EU referendum

[buctootim]

Labour MEP on the take for the tune of £500,000

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36167299

 

At least the leftie hypocrite was jailed for it

 

I thought the EU was a big free for all scam where no-one was held accountable

[TwoPints]

An EU without the UK would have France setting the Major foreign policy interests, which is NOT in the USAs best interests etc

 

Probably not in ours either.

[Nolan]

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/exclusive-survey-reveals-farmers-back-eu-exit.htm

 

Farmers Weekly Poll indicates intention for the Majority to vote leave.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

And yet the NFU has decided that - on balance - the interests of British agriculture would be best served by our remaining members of the EU:

 

http://www.nfuonline.com/news/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-news/nfu-council-agrees-resolution-on-the-eu-referendum/

[Sour Mash]

This article must be wrong or just made up, as we're often told that all senior business figures in the City are Pro-Remain http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/100-leading-city-names-sign-letter-backing-brexit-a3236841.html

[Nolan]

who do i believe... the organisation who get kickbacks from the EU? or the independent industry magazine? hmmmmm.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

who do i believe... the organisation who get kickbacks from the EU? or the independent industry magazine? hmmmmm.

 

You can believe who or what you want to according to your own beliefs/prejudices. But if the NFU are in receipt of EU funding then so too are most induvidual farmers of course. Therefore, basing a opinion on who does or does not receive EU funding seems unlikley to provide you with an especially useful guide.

 

Methinks that this apparent disparity between NFU and Farmer opinion does perhaps illustrate a pattern - i.e. the greater the posistion of responsibility a person (or organisation) finds themselves in the more likley they are to support the 'stay' campaign. For example, while the Mayor of London supports our retreat from the EU, the Prime Minister holds the opposite opinion. The Lord Chancellor advocates our leaving but the Chencellor of the Exchequer wants us to stay.

[shurlock]

This article must be wrong or just made up, as we're often told that all senior business figures in the City are Pro-Remain http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/100-leading-city-names-sign-letter-backing-brexit-a3236841.html

 

Who said they were all pro-remain? And what does senior business leaders in the City even mean? I assume you mean financial services and a motley crew of hedgies.

 

The financial sector in special pleading against EU regulation that's attempting rightly if imperfectly to address market failures of the past decade, whodathunk it? What a stunning insight there.

Edited 29 April, 2016 by shurlock

[Sour Mash]

Who said they were all pro-remain? And what does senior business leaders in the City even mean? I assume you mean financial services and a motley crew of hedgies.

 

The financial sector in special pleading against EU regulation that's attempting rightly if imperfectly to address market failures of the past decade, whodathunk it? What a stunning insight there.

Not sure why you're so upset with an Evening Standard article, their words, not mine.

[Wes Tender]

You can believe who or what you want to according to your own beliefs/prejudices. But if the NFU are in receipt of EU funding then so too are most induvidual farmers of course. Therefore, basing a opinion on who does or does not receive EU funding seems unlikley to provide you with an especially useful guide.

 

Methinks that this apparent disparity between NFU and Farmer opinion does perhaps illustrate a pattern - i.e. the greater the posistion of responsibility a person (or organisation) finds themselves in the more likley they are to support the 'stay' campaign. For example, while the Mayor of London supports our retreat from the EU, the Prime Minister holds the opposite opinion. The Lord Chancellor advocates our leaving but the Chencellor of the Exchequer wants us to stay.

 

Cameron achieves a lower trust rating among voters than Farage, according to a recent poll. Boris' trust rating is quite a bit higher than both of them. It has already been established that the utterances of Osborne are completely untrustworthy.

 

Methinks that a case can be made out that the higher the position of responsibility of the apologists who lead the remain lobby, the less trustworthy they are. One might also conclude that the higher the level of responsibility, the less in touch they are with the electorate.

[TwoPints]

Another very small but welcome benefit of being in the EU :

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36171266

[CB Fry]

Another very small but welcome benefit of being in the EU :

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36171266

Yeah yeah, we'll keep that when we leave because we'll keep all the good bits no problem. After all the German car manufacturers will be banging on Merkel's door meaning we've got them over a barrel on all of it.

[whelk]

Another very small but welcome benefit of being in the EU :

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36171266

 

Our best hope of beating apathy of the young voter.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Cameron achieves a lower trust rating among voters than Farage, according to a recent poll. Boris' trust rating is quite a bit higher than both of them. It has already been established that the utterances of Osborne are completely untrustworthy.

 

Methinks that a case can be made out that the higher the position of responsibility of the apologists who lead the remain lobby, the less trustworthy they are. One might also conclude that the higher the level of responsibility, the less in touch they are with the electorate.

 

People who claim to understand US politics better that a (two time) President of the United States does may not be best qualified to meaningfully comment of British politics either. Furthermore, the leaders of the 'Remain' campaign have little to apologise for I think as our membership of the EU has been a success overall.

 

Enoch Powell (a hero of yours?) once said that "all political careers end in failure". There is perhaps some truth in that and more astute observers of our political scene than you will already understand that it is in the nature of things that (sooner or later) almost every Prime Minister becomes unpopular with the British electorate. The explanation for this is that leaders charged with making the most important and difficult decisions we face in our national life will invariably upset those who are become disadvantaged by that decision making process. David Cameron - like all the other living ex PM's we have - does not argue that we should remain in the EU in order to become popular. No, he does so because he feels that is right for this nation.

 

One of those 'inconvenient truths' that clearly annoy you so is that the leaders of EVERY significant political party in the UK (with the obvious exception of UKIP) support our remaining in the EU along with the ministers currently placed in charge of ALL the great 'Offices of State' in our government. That is the fact of the matter.

[Wes Tender]

Chapel End Charlie:

People who claim to understand US politics better that a (two time) President of the United States does may not be best qualified to meaningfully comment of British politics either. Furthermore, the leaders of the 'Remain' campaign have little to apologise for I think as our membership of the EU has been a success overall.

 

Enoch Powell (a hero of yours?) once said that "all political careers end in failure". There is perhaps some truth in that and more astute observers of our political scene than you will already understand that it is in the nature of things that (sooner or later) almost every Prime Minister becomes unpopular with the British electorate. The explanation for this is that leaders charged with making the most important and difficult decisions we face in our national life will invariably upset those who are become disadvantaged by that decision making process. David Cameron - like all the other living ex PM's we have - does not argue that we should remain in the EU in order to become popular. No, he does so because he feels that is right for this nation.

 

One of those 'inconvenient truths' that clearly annoy you so is that the leaders of EVERY significant political party in the UK (with the obvious exception of UKIP) support our remaining in the EU along with the ministers currently placed in charge of ALL the great 'Offices of State' in our government. That is the fact of the matter.

 

 

Thanks for the patronising lecture.

 

Did I mention the President of the US in my post? Since you brought it up, my position on his intervention into our affairs is to say that is none on his damned business and to repeat that he would no doubt take a very dim view if Cameron were to interfere in their affairs, to comment on who the American electorate ought to vote for, for instance. Anyway, Obama's statement that we would find ourselves at the back of the queue to reach new trade deals with the USA has been countered by Cruz, who said that we would be first in line. When one of the Presidential candidates is prepared to respond with a policy declaration that is the polar opposite, then there is room for speculation that Obama's statement is purely his own position which he cannot enforce anyway and which was in any event just a sop to do a favour to Call me Dave.

 

You seem to confuse being unpopular with being distrusted and then you go on to contradict your position on the Referendum and your reasoning is all over the place. Good work.

