EU referendum

[badgerx16]

It strikes me that in this referendum we are being asked to choose between bull-sh!t and b0ll0cks.

[Whitey Grandad]

It strikes me that in this referendum we are being asked to choose between bull-sh!t and b0ll0cks.

 

Yes, yes, but which is which???

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I see that in the latest thrilling instalment of 'Wes Tender: His Battle With The Truth' everyones favorite PM hating tory voter opines that moving the UK's nuclear deterrent out of Scotland might take as little as 12 months and presumably would not be a very expensive business. Proof I think (if anymore were needed) that he is incapable of grasping the significance and problems associated with defence issues.

For his information, this problem is not just a simple matter of sailing four submarines out of Faslane and securing them alongside somewhere at Devonport. All experience shows that constructing new nuclear facilities is in fact an enormously difficult, time consuming, and expensive problem - indeed every government project with the word 'nuclear' attached to somewhere is problematic. Those who understand the issue will already know that it is not even a matter restricted to the Faslane submarine base alone - the extensive Trident D5 SLBM handling depot (google 'RNAD Coulport') would have to be replicated in England too. To compound this display of rank ignorance he then tells me that the people of Plymouth would welcome with open arms the prospect of having enough thermonuclear warheads to devastate half the planet placed on their doorstep!

 

Moving on, he returns to his theme that all the evidence in this debate that does not happen to support his point of view is somehow (surprise, surprise) not evidence at all. So then, when the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufactors and Traders) report that 77% of their members support our remaining in the EU that is - according to him - not evidence of opinion within our (resurgent in the EU) motor industry. In the same manner, when expert testimony from Mark Carney (the current Governor of the Bank of England) warning of the potential dangers here to the huge financial services sector of our economy should we leave the EU then this too is not proper evidence and effectively meaningless chat! His arguments are often confused and not thought through, but I think this blanket rejection of the evidence even goes so far as to dismiss research from the highly respected OECD. So when this international organisation suggests leaving the EU would result in our suffering a 3% lower economic growth (than would otherwise be the case) by 2020, then that too can be safely ignored for some reason. How convenient. It seems to me that what he really seeks to "free" us from is not your sterotypical Daily Mail speak "Brussels Straight Jacket", but rather our prosperity.

 

And if Captain Obvious thinks that droning on repetitively about how uncertain the future is represents some kind of new and worthwhile revelation then he is mistaken. Any Human Being with a functioning cerebral cortex knows that the future is difficult to predict. However, where does that banal observation get us when we have to make a VERY important decision in a few weeks time and the British people need some authorative guidance right now? Again, the responsible voter will (I hope) act on the evidence and very nearly all that evidence shows that voting to leave now would endanger the future prosperity of our grand old nation ... oh and likley break it up too.

 

Not that he is very "bothered" about that of course.

[Batman]

EU at its finest. Sign us up for more of this!!!!1

 

 

[Wes Tender]

I see that in the latest thrilling instalment of 'Wes Tender: His Battle With The Truth' everyones favorite PM hating tory voter opines that moving the UK's nuclear deterrent out of Scotland might take as little as 12 months and presumably would not be a very expensive business. Proof I think (if anymore were needed) that he is incapable of grasping the significance and problems associated with defence issues.

For his information, this problem is not just a simple matter of sailing four submarines out of Faslane and securing them alongside somewhere at Devonport. All experience shows that constructing new nuclear facilities is in fact an enormously difficult, time consuming, and expensive problem - indeed every government project with the word 'nuclear' attached to somewhere is problematic. Those who understand the issue will already know that it is not even a matter restricted to the Faslane submarine base alone - the extensive Trident D5 SLBM handling depot (google 'RNAD Coulport') would have to be replicated in England too. To compound this display of rank ignorance he then tells me that the people of Plymouth would welcome with open arms the prospect of having enough thermonuclear warheads to devastate half the planet placed on their doorstep!

