficial trading options and we will have to accept the free movement of people from within the EU as a result. My opinion is that we won't. Neither do I accept that the EU would be in a stronger bargaining position than us if we voted with a clear enough majority to leave. I think that you underestimate the power that mega-industrial corporations like the German car industry have over the politicians in their countries. As immigration is one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign, I cannot see us allowing the unfettered free movement of peoples as being acceptable and if Dave allowed it, then he would potentially pay for it at the next election (provided that he hasn't resigned first)

 

I'll have to accept your assurances that these former Yank Financial Secretaries popping up to put in their two cents worth immediately prior to their President coming over to poke his head into our affairs is just a coincidence. Or is it? I suppose one person's conspiracy theory is another person's cynical view that there are underhand tactics at work by parties with vested interests in the result. Maybe our own Chancellor has already briefed them as to the potential worst case scenario of the level of income reduction that will be suffered by every household if we left.

 

I also read avidly the opinions of the remain campaign and generally find them to be exaggerated to the worst possible scenario, based on speculation often dressed up as fact. As there is little in the way of attempt by the commentators to discuss both the pros and cons, why should I not be cynically dismissive of them?

 

Wes, we could carry on until after the election, however we both know we will not change each others views. I did read the mini debate but well after it had petered out so I did not comment. My personal view is a close vote to remain would be no bad thing. I believe the UK and other less enthusiastic EU members would feel emboldened to demand changes to the current EU structure and operation, no bad thing. As an aside what did you make of the Arch Eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, warning this morning that too much EU "interference" in people's lives is eroding support for the bloc. Is this evidence that the bogey men of Europe are waking up to the fact that the people of Europe don’t like the direction they are taking us in?

[hypochondriac]

Wes, we could carry on until after the election, however we both know we will not change each others views. I did read the mini debate but well after it had petered out so I did not comment. My personal view is a close vote to remain would be no bad thing. I believe the UK and other less enthusiastic EU members would feel emboldened to demand changes to the current EU structure and operation, no bad thing. As an aside what did you make of the Arch Eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, warning this morning that too much EU "interference" in people's lives is eroding support for the bloc. Is this evidence that the bogey men of Europe are waking up to the fact that the people of Europe don’t like the direction they are taking us in?

It's lip service though designed to secure his position. Why would the Turkeys vote for christmas with no realistic chance of them being forced to concede power?

[Wes Tender]

Wes, we could carry on until after the election, however we both know we will not change each others views. I did read the mini debate but well after it had petered out so I did not comment. My personal view is a close vote to remain would be no bad thing. I believe the UK and other less enthusiastic EU members would feel emboldened to demand changes to the current EU structure and operation, no bad thing. As an aside what did you make of the Arch Eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, warning this morning that too much EU "interference" in people's lives is eroding support for the bloc. Is this evidence that the bogey men of Europe are waking up to the fact that the people of Europe don’t like the direction they are taking us in?

 

Agreed that we both have entrenched views, my mind already having been made up sometime shortly after Maastricht when I decided then that unless we could gain substantial reforms to the EU, we should leave. I have endured broken promise after broken promise by the subsequent governments to hold a referendum and finally it is to happen.

 

The mini-debate was indeed interesting. I agree that our referendum will have some effect on how other EU states perceive their own positions. It has caused some comment from euro-sceptics elsewhere and dark mutterings that they should have their own referenda.

 

Juncker is quite right to recognise that there is growing antagonism amongst the peoples of Europe towards too much interference in their daily lives and I think that there are nervous glances towards us and what the result will be here. These are the first signs that there is recognition at Brussels that the problems caused by a Brexit are not only about renegotiating our trade deals, but also realising the possibility that other states might follow us out.

[buctootim]

Agreed that we both have entrenched views, my mind already having been made up sometime shortly after Maastricht when I decided then that unless we could gain substantial reforms to the EU, we should leave. I have endured broken promise after broken promise by the subsequent governments to hold a referendum and finally it is to happen.