 

Ignoring the difference between being unpopular and distrusted for the moment, you say that sooner or later every Prime Minister becomes unpopular with the British electorate. So far so good. Then you go on to explain that the reason for this situation is that they have to make the most difficult decisions which will invariably upset those who become disadvantaged by that decision making process. In case it escapes you, that is where you shot yourself in the foot, as you therefore logically infer that Call me Dave in leading the remain campaign, is upsetting the electorate who will be disadvantaged by us remaining in the EU. :lol:

 

The small percentage who trust him, gives some indication of how many find him unsuitable to lead the remain campaign.

 

As for him feeling that his position in campaigning to remain in the EU is right for the nation, that is the main reason for the electorates' distrust of him. He had reneged on manifesto promises to hold the referendum before and then when the Conservatives won the election and he was forced to call one, his initial position was that if he didn't gain the reforms that he required, then he would campaign to leave the EU. Of course, he has since done a complete about face, which is seen by everybody to mean that he lacks a backbone and is shallow and unprincipled. The reason that some politicians become unpopular with the electorate, is that many like Dave eventually come to be seen as unprincipled, self-interested and economical with the truth.

 

Regarding your parting shot, that is again wide of the mark and you do not appear to realise that the result of the referendum does not rely on whether the leaders of the various political parties or whether the government ministers support remaining in the EU. It does not rely on the veiled threats from the soon to be ex-President of the US, or the predictions of doom and gloom from various economists' bodies.

 

It relies on the votes of the electorate, much as you would no doubt pour scorn on their intelligence for not listening to the spin from the fear brigade.

[Nolan]

Wise warning from Gove:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3566620/Michael-Gove-warns-EU-expansion-open-borders-88-million-Europe-s-poorest-countries.html

 

"As Justice Secretary, I am well aware that there are around 10,000 foreign criminals in our jails — and one in 20 of those is Albanian.

 

Of all the prisoners in our jails who come from European countries, 10 per cent come from Albania — yet Albania comprises less than half of one per cent of the overall population of Europe.

 

Those prisoners currently cost the British taxpayer almost £18 million a year to keep in custody. And that’s before Albanian citizens even have the right to move to the UK!

 

The Home Secretary knows the problem is very far from diminishing. Already this year we’ve seen 20 gangsters from Albania convicted of running a brutal drugs ring in Manchester.

 

They are serious criminals who came here on forged Italian and Greek documents. European laws allow anyone with ID cards from EU countries — not even full passports — to enter the UK.

 

Italy’s cardboard documents are a particular favourite with criminals because they can be so easily forged.

 

Last year, there was a 70 per cent increase in the number of people trying to get into Britain with fraudulent European papers.

 

And in the vanguard were Albanian criminals using fake Greek and Italian ID papers."

Edited 30 April, 2016 by Nolan

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Chapel End Charlie:

 

 

Thanks for the patronising lecture.

 

Did I mention the President of the US in my post? Since you brought it up, my position on his intervention into our affairs is to say that is none on his damned business and to repeat that he would no doubt take a very dim view if Cameron were to interfere in their affairs, to comment on who the American electorate ought to vote for, for instance. Anyway, Obama's statement that we would find ourselves at the back of the queue to reach new trade deals with the USA has been countered by Cruz, who said that we would be first in line. When one of the Presidential candidates is prepared to respond with a policy declaration that is the polar opposite, then there is room for speculation that Obama's statement is purely his own position which he cannot enforce anyway and which was in any event just a sop to do a favour to Call me Dave.

 

You seem to confuse being unpopular with being distrusted and then you go on to contradict your position on the Referendum and your reasoning is all over the place. Good work.

 

Ignoring the difference between being unpopular and distrusted for the moment, you say that sooner or later every Prime Minister becomes unpopular with the British electorate. So far so good. Then you go on to explain that the reason for this situation is that they have to make the most difficult decisions which will invariably upset those who become disadvantaged by that decision making process. In case it escapes you, that is where you shot yourself in the foot, as you therefore logically infer that Call me Dave in leading the remain campaign, is upsetting the electorate who will be disadvantaged by us remaining in the EU. :lol:

 

The small percentage who trust him, gives some indication of how many find him unsuitable to lead the remain campaign.

 

As for him feeling that his position in campaigning to remain in the EU is right for the nation, that is the main reason for the electorates' distrust of him. He had reneged on manifesto promises to hold the referendum before and then when the Conservatives won the election and he was forced to call one, his initial position was that if he didn't gain the reforms that he required, then he would campaign to leave the EU. Of course, he has since done a complete about face, which is seen by everybody to mean that he lacks a backbone and is shallow and unprincipled. The reason that some politicians become unpopular with the electorate, is that many like Dave eventually come to be seen as unprincipled, self-interested and economical with the truth.

 

Regarding your parting shot, that is again wide of the mark and you do not appear to realise that the result of the referendum does not rely on whether the leaders of the various political parties or whether the government ministers support remaining in the EU. It does not rely on the veiled threats from the soon to be ex-President of the US, or the predictions of doom and gloom from various economists' bodies.

 

It relies on the votes of the electorate, much as you would no doubt pour scorn on their intelligence for not listening to the spin from the fear brigade.

 

I don't so much "pour scorn" on your intelligence, but rather await some evidence of its discovery.

 

According to you then the President of the United States should not dare to express his opinion on European affairs because it is quote "none of his damn business". This despite the fact that US intervention in "our business" during the 20th century was - three times - instramental in our having the freedom the decide our future international relationships in the first place! As President Obama so succinctly explained, it is very much in the US interest that one of its closet and most reliable allies should maintain the maximum possible influence in the world. Furthermore, I think you will find that it is in the job description of the US President that he/she does their utmost to promote US foreign policy.

 

This point seems so eminently reasonable and straighforward that I would expect any moderately bright school boy to be able to comprehend it. You however still seem to be struggleing for some reason .. but if the point still passes 'over your head' then I'm more happy to persevere as long as you like. As for your apparent enthusiasm for Ted Cruz ... well this is quite telling.

 

You then go on to make some argument about David Cameron and how you think that I have somehow mysteriously shot myself in the foot that is well nigh incomprehensible in the English language - perhaps you would make more sense writing in Double Dutch. I might ask that if you dislike the Prime Minister so for daring to argue for what he sees as the national interest, then why did you vote for the Conservative party then? Afterall, you do keep telling anyone on here who will listen that you're a tory rather than a real kipper don't you?

 

But If David Cameron is too "shallow and unprincipled" for your likes (for a politican!) then prey tell what does this article make your 'man of the people' hero Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson MP look like?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457684/How-Boris-Johnson-s-views-Brexit-past-two-decades-veered-like-shopping-trolley.html

 

There are some REALLY good quotes from your man here are there not Wes

 

As for your pig-headed determination to ignore all (or at least most) of the leading economic, financial, political and business opinion that has so far arisen in regard to the EU question this too is telling and I suppose will come as little of a surprise to anyone reading this. Indeed, it is quite apparent that in reality you are not really listening to the emerging argument in a meaningful way and there is no ammount of evidence that you will not attempt to find some (bogus) way to discredit or overlook. Indeed, it seems to me that you (and your narrow-minded type) represent the very definition of a 'closed mind'... or put another way, the lights are on but there is nobody home.

 

.

Edited 30 April, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Wes Tender]

I don't so much "pour scorn" on your intelligence, but rather await some evidence of its discovery.

 

Says he, demonstrating once again the arrogance of many of the remain lobby, whose MO is to attempt to belittle or ridicule anybody who dares to challenge their position. Once again, your inability to comprehend simple English is shown up, because I had referred to your scorn towards the electorate who wished to leave the EU.

 

According to you then the President of the United States should not dare to express his opinion on European affairs because it is quote "none of his damn business". This despite the fact that US intervention in "our business" during the 20th century was - three times - instramental in our having the freedom the decide our future international relationships in the first place! As President Obama so succinctly explained, it is very much in the US interest that one of its closet and most reliable allies should maintain the maximum possible influence in the world. Furthermore, I think you will find that it is in the job description of the US President that he/she does their utmost to promote US foreign policy.