 

Moving on, he returns to his theme that all the evidence in this debate that does not happen to support his point of view is somehow (surprise, surprise) not evidence at all. So then, when the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufactors and Traders) report that 77% of their members support our remaining in the EU that is - according to him - not evidence of opinion within our (resurgent in the EU) motor industry. In the same manner, when expert testimony from Mark Carney (the current Governor of the Bank of England) warning of the potential dangers here to the huge financial services sector of our economy should we leave the EU then this too is not proper evidence and effectively meaningless chat! His arguments are often confused and not thought through, but I think this blanket rejection of the evidence even goes so far as to dismiss research from the highly respected OECD. So when this international organisation suggests leaving the EU would result in our suffering a 3% lower economic growth (than would otherwise be the case) by 2020, then that too can be safely ignored for some reason. How convenient. It seems to me that what he really seeks to "free" us from is not your sterotypical Daily Mail speak "Brussels Straight Jacket", but rather our prosperity.

 

And if Captain Obvious thinks that droning on repetitively about how uncertain the future is represents some kind of new and worthwhile revelation then he is mistaken. Any Human Being with a functioning cerebral cortex knows that the future is difficult to predict. However, where does that banal observation get us when we have to make a VERY important decision in a few weeks time and the British people need some authorative guidance right now? Again, the responsible voter will (I hope) act on the evidence and very nearly all that evidence shows that voting to leave now would endanger the future prosperity of our grand old nation ... oh and likley break it up too.

 

Not that he is very "bothered" about that of course.

 

The stuck record that is Chapel End Charlie, once again shows himself up as somebody who refuses to accept that anybody else can express their own opinion on the EU without having their motives questioned, distorted or misinterpreted, in order to suit his own blinkered position.

 

He doesn't know the difference between opinion and evidence, confused by the concept that just because the person or body which espouses an opinion is well qualified in their field, that doesn't mean that their opinions are fact or evidence. Here he is once again peppering his little diatribe with the word, in the vane hope that if he repeats it enough times, it might somehow become true. Many of the same so-called experts predicted the dire consequences of our not joining the Euro, but a healthy scepticism of their opinions cannot be entertained by those who are incapable of learning anything from history that doesn't suit their own agenda.

 

He is incapable of accepting that anybody who wishes to leave the EU has considered the whole picture, not just the economic position and arrived at their own conclusions based on their assessment of the potential risks and benefits that could accrue. Whilst highlighting the risk to our economy in the event of a Brexit, his bone-headed and obstinate stance has never once accepted that there are also risks to the UK in remaining a member of the EU. There are numerous other economists, business leaders, a former Bank of England Governor a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and other influential and qualified opponents of the EU, but their opinions are dismissed or belittled by those like him who don't realise that there are two sides to a coin.

 

Whenever he provides his so-called evidence, that is based on the opinions or projections of some influential body. Whenever I source a quote or argument, that is deemed to be my own personal opinion. Take this little side show issue of the Nuclear submarines for example; the opinion that the base could be moved within a year came from the Scottish Nationalists, so perhaps he ought to have a go at them.

 

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Scottish-independence-mean-closure-Faslane/story-21078690-detail/story.html

 

The article highlights the jobs boost for Plymouth, (which infers of course job losses in Scotland), mentions that there are already nuclear submarines in Plymouth suggesting that expansion of the existing facilities is required, not development of new facilities. Obviously there are those NIMBYs who do not wish to have nuclear facilities near their city, but this has to be seen within the context of the wider debate which also assesses the benefits to the area of the strong Services connection that the Royal Navy brings. Here in that article, is also the opinion expressed by the Scottish Nationalists that the base could be moved within a year. I accept of course, that you are an expert in Naval matters, especially those concerning our Nuclear armaments, so I presume that you had contacted Nicola Sturgeon to point out how her party was talking rubbish. The time scale and cost of that operation by a Government Minister with an agenda to discourage Scottish Independence in their referendum, is very reminiscent of the propaganda put out by some ministers in the remain camp when they wish to discourage voters in this EU referendum. I accept though that your lack of objectivity doesn't allow you any element of scepticism.

 

In order to widen the scope of the debate and knock this boring repetition from you on the head, I have indicated many times that I base my decisions on the much wider picture, whereas all you can do is parrot the same old economic arguments ad nauseam.

 

Let's hear about your position on the other main issues. A simple yes or no will be a quick indication of your stance.