 

The mini-debate was indeed interesting. I agree that our referendum will have some effect on how other EU states perceive their own positions. It has caused some comment from euro-sceptics elsewhere and dark mutterings that they should have their own referenda.

 

Juncker is quite right to recognise that there is growing antagonism amongst the peoples of Europe towards too much interference in their daily lives and I think that there are nervous glances towards us and what the result will be here. These are the first signs that there is recognition at Brussels that the problems caused by a Brexit are not only about renegotiating our trade deals, but also realising the possibility that other states might follow us out.

 

I think everyone recognises that a close vote either way will give us much more leverage and the chance to precipitate real change. It would deal us a great card hand. Unfortunately we'd have Dave playing that hand. Im pretty sure he'd lose against a pair of fives.

[Johnny Bognor]

I think everyone recognises that a close vote either way will give us much more leverage and the chance to precipitate real change. It would deal us a great card hand. Unfortunately we'd have Dave playing that hand. Im pretty sure he'd lose against a pair of fives.

 

An exact 50/50 split would be the perfect outcome. There is no mandate to leave, but plenty of leverage to negotiate new terms of membership.

 

I have been a fence sitter and my position is that I don't want to leave the EU, but don't want to be part of it as it stands or where it may go. Cameron promised to negotiate, but failed miserably despite the spin. If we could somehow remain part of the EU but with more say / veto's / autonomy, etc, I would be happy. Unfortunately, that amounts to having one's cake and eating it, not that Dave would get us a better deal.

[Lord Duckhunter]

This Treasury report is laughable . Andrew Neil took it apart on Daily Politics today .

 

They guess GDP over a decade ahead , despite the fact that they couldn't predict GDP 2 years ahead 2 years ago. They have never measured household income by the dividing GDP before , if they did that now the average household income would be over 60k, a laughable figure. Even if you accept that ludicrous equation you would have thought they'd take 2030's GDP and divide it by the estimated number of households, but no , despite estimating the number of households ( and accepting immigration will rise by 185k per year) they have divided the 2030 GDP estimate by the number of households in 2016. It's nonsense like this that leads to distrust in Government figures , unfortunately there are not enough Andrew Neil's to pick apart this sort of propaganda.

[Wes Tender]

I think everyone recognises that a close vote either way will give us much more leverage and the chance to precipitate real change. It would deal us a great card hand. Unfortunately we'd have Dave playing that hand. Im pretty sure he'd lose against a pair of fives.

 

I agree with you entirely. A narrow majority vote to leave would naturally give us more clout than one narrowly in favour of staying, of course, but Dave's pathetic performance in attempting to negotiate reforms before the referendum was announced was enough to make me believe that he is just not a credible negotiator for us. His position as our negotiator would also have been weakened considerably because he is chief cheer-leader for remaining, and in the process he has used the same ammunition in his attempts to persuade the electorate that we should remain in, that would be fired back at us by the EU at the negotiating table should we vote to leave. Mind you, who would be suitable?

[CB Fry]

This Treasury report is laughable . Andrew Neil took it apart on Daily Politics today .

 

They guess GDP over a decade ahead , despite the fact that they couldn't predict GDP 2 years ahead 2 years ago. They have never measured household income by the dividing GDP before , if they did that now the average household income would be over 60k, a laughable figure. Even if you accept that ludicrous equation you would have thought they'd take 2030's GDP and divide it by the estimated number of households, but no , despite estimating the number of households ( and accepting immigration will rise by 185k per year) they have divided the 2030 GDP estimate by the number of households in 2016. It's nonsense like this that leads to distrust in Government figures , unfortunately there are not enough Andrew Neil's to pick apart this sort of propaganda.

 

You enjoyed the Daily Politics today then. I've just seen this bit:

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

You enjoyed the Daily Politics today then. I've just seen this bit:

 

 

I did enjoy it . Funny how the rest of Hoeys answer was left off your clip , and the monstering Neil gave the Remainain over Georges dodgy dossier . Perhaps you should watch the whole programme . Anyway Hoey is one person , the treasury document is supposed to be a serious analysis .