 

The fact that the US came to our aid during the two World Wars, does not give their President the right to interfere in our domestic political affairs, especially General Elections or Referenda. The point I made that the Americans would be extremely angry if Cameron were to make an intervention in their Presidential Elections, but that doesn't seem to penetrate with you. Again, the simple concepts are the ones that you struggle to understand. Just because I cite Cruz's comment that we would be at the front of the queue for a trade deal with the US, doesn't imply in any way that I am supporter of his, any more than I am a supporter of George Galloway just because he supports the leave campaign. Any reasonably intelligent person would be able to make this simple distinction, that one can agree with some opinions of people whose political allegiances one doesn't support. You cannot even grasp that one can support a political party without agreeing with certain policies followed by a section of the party, or that it is not unreasonable to be critical of the party leadership.

 

This point seems so eminently reasonable and straighforward that I would expect any moderately bright school boy to be able to comprehend it. You however still seem to be struggleing for some reason .. but if the point still passes 'over your head' then I'm more happy to persevere as long as you like. As for your apparent enthusiasm for Ted Cruz ... well this is quite telling.

 

You then go on to make some argument about David Cameron and how you think that I have somehow mysteriously shot myself in the foot that is well nigh incomprehensible in the English language - perhaps you would make more sense writing in Double Dutch. I might ask that if you dislike the Prime Minister so for daring to argue for what he sees as the national interest, then why did you vote for the Conservative party then? Afterall, you do keep telling anyone on here who will listen that you're a tory rather than a real kipper don't you?

 

You did shoot yourself in the foot, probably because you explained your point badly and didn't comprehend that you had contradicted yourself. I am not surprised that you take it with bad grace and try to bluster your way out of it by attempting to portray my point as being incomprehensible. But when it comes to being critical of another's command of the English language, even a bright schoolboy knows the difference between Stella and stellar

But If David Cameron is too "shallow and unprincipled" for your likes (for a politican!) then prey tell what does this article make your 'man of the people' hero Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson MP look like?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457684/How-Boris-Johnson-s-views-Brexit-past-two-decades-veered-like-shopping-trolley.html

 

There are some REALLY good quotes from your man here are there not Wes

 

As for your pig-headed determination to ignore all (or at least most) of the leading economic, financial, political and business opinion that has so far arisen in regard to the EU question this too is telling and I suppose will come as little of a surprise to anyone reading this. Indeed, it is quite apparent that in reality you are not really listening to the emerging argument in a meaningful way and there is no ammount of evidence that you will not attempt to find some (bogus) way to discredit or overlook. Indeed, it seems to me that you (and your narrow-minded type) represent the very definition of a 'closed mind'... or put another way, the lights are on but there is nobody home.

 

.

 

The arrogance of your last paragraph is once again breathtaking and hypocritical to boot. You dismiss or belittle any opinions against remaining in the EU as being from people who are somehow not quite as important, influential or as intelligent as those who propose we remain in, whether they be economists, politicians or business leaders. You then have the gall to accuse me of being selective in what I read in order to arrive at my position, despite the fact that I am perfectly capable of forming my opinion based on my experience of the European project since its very inception. If you were honest about it, you would accept that human nature determines that in order to be well informed on current affairs, one reads the opinions of those who propound the other side of the debate, but then go with what one believes to be the right decision based on one's own personal beliefs.

 

I pointed out that the decision is with the electorate, not the political classes and by all means try to belittle me if it makes you feel a bigger cock, but have the decency to accept that despite you believing them to be misguided imbeciles, the electorate will vote for what they believe or want based on their own opinions, beliefs and self-interest.

[buctootim]

Wise warning from Gove:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3566620/Michael-Gove-warns-EU-expansion-open-borders-88-million-Europe-s-poorest-countries.html

 

"As Justice Secretary, I am well aware that there are around 10,000 foreign criminals in our jails — and one in 20 of those is Albanian.

 

Of all the prisoners in our jails who come from European countries, 10 per cent come from Albania — yet Albania comprises less than half of one per cent of the overall population of Europe.

 

Those prisoners currently cost the British taxpayer almost £18 million a year to keep in custody. And that’s before Albanian citizens even have the right to move to the UK!

 

The Home Secretary knows the problem is very far from diminishing. Already this year we’ve seen 20 gangsters from Albania convicted of running a brutal drugs ring in Manchester.

 

They are serious criminals who came here on forged Italian and Greek documents. European laws allow anyone with ID cards from EU countries — not even full passports — to enter the UK.

 

Italy’s cardboard documents are a particular favourite with criminals because they can be so easily forged.

 

Last year, there was a 70 per cent increase in the number of people trying to get into Britain with fraudulent European papers.

 

And in the vanguard were Albanian criminals using fake Greek and Italian ID papers."

 

Its okay. Britain we're like Albania.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The arrogance of your last paragraph is once again breathtaking and hypocritical to boot. You dismiss or belittle any opinions against remaining in the EU as being from people who are somehow not quite as important, influential or as intelligent as those who propose we remain in, whether they be economists, politicians or business leaders. You then have the gall to accuse me of being selective in what I read in order to arrive at my position, despite the fact that I am perfectly capable of forming my opinion based on my experience of the European project since its very inception. If you were honest about it, you would accept that human nature determines that in order to be well informed on current affairs, one reads the opinions of those who propound the other side of the debate, but then go with what one believes to be the right decision based on one's own personal beliefs.

 

I pointed out that the decision is with the electorate, not the political classes and by all means try to belittle me if it makes you feel a bigger cock, but have the decency to accept that despite you believing them to be misguided imbeciles, the electorate will vote for what they believe or want based on their own opinions, beliefs and self-interest.

 

 

Yes, I think that we have now established that in a referendum it is the electorate that decides the issue - I must say that your utter mastery of the 'bleedin obvious' on here is a wonder to behold! But as the electorate are (by and large) not constitional, economic, or financial experts, then many REASONABLE voters may well require some assistance from leaders in those fields who do comprehend the (complex) issues here better in order to make a informed choice. It looks like you made up your mind on the EU decades ago for all I know, but I don't mind admitting that at the start of this process I certainly did require some guidance.

 

With that requirment for reasoned and informed opinion in mind, it seems to me that any fair-minded appreciation of the argument - as it has so far devloped - will show that the evidence presented can only lead the responsible voter to believe that leaving the EU at this time would represent a high risk activity - you do understand I hope that 'risk' (in the specific economic/financial sense of the word) is a highly undesirable outcome.

 

I can only judge you on how you post on here. Based on that impression, you come across as being unprepared to listen to what our leading political, financial, and business opinion says in this regard. Furthermore, you appear to be taking a type of perverse pride in ignoring the evidence here - as if acting like a overgrown pub bore had somehow become a virtue. When the error of your ways is pointed out to you the only response to be seen are yet another accusations of arrogance etc.

 

Like the proverbial horse, you can be led to the water ... but you just don't want a drink do you?

 

.

Edited 2 May, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[ashnats]

any opinions against remaining in the EU as being from people who are somehow not quite as important, influential or as intelligent as those who propose we remain in, whether they be economists, politicians or business leaders.

 

Statistically speaking, the above is more likely to be true than not, certainly the big profile names all fit that profile. How Michael Gove has the gall to pretend he knows anything about anything after his appalling stint as Education secretary I will never know. A big percentage of teachers will vote in just to be contrary to Gove, I'm sure he does more damage than good, although, as someone who will vote in, he is actually doing a good job from my perspective.