 

Should we have total control of our own borders and who we allow to enter our country?

Should our elected Parliament have supremacy over the unelected EU Commission?

Should our Law Courts have supremacy over the European Justice system?

Is the EU becoming too big and unwieldy? Or should it be expanded still further?

Do you approve of our further integration into a Federal United States of Europe?

Does the massive EU bureaucracy imposed on small businesses hamper them?

Would we benefit from the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals with those nations around the World whose economies are developing the fastest?

Should we reclaim our own territorial waters to revitalise our fishing industry?

Is it preferable that the British Government decides how British taxpayers' monies given to the EU is spent, rather than have them decide how our money is distributed back to us?

Does the unlimited free movement of peoples impose massive pressures on our NHS, housing infrastructure and employment sectors?

 

 

I base much of my stance on these issues. Let us hear how much consideration you give to them.

 

I realise that by expressing an opinion on these things gets one labelled a little Englander, so I appreciate your reticence in commenting on these issues, but if you wish to be perceived as less blinkered on the issues surrounding this debate, you should demonstrate that you have given some appraisal of the wider picture.

[Batman]

excellent

 

Edited 7 May, 2016 by Batman

[Sour Mash]

excellent

 

 

Hannan is brilliant, always enjoy his stuff.

[John B]

The stuck record that is Chapel End Charlie, once again shows himself up as somebody who refuses to accept that anybody else can express their own opinion on the EU without having their motives questioned, distorted or misinterpreted, in order to suit his own blinkered position.

 

He doesn't know the difference between opinion and evidence, confused by the concept that just because the person or body which espouses an opinion is well qualified in their field, that doesn't mean that their opinions are fact or evidence. Here he is once again peppering his little diatribe with the word, in the vane hope that if he repeats it enough times, it might somehow become true. Many of the same so-called experts predicted the dire consequences of our not joining the Euro, but a healthy scepticism of their opinions cannot be entertained by those who are incapable of learning anything from history that doesn't suit their own agenda.

 

He is incapable of accepting that anybody who wishes to leave the EU has considered the whole picture, not just the economic position and arrived at their own conclusions based on their assessment of the potential risks and benefits that could accrue. Whilst highlighting the risk to our economy in the event of a Brexit, his bone-headed and obstinate stance has never once accepted that there are also risks to the UK in remaining a member of the EU. There are numerous other economists, business leaders, a former Bank of England Governor a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and other influential and qualified opponents of the EU, but their opinions are dismissed or belittled by those like him who don't realise that there are two sides to a coin.

 

Whenever he provides his so-called evidence, that is based on the opinions or projections of some influential body. Whenever I source a quote or argument, that is deemed to be my own personal opinion. Take this little side show issue of the Nuclear submarines for example; the opinion that the base could be moved within a year came from the Scottish Nationalists, so perhaps he ought to have a go at them.

 

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Scottish-independence-mean-closure-Faslane/story-21078690-detail/story.html

 

The article highlights the jobs boost for Plymouth, (which infers of course job losses in Scotland), mentions that there are already nuclear submarines in Plymouth suggesting that expansion of the existing facilities is required, not development of new facilities. Obviously there are those NIMBYs who do not wish to have nuclear facilities near their city, but this has to be seen within the context of the wider debate which also assesses the benefits to the area of the strong Services connection that the Royal Navy brings. Here in that article, is also the opinion expressed by the Scottish Nationalists that the base could be moved within a year. I accept of course, that you are an expert in Naval matters, especially those concerning our Nuclear armaments, so I presume that you had contacted Nicola Sturgeon to point out how her party was talking rubbish. The time scale and cost of that operation by a Government Minister with an agenda to discourage Scottish Independence in their referendum, is very reminiscent of the propaganda put out by some ministers in the remain camp when they wish to discourage voters in this EU referendum. I accept though that your lack of objectivity doesn't allow you any element of scepticism.

 

In order to widen the scope of the debate and knock this boring repetition from you on the head, I have indicated many times that I base my decisions on the much wider picture, whereas all you can do is parrot the same old economic arguments ad nauseam.