 

Perhaps you'll also answer why a model of household income never used before was used ( as I said it would equate to over 60k per household now) and how any economic model can have credibility when they've taken a growth forecast for 2030, immigration forecasts for 2030 (185k year on year) but kept the number of households at 2016 levels . **** me , there's going to be some crowded houses if we stay in . If remain had such a good case why use dodgy statistics

Edited 20 April, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

• HM Treasury forecasts show a significant downside economic risk in our leaving the EU > any fool knows that forecasts can sometimes be wrong don't you know.

 

• Voting to leave the EU may well result in the break-up of the UK > let's not talk about that now and anyway the Jocks are annoying.

 

• The Govenor of the Bank of England states that our departure would represent "the biggest domestic risk to our financial stabilty" > that's just his opinion.

 

• The evidential record indicates that nearly HALF of UK international trade still goes to the huge EU 'Single Market' area > yeah but it used to be a bit more than that.

 

• The experience of other nations shows that there are significant drawbacks and soverengthy implacations in establishing forms of 'associate membership' arrangements with the EU > well Michael Grove assures us that because we are mighty Britain we can somehow achieve a more favourable deal than anyone else ever has.

 

• The CBI reports that British industry overwhelmingly supports our continuing EU membership > but look we have found some employers who disagree with that majority opinion.

 

• BMW & Airbus senior management advise their UK based workforce of the potential consequences to their future employment prospects of leaving the EU > how dare foreigners interfer in our business!

 

• US Treasury officials add their warning re the potential dangers to the UK economy here > but they're just Obama's puppets and therefore a bunch of shameless liars.

 

 

Look - few of us I suppose can in all honesty lay much claim to being truely neutral observers of the argument as we each have a distinctive point of view that we are seeking to get across on here. Having said that, it seems to me the underlying truth is that the 'Leave' camp just don't want to listen to the evidence because most of them made up their minds on this subject many years ago and don't intend to allow the mere facts of the matter to alter that fixed opinion one single iota.

 

Furthermore, if this coming decision of ours were a court case, rather than a referendum, then it seems to me that any impartial jury would probably conclude that our EU membership has - on balance - benifited our economy and that it should therefore continue. Indeed, as we are making this vital decision not just for ourselves, but for future generations as yet unborn, then taking a risk of this magnitude would appear to be a fundamentaly rash and irresponsible move.

 

.

Edited 21 April, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CB Fry]

I did enjoy it . Funny how the rest of Hoeys answer was left off your clip , and the monstering Neil gave the Remainain over Georges dodgy dossier . Perhaps you should watch the whole programme . Anyway Hoey is one person , the treasury document is supposed to be a serious analysis .

 

Perhaps you'll also answer why a model of household income never used before was used ( as I said it would equate to over 60k per household now) and how any economic model can have credibility when they've taken a growth forecast for 2030, immigration forecasts for 2030 (185k year on year) but kept the number of households at 2016 levels . **** me , there's going to be some crowded houses if we stay in . If remain had such a good case why use dodgy statistics

I agree with you about the £4,300 household income thing, it's a terrible bit of massaging of figures which, as you say, you can drive a truck through the holes in it. I'd thought when it was announced that George has come up with a number that is so implausible it won't stick anyway. We'll see.

 

But, Intentionally and relentlessly repeating a big number that is clearly and known to be false has been a UKIP tactic for a long time so maybe Remain wanted their own one to try and hammer into people's heads.

 

That little Hoey snippet is a nice reposte to the fiction that the debate is 50/50, that no one can predict anything and it's all one great big unforecastable mystery whichever way we go.

 

If that was truly the case we'd be seeing something resembling a plurality of outcomes/opinions/models/forecasts. As everyone's new favourite D-list New Labour junior minister from the late 90s ("always admired her, I have") has shown, there isn't that at all.