[Sour Mash]

Statistically speaking, the above is more likely to be true than not, certainly the big profile names all fit that profile. How Michael Gove has the gall to pretend he knows anything about anything after his appalling stint as Education secretary I will never know. A big percentage of teachers will vote in just to be contrary to Gove, I'm sure he does more damage than good, although, as someone who will vote in, he is actually doing a good job from my perspective.

Is your view of teachers really that low?

[buctootim]

Statistically speaking, the above is more likely to be true than not, certainly the big profile names all fit that profile. How Michael Gove has the gall to pretend he knows anything about anything after his appalling stint as Education secretary I will never know. A big percentage of teachers will vote in just to be contrary to Gove, I'm sure he does more damage than good, although, as someone who will vote in, he is actually doing a good job from my perspective.

 

Gove is a touchstone. His track record is so bad that whatever side of an argument he is on the majority now assume the opposite must be true.

[Wes Tender]

Yes, I think that we have now established that in a referendum it is the electorate that decides the issue - I must say that your utter mastery of the 'bleedin obvious' on here is a wonder to behold! But as the electorate are (by and large) not constitional, economic, or financial experts, then many REASONABLE voters may well require some assistance from leaders in those fields who do comprehend the (complex) issues here better in order to make a informed choice. It looks like you made up your mind on the EU decades ago for all I know, but I don't mind admitting that at the start of this process I certainly did require some guidance.

 

With that requirment for reasoned and informed opinion in mind, it seems to me that any fair-minded appreciation of the argument - as it has so far devloped - will show that the evidence presented can only lead the responsible voter to believe that leaving the EU at this time would represent a high risk activity - you do understand I hope that 'risk' (in the specific economic/financial sense of the word) is a highly undesirable outcome.

 

I can only judge you on how you post on here. Based on that impression, you come across as being unprepared to listen to what our leading political, financial, and business opinion says in this regard. Furthermore, you appear to be taking a type of perverse pride in ignoring the evidence here - as if acting like a overgrown pub bore had somehow become a virtue. When the error of your ways is pointed out to you the only response to be seen are yet another accusations of arrogance etc.

 

Like the proverbial horse, you can be led to the water ... but you just don't want a drink do you?

 

.

 

The trouble with you, is that it appears that you have either a memory like a sieve, or that you're quite happy to respond to posts from those critical of remaining in the EU, without listening to what the poster has said previously.

 

Yes, it is a statement of the blindingly obvious to say that it is the electorate who will decide the result of the referendum; as blindingly obvious as your statement that there is some risk attached to leaving the EU, nearly all of it connected to future trading agreements. I have accepted that point a couple of times before, and responded that there is also risk in our staying in, yet you go rabbiting on about it. Ultimately you might comprehend that most people will take account of both positions and decide whether the risk is worth taking in light of the potential for increased trade with the rest of the World, especially those countries whose economies are not stagnating like the EU's. Furthermore, their assessment of any risk to our trading position, will be tempered by their consideration of many other things that they believe to be advantageous to us, things like sovereignty, control over our borders, the supremacy of our own legal system, etc.

 

You argue usually only about the economy based on unsubstantiated guesses of what situation might transpire economically, without acknowledging that others might base their decisions on other factors which they consider to be more important to them personally. Another statement of the bleeding obvious is that the general public do not possess the expertise in economics, constitutional or legal matters to make an informed decision of their own, but most reasonable voters have been able to discern when they are being fed propaganda, especially when it is proven to be so, like the easily dismantled forecasts of the Chancellor and Call me Dave. Some might be persuaded by such fear tactics, some will reach a decision from listening to both sides and others will have more entrenched views based on party allegiances, experience, or their own instincts. Whichever position they hold, that is their prerogative which should not be impugned because you disapprove of the way that people arrive at that decisions.

 

Again, you arrive at a decision on me claiming to be based on an impression given to you from my posts, whilst disregarding the posts made by me several times which clarify what my position is and why. I have already stated that I have wished to leave the EU since Maastricht, because of the changes that Treaty wrought on what we originally joined, the Common Market. I have also said more than once, that I would be happy to remain in , provided that substantial and significant reforms were made to the EU which took us back towards that original organisation, but Dave couldn't manage to negotiate that.

 

I am not unprepared to listen to opinions from those who espouse our remaining in the EU, but whereas you give the appearance of blindly accepting everything you read as God's Gospel truth, I possess a more cynical and apathetic attitude towards everything I read and tend to be dismissive of anything where there might be an agenda involved, or where the forecasts can be dismissed as based on false premises, like the Osborne scare tactic.

 

So whilst we are using horse analogies, I would say that you are blinkered to a lot of what you accept as guidance, much of which falls at the first hurdle when analysed with any objectivity.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The trouble with you, is that it appears that you have either a memory like a sieve, or that you're quite happy to respond to posts from those critical of remaining in the EU, without listening to what the poster has said previously.

 

Yes, it is a statement of the blindingly obvious to say that it is the electorate who will decide the result of the referendum; as blindingly obvious as your statement that there is some risk attached to leaving the EU, nearly all of it connected to future trading agreements. I have accepted that point a couple of times before, and responded that there is also risk in our staying in, yet you go rabbiting on about it. Ultimately you might comprehend that most people will take account of both positions and decide whether the risk is worth taking in light of the potential for increased trade with the rest of the World, especially those countries whose economies are not stagnating like the EU's. Furthermore, their assessment of any risk to our trading position, will be tempered by their consideration of many other things that they believe to be advantageous to us, things like sovereignty, control over our borders, the supremacy of our own legal system, etc ...

 

> You claim to be properly listening to the argument - but the evidence shows otherwise.

 

> You say that you understand and have somehow addressed the key issue of risk - but I doubt that you have even begun to really comprehend what is at stake here.

 

> You delight in continuly critising members of the 'Remain' campaign - but when it is shown to you that a leading figure of the 'Leave' camp is nothing more than a unprincipled charlatan you are mysteriously struck dumb.

 

> You alledge that evidence highlighting the dangers we face can be ignored because (you say) some sinister conspiracy is at work attempting to put down the 'Leave' side of the argument. The forum will note that not a shred of evidence to support this unlikley contention yours has been produced.

 

> You opine, without any evidentaial basis, that our trade might increase should we leave - and yet ignore that the established fact that almost HALF of our international trade is still with the EU Single Market area.

 

> You argue that it is somehow in our national interest to retreat from the EU - but refuse to contemplate that doing so may well lead to the dismemberment of this great nation. Why is that?

 

> You go so far as to dare to employ the term 'objectivity' when it is quite clear that you are anything but objective in your approach to the evidence.

 

 

It seems to me that your (seemingly endless) denials don't ammount to much of a argument when you start to think about it. Furthermore, try as I might I'm struggeling to see any remotely original contribution in the above post - and this despite its considerable length. I'm quite prepared to 'go around the houses' with you as long as you like, but surely the process would be rather more entertaining if you could summon up something new to say.

 

In the final analysis your petty "little englander" prejudices displayed on here are a matter of minor importance when pitted against he bigger picture that has become quite apparent - i.e. with weeks of arguing still to come the 'Leave' campaign has already comprehensively lost the argument.

All those who really care about this nation and its future should hope that they are also about to lose the vote too.

[Wes Tender]

> You claim to be properly listening to the argument - but the evidence shows otherwise.

 

> You say that you understand and have somehow addressed the key issue of risk - but I doubt that you have even begun to really comprehend what is at stake here.

 

> You delight in continuly critising members of the 'Remain' campaign - but when it is shown to you that a leading figure of the 'Leave' camp is nothing more than a unprincipled charlatan you are mysteriously struck dumb.