 

Let's hear about your position on the other main issues. A simple yes or no will be a quick indication of your stance.

 

Should we have total control of our own borders and who we allow to enter our country?

Should our elected Parliament have supremacy over the unelected EU Commission?

Should our Law Courts have supremacy over the European Justice system?

Is the EU becoming too big and unwieldy? Or should it be expanded still further?

Do you approve of our further integration into a Federal United States of Europe?

Does the massive EU bureaucracy imposed on small businesses hamper them?

Would we benefit from the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals with those nations around the World whose economies are developing the fastest?

Should we reclaim our own territorial waters to revitalise our fishing industry?

Is it preferable that the British Government decides how British taxpayers' monies given to the EU is spent, rather than have them decide how our money is distributed back to us?

Does the unlimited free movement of peoples impose massive pressures on our NHS, housing infrastructure and employment sectors?

 

 

I base much of my stance on these issues. Let us hear how much consideration you give to them.

 

I realise that by expressing an opinion on these things gets one labelled a little Englander, so I appreciate your reticence in commenting on these issues, but if you wish to be perceived as less blinkered on the issues surrounding this debate, you should demonstrate that you have given some appraisal of the wider picture.

 

What do you want out of life Wes?

[Wes Tender]

What do you want out of life Wes?

 

It may be exactly the same as what you want out of yours. Who knows? Does your question have any bearing on the referendum debate?

[Wes Tender]

Hannan is brilliant, always enjoy his stuff.

 

Likewise, I had watched that recently and thought it superb. But of course, who is he? He's only a journalist and MEP. His opinions don't carry the weight of somebody from the OECD, or from some accountancy firm, Business organisation, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor or the Treasury. He's only a little Englander, a swivel-eyed loon.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So today we learn that our Wes feels that (what ammounts to) expert testimony is not evidence as far as he is concerned. And to be fair there are two 'schools of thought' in regard to this matter - I.e. his opinion and everyone else's. For the record: if I'm not feeling very well then I might consult a doctor. If some bugger is suing me then a visit to my solicitor would be in order. And if I want to know what impact leaving the EU might have on British business (and hence my livelihood) then the opinions of business leaders are worth listening to methinks. Indeed, who is better qualified to comment on the implacations here for the big financial institutions in the City of London than the Govenor of the Bank of England is?

 

Boris Johnson perhaps

 

I have to ask if all the evidence we see before us here is not good enough for him then what would be? Perhaps if Doctor Who came back in the Tardis from 2026 with a copy of the Financial Times stuck in his back pocket that would do - but something tells me he would then only puff himself up again into full little englander pomposity mode and exclaim that foreigners should mind there own "damn business" once more...

 

He then (despite clearly knowing the square root of bugger-all about defence issues) repeats his opinion that moving our nuclear deterant out of Scotland would not be such a difficult and expensive business. In reply I can only repeat that the best estimates we have state the polar opposit of that. Furthermore, the MOD's record of successfully estimating costs of this nature is in fact an appalling one - so the numbers provided are highly likley to underestimate the true cost. For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8800733/Submarine-jetty-project-is-slammed-for-running-92-million-over-budget.html

 

Yes Devonport already accomdates some RN nuclear submarines. However, I can only assume that he doesn't comprehend the key difference between what is a a nuclear PROPELLED submarine (SSN) and one that is also nuclear ARMED (SSBN). Surely only someone with a passport issued in 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' would think that many English people would welcome a huge new nuclear weapon facility being constructed in their neighbourhood.

 

In wider implacations for our armed forces should Scotland achieve the independance he seeks to encourage, the fact is that the last remaining UK shipyard currently capable of constructing sophisticated frigate or destroyer sized warships is the BAE facility located on the Clyde. Restablishing that capability 'south of the border' would clearly add more yet expense. We might also consider the importance Scottish air bases play in vital RAF 'air policing' taskings and the significant role Scottish battalions have long played in the Army. Naturally the problems here are by no means restricted to defence alone - for example without North Sea oil and gas our balance of payments problems can only worsen (because they become imports) and how are we to divide the UK's national debt between Scotland and what then remains of the UK ..etc ..etc. So all a bit of a unholy mess really.