[Verbal]

Say hello to Vote Leave's campaign director, an offensive little turd who freely admits to lying his head off ("what's a few decimal points."). As the article suggests, not so much an idiot savant as an idiot complete.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/20/accuracy-is-for-snake-oil-pussies-vote-leaves-campaign-director-defies-mps

 

The politics and ugly personality of those who dominate the Leave campaign make it pretty clear that behind the Referendum campaign itself is an attempted Tory factional putsch designed to install the far-right of the party in power.

[Wade Garrett]

There seems to be an assumption that only the rabid right want to leave. Not true, personally I'm left of centre. There are plenty more like me.

I reckon the higher the turnout, the more likelier a vote to leave.

[Verbal]

There seems to be an assumption that only the rabid right want to leave. Not true, personally I'm left of centre. There are plenty more like me.

I reckon the higher the turnout, the more likelier a vote to leave.

 

The reason it's an assumption is because they are not part of the argument. Of course there's a rag-tag of others wanting to leave. But the leave campaign is overwhelmingly dominated and led by the far right, and the non-extremist tagalongs are just being exploited in a sectarian coup within the Tory party. It's the most undemocratic motive behind a democratic campaign.

[moonraker]

There seems to be an assumption that only the rabid right want to leave. Not true, personally I'm left of centre. There are plenty more like me.

I reckon the higher the turnout, the more likelier a vote to leave.

 

Off course there will be people from across the political spectrum who believe that the UK should not be part of the EU, however the majority of the most vocal and high profile Brexiters are what can fairly be labelled right wingers. One question I have asked myself is: Who, of the high profile players, is backing what side of the argument and why? I have concluded that Brexit’s team is split and cannot even agree on a single campaign. It is a miscellaneous collection of the ideological, the disenfranchised, chancers, discontents and yesterdays men very few of whom can point to anything on their CV that would lead me to believe they are people I would wish to follow. The remain team is more broad church and whilst politically it has many individuals with whom I would not naturally align myself, on this one issue they have set aside party rivalry and joined together to campaign for a common outcome. The Brexit cry of self-interest and conspiracy is the crude rejoinder of those who cannot refute with any conviction the arguments put to them. Vote Leave’s Dominic Cummings performance in front of the select committee demonstrates only to well his contempt for our democracy and system of Government, and this is the man they appointed as there campaign director.

[Whitey Grandad]

What it boils down to is why do we need to be in a political union with Romania, Greece, soon to be Turkey, to have a healthy economy?

Why mention Turkey? There is no chance that they will join.

[Sour Mash]

Why mention Turkey? There is no chance that they will join.

Of course there is a chance, so you're just plain wrong there.

 

They're getting visa free access now, where will that lead to in say 5 or 10 years time?

 

Why do Romania have membership, but Turkey 'no chance'?

 

In your opinion, which bit of this article is lies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

 

But crack on and vote for free Turkish movement to the UK, setting our laws, we all look forward to the day when a British PM is in Istanbul bowing and scraping to see if we can make adjustments to our benefit payments or vat policy.

[moonraker]

Of course there is a chance, so you're just plain wrong there.

 

They're getting visa free access now, where will that lead to in say 5 or 10 years time?

 

Why do Romania have membership, but Turkey 'no chance'?

 

In your opinion, which bit of this article is lies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

 

But crack on and vote for free Turkish movement to the UK, setting our laws, we all look forward to the day when a British PM is in Istanbul bowing and scraping to see if we can make adjustments to our benefit payments or vat policy.

 

Or you could read this, where the raeality is discussed, http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/2016/03/The-challenges-for-Turkey-and-their-application-for-EU-Membership.aspx or this where all me Dave's mate says the opposite http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35797679

[Sour Mash]

Or you could read this, where the raeality is discussed, http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/2016/03/The-challenges-for-Turkey-and-their-application-for-EU-Membership.aspx or this where all me Dave's mate says the opposite http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35797679

 

Please tell me you're really kidding? And that you do actually understand why Osborne would play down Turkish membership in the lead up to a referendum?