 

> You alledge that evidence highlighting the dangers we face can be ignored because (you say) some sinister conspiracy is at work attempting to put down the 'Leave' side of the argument. The forum will note that not a shred of evidence to support this unlikley contention yours has been produced.

 

> You opine, without any evidentaial basis, that our trade might increase should we leave - and yet ignore that the established fact that almost HALF of our international trade is still with the EU Single Market area.

 

> You argue that it is somehow in our national interest to retreat from the EU - but refuse to contemplate that doing so may well lead to the dismemberment of this great nation. Why is that?

 

> You go so far as to dare to employ the term 'objectivity' when it is quite clear that you are anything but objective in your approach to the evidence.

 

It seems to me that your (seemingly endless) denials don't ammount to much of a argument when you start to think about it. Furthermore, try as I might I'm struggeling to see any remotely original contribution in the above post - and this despite its considerable length. I'm quite prepared to 'go around the houses' with you as long as you like, but surely the process would be rather more entertaining if you could summon up something new to say.

 

In the final analysis your petty "little englander" prejudices displayed on here are a matter of minor importance when pitted against he bigger picture that has become quite apparent - i.e. with weeks of arguing still to come the 'Leave' campaign has already comprehensively lost the argument.

All those who really care about this nation and its future should hope that they are also about to lose the vote too.

 

What evidence do you have of what I read, view or listen to? Absolutely none.

 

I will repeat for your benefit, because it still does not penetrate your cranium despite repeating the point several times, there is risk in both leaving or staying in. It is a matter for individuals to assess whether the risks are acceptable to them You don't know precisely what is at stake any more than the so-called experts, who make "forecasts", or "predictions" based on spurious information. There are no facts, or evidence for what might ensue.

 

You delight in criticising members of the Leave campaign, but when it is pointed out that the leader of the Remain campaign, Call me Dave, is an unprincipled charlatan, you ignore it.

 

Where have I have made the claim that there is some sinister conspiracy at work attempting to put down the "leave" side of the argument? The forum, if they're even remotely interested, will conclude that you're making things up. There is a fear campaign in operation largely from the remain side. Is that what you are rabbiting on about?

 

Evidential basis? I have to repeat myself once again for your benefit. There is no evidence that our trade would either increase or decrease post a Brexit. Any suggestion to each position is only an opinion based on speculation or supposition. Is that now clear? Regarding the amount of trade we have with the EU single Market, I have to repeat once again, that the situation will be that it is unlikely that we will cease trading with the EU single market regardless of whether we leave.

 

There are factors both for and against our national interests. These are pretty well understood by most people and have been debated to death. Whether Scotland in particular subsequently wished to leave the UK in the event of Brexit, I don't think they would. But also, I'm not that bothered if they did. How about you address the implications of us leaving on the EU, which also might be in danger of disintegration if we left.

 

Did I say that the objectivity was mine? No, I didn't.

I would say that you are blinkered to a lot of what you accept as guidance, much of which falls at the first hurdle when analysed with any objectivity.

As usual, your comprehension of the English language leaves you struggling.

 

Talking of going around the houses again, I must really admonish you once more for your staggering arrogance in (1) claiming that the debate is already won by the Remain lobby and (2) suggesting that the Leave campaign don't really care about the future prosperity of this Nation. For your repeated juvenile labelling of the Leave supporters as little Englanders, I'll also remind you that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

 

As for your assertion that I added nothing new to the debate, then perhaps you will kindly point out all of the new content in your post. No, there isn't any.

[Batman]

EU Army

Turkey a step closer to joining

TTiP

an bigger population explosion likely. Meaning we will soon have to build a city the size of Manchester every 12 months

billions of £££ handed over every year

 

sign me up

[Sour Mash]

EU Army

Turkey a step closer to joining

TTiP

an bigger population explosion likely. Meaning we will soon have to build a city the size of Manchester every 12 months

billions of £££ handed over every year

 

sign me up

Exactly. Unreal that anyone thinks the above is great and will vote for more.

[Batman]

Exactly. Unreal that anyone thinks the above is great and will vote for more.

 

more....MORE...MORE of this stuff. it is what we all want, right? We could probably kick out the commission at the next election, right?

https://www.rt.com/uk/341690-ttip-leak-documents-greenpeace/

Edited 4 May, 2016 by Batman

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I see yet another long reply from our Wes, another post full of playground insults, avoidance and (as predicted) the tiresome repetition we have come to expect from this member. As a rather famous Britain once said: "much ado about nothing" really. However, what I don't see - apart from a deeply stupid "not bothered" comment your average teenager would hesitate to utter - is a meaningful attempt to address the Scottish issue as requested. A serious matter this forum will note that he has been studiously avoiding for some time now - almost as if (atypicaly) he didn't have a answer.

 

So then Wes - do try to stir up the old 'grey matter' just a little and kindly tell us why on Earth would any little englander who calls themselves a Conservative vote for a option in this coming referendum that very well might lead to the dismemberment of this great nation? What is it about the European Union that you find so very hateful that you would risk such a disasterious outcome for the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

 

Over to you shipmate ...

[Batman]

[LuckyNumber7]

I see yet another long reply from our Wes, another post full of playground insults

 

Says he who keeps on persisting with the classic 'little Englander' jibe.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Says he who keeps on persisting with the classic 'little Englander' jibe.

 

But the phrase sums up the mindset very nicely and is therefore useful.

[Wes Tender]

I see yet another long reply from our Wes, another post full of playground insults, avoidance and (as predicted) the tiresome repetition we have come to expect from this member. As a rather famous Britain once said: "much ado about nothing" really. However, what I don't see - apart from a deeply stupid "not bothered" comment your average teenager would hesitate to utter - is a meaningful attempt to address the Scottish issue as requested. A serious matter this forum will note that he has been studiously avoiding for some time now - almost as if (atypicaly) he didn't have a answer.

 

So then Wes - do try to stir up the old 'grey matter' just a little and kindly tell us why on Earth would any little englander who calls themselves a Conservative vote for a option in this coming referendum that very well might lead to the dismemberment of this great nation? What is it about the European Union that you find so very hateful that you would risk such a disasterious outcome for the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

 

Over to you shipmate ...

 

The long reply was needed to counter the long-winded and easily countered assertions that you made. If you wish to avoid the tiresome repetition, stop repeating tirelessly the same arrogant and puerile insults.

 

Also stop drawing the wrong conclusions from what I say, or claiming that things are evidential, when clearly they are not, or as the Bard wrote, it just sounds like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

Earlier this afternoon, I read a very good article laying out the reasons why Scotland was very unlikely to leave the Union, no doubt you can find it with a little Googling. My reasons for wanting to leave the EU have been made very plain several times, so if you do not know what they are, then I suggest that you read back through the thread, so that everybody else is not bored rigid by the unnecessary repetition. However, if Scotland somehow still wished to leave the Union as a result of us leaving the EU, then that would be a price worth paying in my opinion.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The long reply was needed to counter the long-winded and easily countered assertions that you made. If you wish to avoid the tiresome repetition, stop repeating tirelessly the same arrogant and puerile insults.

 

Also stop drawing the wrong conclusions from what I say, or claiming that things are evidential, when clearly they are not, or as the Bard wrote, it just sounds like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

Earlier this afternoon, I read a very good article laying out the reasons why Scotland was very unlikely to leave the Union, no doubt you can find it with a little Googling. My reasons for wanting to leave the EU have been made very plain several times, so if you do not know what they are, then I suggest that you read back through the thread, so that everybody else is not bored rigid by the unnecessary repetition. However, if Scotland somehow still wished to leave the Union as a result of us leaving the EU, then that would be a price worth paying in my opinion.

 

So we have moved on from the remarkable "not bothered" attitude to the equally obtuse "price worth paying" - and this the forum will note not in regard to some relativly trivial matter, but the very future existance of the United Kingdom as we now know it. It seems to me that this old union of ours - one that has existed in the world since the 1707 'Acts of Union' were ratified both north and south of the border, is not a worthless thing we should throw away as casually as we would a old crisp packet just so that your type can satisfy their latent xenophobia and 'little england' obsessions.

 

I wonder have you even begune to contemplate the implications of your "not bothered" attitude towards the UK's future? The price you so glibly want to pay here will be a truely enormous one - for instance the costs incured in moving the UK's entire nuclear weapon infrastructure south of this new international border you seek to create alone would run into the hundreds of £billions. You can rest assured that is just one example of the problem here.

 

Beyond the monety and legal implications of destroying a long established nation, would it not be a bit of shame (to put it mildly) that the history of all we together in these small islands have achieved in the world - from the wonders of the Industrial Revolution and forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen, to playing a crucial role in saving the world from the unspeakable evils of fascism - all came to such a such a sorry little end? And for what ....

 

What a strange creature you are. A person who willfully ignores the evidence he purports to understand. A tory voter who can't even bring himself to write down the name of the Prime Minister he choose to elect. A grown man who STILL doesn't understand what the word 'risk' even means in the financial sense. Someone who appears to care 'not a jot' that the multiple gambles he so readily contemplates may well endanger the prosperity of future generations as yet unborn.

 

Shakespere once asked "what a piece of work is man" ... you're not even a work in progress.

[Sour Mash]

EU Army

Turkey a step closer to joining

TTiP

an bigger population explosion likely. Meaning we will soon have to build a city the size of Manchester every 12 months

billions of £££ handed over every year

 

sign me up

 

Quite laughable as well, people trying to pretend Turkey aren't on course for EU membership and people are voting in favour of this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html

[Wes Tender]

So we have moved on from the remarkable "not bothered" attitude to the equally obtuse "price worth paying" - and this the forum will note not in regard to some relativly trivial matter, but the very future existance of the United Kingdom as we now know it. It seems to me that this old union of ours - one that has existed in the world since the 1707 'Acts of Union' were ratified both north and south of the border, is not a worthless thing we should throw away as casually as we would a old crisp packet just so that your type can satisfy their latent xenophobia and 'little england' obsessions.

 

I wonder have you even begune to contemplate the implications of your "not bothered" attitude towards the UK's future? The price you so glibly want to pay here will be a truely enormous one - for instance the costs incured in moving the UK's entire nuclear weapon infrastructure south of this new international border you seek to create alone would run into the hundreds of £billions. You can rest assured that is just one example of the problem here.

 

Beyond the monety and legal implications of destroying a long established nation, would it not be a bit of shame (to put it mildly) that the history of all we together in these small islands have achieved in the world - from the wonders of the Industrial Revolution and forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen, to playing a crucial role in saving the world from the unspeakable evils of fascism - all came to such a such a sorry little end? And for what ....

 

What a strange creature you are. A person who willfully ignores the evidence he purports to understand. A tory voter who can't even bring himself to write down the name of the Prime Minister he choose to elect. A grown man who STILL doesn't understand what the word 'risk' even means in the financial sense. Someone who appears to care 'not a jot' that the multiple gambles he so readily contemplates may well endanger the prosperity of future generations as yet unborn.

 

Shakespere once asked "what a piece of work is man" ... you're not even a work in progress.

 

As usual, your post is full of assumptions and easily dismantled arguments. It seems to have passed you by that the break-up of the United Kingdom has been instigated by the Scots (the little Scotlanders) and the Welsh. You question my motives as a Conservative for not being particularly concerned by the very remote possibility that the Scots might leave the Union, when there are significant other factors to consider. The West Lothian question would finally be settled, meaning that without the Scottish MPs' votes in English matters, England would be run by the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future. I can imagine how you would loathe that. And like our situation with the EU, we pay a substantial sum by way of grants towards helping the Scots run their own affairs.

 

The price we would pay? Laughably ironic really that the first thing you mention is our nuclear base there, when it is the Scottish Nationalists that wanted it removed if they left the Union. Regarding the economic arguments, they are much the same as they are in the event of us leaving the EU. Trade of course would continue much as it is now.

 

But the biggest irony of all, is that you glorify our history of World domination of our Empire, our starting of the Industrial Revolution which made us the World's dominant manufacturer. In short, you use the little Englander stance when it comes to defending one Union, whilst simultaneously using it as an insult when it comes to wishing to leave another union.

 

And as you are so fond of hurling the Little Englander abuse, you fail to recognise the irony that as a member state of this massive sclerotic organisation, we are the equivalent of an English County compared to the governance of the entire Country, one state amongst 28, soon to be increased still further. One is called a little Englander for wanting to expand our trade to the rest of World, to regain some of that reputation as a great trading nation. It is you who are the little Englander, happy to be a small cog in this over regulated bureaucratic organisation, our democracy and legal system subjugated to theirs. Aren't you going to point out how our democratic and legal system used to be the envy of the World before those two pillars of our historical prowess were eroded gradually by our membership of the EU project?

 

Once again, I have to point out that where you accuse me of ignoring evidence, you refuse to recognise that there is no evidence to ignore, there is just speculation and conjecture. I have repeated this so many times, that it must be that there are things that either don't register with you, or that you wilfully choose to ignore them. As usual, you imply arrogantly that everything that you say is right and that anybody who arrives at a different conclusion is an idiot and you repeat ad nauseam this mantra that anybody who supports Brexit does not care for the future of of our children and grandchildren. It really is totally unacceptable and I ask you stop it please. Once again, you're also like a stuck record over this question of risk and rather than accepting with good grace that there is also risk to our future prosperity within the EU, you make assertions that somehow I don't understand the meaning of the word when associated with finance. The meaning of the word does not alter depending on whether it is associated with the economy, climbing a mountain, or crossing the road.

 

If you're going to quote Shakespeare, please do try and spell his name correctly. It looks a bit feeble attempting to portray yourself as a cultured man of letters when you make such fundamental errors, but I note the insult and reiterate that the more that your points are shown up, the more insults you are inclined to hurl at me.

Edited 5 May, 2016 by Wes Tender

[Batman]

New EU border proposals make us less safe

The unelected European Commission yesterday confirmed plans to give Turkey visa-free access to the EU’s passport-free travel area. This will create a free travel zone from the Syrian border right up to the English Channel.

 

Our NHS and public services are already under huge strain, but plans to expand the EU to include countries such as Turkey and Albania with millions of new citizens will only increase that pressure.

 

The EU refuses to address the root cause of the migration crisis – the EU’s borderless travel area. Brussels’ answer to every crisis is simply ‘more Europe’. Indeed, the Commission said this week that the passport-free Schengen area is ‘one of the greatest achievements of the European Union.

 

So, just sign us up and those who oppose that stuff are just small minded bigots!

[Whitey Grandad]

New EU border proposals make us less safe

The unelected European Commission yesterday confirmed plans to give Turkey visa-free access to the EU’s passport-free travel area. This will create a free travel zone from the Syrian border right up to the English Channel.

 

Our NHS and public services are already under huge strain, but plans to expand the EU to include countries such as Turkey and Albania with millions of new citizens will only increase that pressure.

 

The EU refuses to address the root cause of the migration crisis – the EU’s borderless travel area. Brussels’ answer to every crisis is simply ‘more Europe’. Indeed, the Commission said this week that the passport-free Schengen area is ‘one of the greatest achievements of the European Union.

 

So, just sign us up and those who oppose that stuff are just small minded bigots!

 

They're just plans.

 

We are not part of Schengen and can keep out anyone we choose to.