[moonraker]

Please tell me you're really kidding? And that you do actually understand why Osborne would play down Turkish membership in the lead up to a referendum?

 

Oh of course its all part of the conspiracy, what about the 'independent' analysis, as per usual you conveniently choose to ignore that which counters your entrenched views.

[Wes Tender]

It appears that the Government is accused of massaging the figures/cooking the books, in an attempt to give the impression that they have met the 2% of GDP expenditure on defence target.

 

Who'd have thunk it? A little bit of creative accounting to send out the message they want. Could that be happening elsewhere? Surely not.

[Sour Mash]

Oh of course its all part of the conspiracy, what about the 'independent' analysis, as per usual you conveniently choose to ignore that which counters your entrenched views.

 

I haven't ignored it, I don't necessarily disagree with it, despite it being a bit of a vague opinion piece. No-one is saying Turkey is joining tomorrow.

 

Care to answer any of my questions in post 1640?

 

At least you now understand how Osborne is trying to play you.

[moonraker]

I haven't ignored it, I don't necessarily disagree with it, despite it being a bit of a vague opinion piece. No-one is saying Turkey is joining tomorrow.

 

Care to answer any of my questions in post 1640?

 

At least you now understand how Osborne is trying to play you.

 

They're getting visa free access now, where will that lead to in say 5 or 10 years time?[/b] Free access to the Schengan area only so you are safe from the hordes! I dont know and nor do you where we will be ten years time, however membership of the EU requires the applicant state to meet a very wide range of criteria, few of which Turkey currently meet, the negotions started 11 years ago and we are not much further forward so if I were a betting man I would say Turkey will not be in the EU in ten years.

 

Why do Romania have membership, but Turkey 'no chance'? Romania and Turkey are two very different cases, why do you assocaite the two? Romania as an ex Warsaw Pact state were accepated into the EU the same as Poland, The Czech Republi, Slovakia, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, and Hungary. One reason for this was to remove any danger of renewed Russian influnce and control. Romania met all of the reuirements for membership. Indeed I would contend that the EU membership requiremnts have ensured that those ex Warsaw Pact countries now in the EU have stabilised far more than those outside the EU and this is of great benefit to the rest of us.

[Wes Tender]

Or you could read this, where the raeality is discussed, http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/2016/03/The-challenges-for-Turkey-and-their-application-for-EU-Membership.aspx or this where all me Dave's mate says the opposite http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35797679

 

An article from a Greek, who has absolutely no agenda at all in preventing Turkey joining the European Union.

 

Regarding Osborne's comments:-

 

On Sunday's Andrew Marr show, Mr Osborne said:

"We have a veto over whether Turkey joins or not.

"We can set conditions and we have made it absolutely clear that we will not accept new member states to the European Union and give them unfettered free movement of people unless their economies are much closer in size and prosperity to ours."

 

Countries closer in size and prosperity to ours like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia, etc.

[hypochondriac]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36090188

 

Read this article and then try to argue that we'd be better off embroiled in all this. It's absurd.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why mention Turkey? There is no chance that they will join.

 

Cameron said he'd fight for turkeys membership and said the EU was stronger with turkey in both & 2010 & 2015

 

Every EU member has signed a deal stating that turkeys mermbership will be “re-energised" , they will also get Visa free access to most of The EU.

 

In 1975 you would be laughed at if you claimed Romania & Poland would be joining in future.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The reason it's an assumption is because they are not part of the argument. Of course there's a rag-tag of others wanting to leave. But the leave campaign is overwhelmingly dominated and led by the far right, and the non-extremist tagalongs are just being exploited in a sectarian coup within the Tory party. It's the most undemocratic motive behind a democratic campaign.

 

What complete and utter rubbish . The left has had a long and principled opposition to the EU, and still does have . To try and claim they're are exploiting it for some sort of grubby reason shows ignorance beyond belief.