[Wade Garrett]

New EU border proposals make us less safe

The unelected European Commission yesterday confirmed plans to give Turkey visa-free access to the EU’s passport-free travel area. This will create a free travel zone from the Syrian border right up to the English Channel.

 

Our NHS and public services are already under huge strain, but plans to expand the EU to include countries such as Turkey and Albania with millions of new citizens will only increase that pressure.

 

The EU refuses to address the root cause of the migration crisis – the EU’s borderless travel area. Brussels’ answer to every crisis is simply ‘more Europe’. Indeed, the Commission said this week that the passport-free Schengen area is ‘one of the greatest achievements of the European Union.

 

So, just sign us up and those who oppose that stuff are just small minded bigots!

 

This, for me, is more important than the economic argument. We may be a little better off if we leave, we may be a little worse off. But we would be more secure, have control over immigration, and have our laws ratified by our elected Government, not by Brussels.

[Batman]

They're just plans.

 

We are not part of Schengen and can keep out anyone we choose to.

 

it is the direction of travel. it is obvious. jesus

[Whitey Grandad]

it is the direction of travel. it is obvious. jesus

 

But in what way would us being in or out of the EU have any difference to Turkish nationals being able to come to Britain?

 

(There is an article in today's Times quoting Cameron as saying the Turkey's accession is decades away at the earliest but nobody's going to believe anything he says, not even me. France alone would need to hold a referendum first and every other country would have to agree but keep on raising unnecessary fears.)

[Whitey Grandad]

This, for me, is more important than the economic argument. We may be a little better off if we leave, we may be a little worse off. But we would be more secure, have control over immigration, and have our laws ratified by our elected Government, not by Brussels.

 

Actually the legal situation would be extremely complicated and would take decades to unravel. Please see today's Times.

 

Also you have things round the wrong way. Our laws are ratified by us, not Brussels.

[Wes Tender]

For all those who say that we would have to abide by EU rules in order to trade with it, but would have no influence on those rules, here is an illuminating article which blows that argument right out of the water.

 

I particularly loved this bit which accuses the Remain lobby as "little Europeans"

 

Globalisation deniers continue to be wilfully blind to what is happening before their very eyes. They insist that we must remain in a sclerotic and constraining political union in order to maximise our influence on the rules of the Single Market. They refute the fact that the EU is obliged to adopt standards from global bodies into its own legislation. In doing so they are denying irrefutable evidence because it doesn’t fit with their rigid ideology and archaic ideals. This is the “little European” mindset.

 

https://thescepticisle.com/2016/05/04/britain-needs-to-leave-the-eu-and-embrace-the-modern-era-of-globalisation/

 

Now, I realise that this is just a blog, but it would make a change if the Remain lobby were to counter the points raised in it - if they are able to.

 

Oh look; there is even an opinion on the possibility that if we left the EU, the Scottish would want another referendum to leave the Union.

 

https://thescepticisle.com/2015/05/03/an-independent-scotland-will-be-a-minor-province-of-the-european-union/#comments

Edited 5 May, 2016 by Wes Tender

[Nolan]

But in what way would us being in or out of the EU have any difference to Turkish nationals being able to come to Britain?

 

(There is an article in today's Times quoting Cameron as saying the Turkey's accession is decades away at the earliest but nobody's going to believe anything he says, not even me. France alone would need to hold a referendum first and every other country would have to agree but keep on raising unnecessary fears.)

From http://order-order.com/

 

Yesterday Cameron told the House of Commons Liaison Committee:

 

“I don’t think that the accession of Turkey to the European Union is remotely on the cards. I don’t think it will happen for decades. The facts are it requires unanimity of all European Union members… so I’d say very clearly to people, if your vote in this referendum is being influenced by considerations about Turkish membership of the EU, don’t think about it. It’s not remotely on the cards.”

 

Really?

 

Just a few years ago Dave told his Turkish counterparts:

 

“I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership… this is something I feel very strongly and very passionately about. Together I want to pave*the road from Ankara to Brussels.”

 

Remember, Brussels has just*agreed*to lift visa requirements for Turkish citizens across the EU and accelerate accession negotiations as soon as possible. “Not remotely on the cards,” Dave is telling voters…

 

UPDATE: A European Commission press release fired off yesterday completely disproves Cameron’s statement:

 

“the accession process will be re-energised, with Chapter 33 to be opened during the Dutch Presidency of the Council of the European Union and preparatory work on the opening of other chapters to continue at an accelerated pace”

[Whitey Grandad]

From http://order-order.com/

 

Yesterday Cameron told the House of Commons Liaison Committee:

 

“I don’t think that the accession of Turkey to the European Union is remotely on the cards. I don’t think it will happen for decades. The facts are it requires unanimity of all European Union members… so I’d say very clearly to people, if your vote in this referendum is being influenced by considerations about Turkish membership of the EU, don’t think about it. It’s not remotely on the cards.”

 

Really?

 

Just a few years ago Dave told his Turkish counterparts:

 

“I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership… this is something I feel very strongly and very passionately about. Together I want to pave*the road from Ankara to Brussels.”

 

Remember, Brussels has just*agreed*to lift visa requirements for Turkish citizens across the EU and accelerate accession negotiations as soon as possible. “Not remotely on the cards,” Dave is telling voters…

 

UPDATE: A European Commission press release fired off yesterday completely disproves Cameron’s statement:

 

“the accession process will be re-energised, with Chapter 33 to be opened during the Dutch Presidency of the Council of the European Union and preparatory work on the opening of other chapters to continue at an accelerated pace”

 

Nothing has been agreed, merely proposed. (hence your asterisks?) Brussels can propose what it likes but it's up to the members to agree to it's proposals. In the present climate that's unlikely. Even the Schengen arrangements are being suspended. Turkey has to be kep onside by dangling carrots but they will be kept out of reach.

 

No, I don't believe a word Cameron or any other politician says either. He changes his words to suit his audience. The point remains that accession would require unanimity and one way to prevent Turkey from joining is to remain in the EU and veto it

Edited 5 May, 2016 by Whitey Grandad

[hutch]

In the present climate that's unlikely.

Does that explain your dogged crusade against climate change?

[Whitey Grandad]

Does that explain your dogged crusade against climate change?

 

The climate is always changing. I have only argued about who or what to blame.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As usual, your post is full of assumptions and easily dismantled arguments. It seems to have passed you by that the break-up of the United Kingdom has been instigated by the Scots (the little Scotlanders) and the Welsh. You question my motives as a Conservative for not being particularly concerned by the very remote possibility that the Scots might leave the Union, when there are significant other factors to consider. The West Lothian question would finally be settled, meaning that without the Scottish MPs' votes in English matters, England would be run by the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future. I can imagine how you would loathe that. And like our situation with the EU, we pay a substantial sum by way of grants towards helping the Scots run their own affairs ...

 

Well your verbiage is very nearly impressive. What also leaves a strong impression is the fact that you are incapable of recognising the MASSIVE CONTRADICTION that exists between your virulent hatred of our nation's relationship with the EU, and then your utter indifference towards the fate of our ancient nation state. You will agree I take it that 'indifference' is a pretty fair and accurate way to describe someone who claims that they are quote/unquote "not bothered" if the UK even exists in the foreseeable future. I think many will join with me and conclude that your utter lack of self-awareness here is epic.

 

You (simplisticaly) place all the blame for this grave threat to the existance of the United Kingdom on the the Scots when clearly this situation is rather more complicated than that. But there again, your contributions to this thread shows that you really don't do nuance do you? I must also inform you - as you seem to have forgotten - that a clear majority of the Scottish people voted to remain within the Union not all that long ago. However, it would seem that some 2/3 of the Scots favour our remaining in the EU and simple maths should tell even you that a majority of that scale must preforce include voters from either side of the Scottish independence question. Pandering to the petty obsessions of your type I fear gives the Scottish Nationalists all the excuse they need to call for a second independance referendum - which they may well win.

 

I see that you have attempted to dismiss the nuclear deterrent matter in a single sentence, a sentence whatismore that makes no sense at all in English - indeed where is this "irony" you seem to have detected? It truth this matter is a serious issue with potentially grave financial and security implacations for all of us on these islands - but anothet subject you seeming are "not bothered" about perhaps. Analysis shows that moving UK nuclear facilities out of the newly independent Scotland (that you seem happy to encourage) would cost £20bn and take a decade or more to achieve. So that "price" you so casually seem willing to pay will be a high one.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/costs-moving-trident-analysis

 

So if the Scots are not prepared to give your 'little england' ten years to get itself sorted out then what is your plan here? You did object did you not to President Obama saying that the UK's influence in the world would be reduced if we left the EU?

 

For some reason you keep repeating that there is "no evidence" that leaving the EU would endanger our future prosperity - almost as if endlessly repeating a lie somehow makes it more believable! It is not "speculation" that the large majority of our business leaders want the UK to remain in the EU - this is a known fact based on a CBI data. It is not speculation that the Governor of the Bank of England warns of the risks here because his statements too are on the record for anyone to see. Whatever you say I doubt somehow that the OECD base their conclusions on mere guesswork - some people very much brighter than you are calculated it.

But if you really are so concerned with evidence then I might wonder where is the evidence supporting your claim that we can somehow do better on our own? The truth is there is not a shred of factual evidence for this claim. The future is not our to see of course, but INFORMED opinion is surely a better guide than your peculiar set of prejudices.

 

Finally, I see you have climbed back on your 'high horse' again and objected to my opinon that the attitudes you express on here are fundamentaly irresponsible ones. I note your objection of course, but nevetheless can only conclude that you don't really care very much about the fate of our children and grandchildren, or at least their prospects take a (distant) second place in your mind to your irrational 'little englander' hatred of the EU and all that it stands for. Indeed, this too is surely in the evidence now however hard to attempt to deny it.

[Wes Tender]

Well your verbiage is very nearly impressive. What also leaves a strong impression is the fact that you are incapable of recognising the MASSIVE CONTRADICTION that exists between your virulent hatred of our nation's relationship with the EU, and then your utter indifference towards the fate of our ancient nation state. You will agree I take it that 'indifference' is a pretty fair and accurate way to describe someone who claims that they are quote/unquote "not bothered" if the UK even exists in the foreseeable future. I think many will join with me and conclude that your utter lack of self-awareness here is epic.

 

You (simplisticaly) place all the blame for this grave threat to the existance of the United Kingdom on the the Scots when clearly this situation is rather more complicated than that. But there again, your contributions to this thread shows that you really don't do nuance do you? I must also inform you - as you seem to have forgotten - that a clear majority of the Scottish people voted to remain within the Union not all that long ago. However, it would seem that some 2/3 of the Scots favour our remaining in the EU and simple maths should tell even you that a majority of that scale must preforce include voters from either side of the Scottish independence question. Pandering to the petty obsessions of your type I fear gives the Scottish Nationalists all the excuse they need to call for a second independance referendum - which they may well win.

 

I see that you have attempted to dismiss the nuclear deterrent matter in a single sentence, a sentence whatismore that makes no sense at all in English - indeed where is this "irony" you seem to have detected? It truth this matter is a serious issue with potentially grave financial and security implacations for all of us on these islands - but anothet subject you seeming are "not bothered" about perhaps. Analysis shows that moving UK nuclear facilities out of the newly independent Scotland (that you seem happy to encourage) would cost £20bn and take a decade or more to achieve. So that "price" you so casually seem willing to pay will be a high one.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/costs-moving-trident-analysis

 

So if the Scots are not prepared to give your 'little england' ten years to get itself sorted out then what is your plan here? You did object did you not to President Obama saying that the UK's influence in the world would be reduced if we left the EU?

 

For some reason you keep repeating that there is "no evidence" that leaving the EU would endanger our future prosperity - almost as if endlessly repeating a lie somehow makes it more believable! It is not "speculation" that the large majority of our business leaders want the UK to remain in the EU - this is a known fact based on a CBI data. It is not speculation that the Governor of the Bank of England warns of the risks here because his statements too are on the record for anyone to see. Whatever you say I doubt somehow that the OECD base their conclusions on mere guesswork - some people very much brighter than you are calculated it.

But if you really are so concerned with evidence then I might wonder where is the evidence supporting your claim that we can somehow do better on our own? The truth is there is not a shred of factual evidence for this claim. The future is not our to see of course, but INFORMED opinion is surely a better guide than your peculiar set of prejudices.

 

Finally, I see you have climbed back on your 'high horse' again and objected to my opinon that the attitudes you express on here are fundamentaly irresponsible ones. I note your objection of course, but nevetheless can only conclude that you don't really care very much about the fate of our children and grandchildren, or at least their prospects take a (distant) second place in your mind to your irrational 'little englander' hatred of the EU and all that it stands for. Indeed, this too is surely in the evidence now however hard to attempt to deny it.

 

 

Please read that link I provided to the Scotland issue and accept that the views it expresses are substantially also mine, and a good case is made as to why Scotland will be very unlikely to call another referendum. It will save both of us a lot of time. By all means argue against those views if you feel the desperate need to show a few people on a football forum what a super intelligent bloke you are.

 

If Scottish Independence did come to pass, there is some disagreement about the possible closure of Faslane and the time scale. You state it could be up to 10 years, according to the Government whereas the Scottish Parliament says 1 year. Plymouth would be cock-a-hoop at the prosperity it would bring them and the allaying of their fears that the UK could not justify sustaining three Naval Bases with the decline of the Navy. Equally of course, there would be the counter argument that the local economy in Scotland would suffer a substantial decline in jobs if Faslane were to be closed. Whatever the cost would be of the removal of the base to England, that would be mitigated by the increase in jobs to England and the savings that would be made from the Barnett Formula, where for every £1 of Government spending per capita on England, an additional 15% is spent in Scotland.

 

Regarding your claim once again, like a stuck record or a parrot with a command of only a few phrases, you continue to assert that the opinions of some organisations or individuals regarding the possible financial repercussions of a Brexit are evidential. They are not. Having made this point so many times, and you having failed to acknowledge that you are wrong, I must conclude that it is really quite pointless arguing with you any further on that. It is getting boring and I am losing the will to live. I have never claimed that there is any evidence either way to support either position, so it would be nonsensical of me to provide you with this evidence of what our position might be when it does not exist. It is you alone who insists in making the unsupportable claims that there is evidence to support your position.

 

The record is also stuck on the matter of the risks involved and whether you care more about the future of future generations than I do. I will respond in similar vein in an attempt to at least get you to understand how arrogant your assertions appear:-

 

It is evident that because you are prepared to take the risks that are attendant upon our continued membership of the sclerotic, overly bureaucratic and undemocratic EU, that as a little European, you care very little for the prospects of our future generations. You are not prepared to grasp the once in a lifetime opportunity on their behalf to free our country from the straight-jacket that our EU membership imposes on us. You really must hate our country for wanting our once proud nation to be subjugated into being one state amongst 28, our once powerful voice in World affairs increasingly less influential. You are content to ignore the potential of increased prosperity that would be gained from making our own trading arrangements with the rest of the World once freed from the bureaucratic restraints imposed on us by Brussels, especially when EU trade is stagnant and many other areas of the World are experiencing substantial growth and it would benefit us greatly to exploit the opportunities offered.

 

See? How does it feel? Does it penetrate?