 

I also see that he chooses to raise the immigration issue again - this despite the fact that I have already informed him (twice I believe) that other comparable nations seeking to gain full access to the EU Single Market have to accept the 'free movement' principle as this is a intrinsic part of the EU Single Market concept. That is what the Single Market is in effect - a place where goods, services, money, and people are free to move according to market demands. We could I suppose reject tariff-free access to what are easily our most important export markets - but only at a cost to our economy and long term national prosperity that is obvious.

 

Naturaly I awaite your reply with interest ... if not much expectation of any originality or indeed reasonable argument.

[Batman]

actually CEC, the city of plymouth publicly announced they would welcome Trident had Scotland voted yes

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Likewise, I had watched that recently and thought it superb. But of course, who is he? He's only a journalist and MEP. His opinions don't carry the weight of somebody from the OECD, or from some accountancy firm, Business organisation, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor or the Treasury. He's only a little Englander, a swivel-eyed loon.

 

No.

 

It is YOU who is busy forging a reputation for themselves on here for swivel-eyed loonery methinks.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

actually CEC, the city of plymouth publicly announced they would welcome Trident had Scotland voted yes

 

They asked everyone did they?

[Batman]

They asked everyone did they?

 

was pretty unanimous from the council/dockyard/and the local media had all sorts of pieces on it. pretty unanimous. Which was a surprise given the massive hot potato it is

[Batman]

also, had Scotland voted yes. Pompey ship builders were still very suitably qualified to produce the nations warships. Pretty obvious it was honed to the Clyde to please the moaning jocks

 

Submarines are not produced in Scotland and the new carriers are all but done

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

was pretty unanimous from the council/dockyard/and the local media had all sorts of pieces on it. pretty unanimous. Which was a surprise given the massive hot potato it is

 

Yeah, in my experience the English people can become enraged whenever someone plans to put it a loft extension in next door. So one suspects that in reality constructing a substantial new nuclear weapon facility in and around the city of Plymouth may just had been just a tad contraversial ..

[Batman]

Yeah, in my experience the English people can become enraged whenever someone plans to put it a loft extension in next door. So one suspects that in reality constructing a substantial new nuclear weapon facility in and around the city of Plymouth may just had been just a tad contraversial ..

 

ok, i live in the city. read/heard/spoke/lived it. but you carry on.

the only thing would need would be to relocated is Coulport. that would not even need to be in plymouth..or in the southwest. or even in England

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

ok, i live in the city. read/heard/spoke/lived it. but you carry on.

the only thing would need would be to relocated is Coulport. that would not even need to be in plymouth..or in the southwest. or even in England

 

You tell me - is reconstructing the Faslane and Coulport nuclear facilities in (or around) a densly populated city of over 250,000 people going to be a straightforward business? Is it even a good idea anyway? I take it you have been to Faslane - that base is set in its relativly rural and isolated location for a reason is it not?

[Batman]

Why would there need to be a reconstruction of faslane for 3x submarines to be berthed alongside in Plymouth? The naval base in Plymouth is a lot bigger than the Clyde and is a full nuclear licensed site

 

Plymouth already has 1 v-class permanently housed and has plenty of room for 2 more.

 

There are enough X-berths (nuclear) in Plymouth to cater for all the Astute/trafalgar class on top of that.

Edited 7 May, 2016 by Batman

[harvey]

Why would there need to be a reconstruction of faslane for 3x submarines to be berthed alongside in Plymouth? The naval base in Plymouth is a lot bigger than the Clyde and is a full nuclear licensed site

 

Plymouth already has 1 v-class permanently housed and has plenty of room for 2 more.

 

There are enough X-berths (nuclear) in Plymouth to cater for all the Astute/trafalgar class on top of that.

 

You're wasting your breath.....you can't teach the deluded.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Why would there need to be a reconstruction of faslane for 3x submarines to be berthed alongside in Plymouth? The naval base in Plymouth is a lot bigger than the Clyde and is a full nuclear licensed site

 

Plymouth already has 1 v-class permanently housed and has plenty of room for 2 more.

 

There are enough X-berths (nuclear) in Plymouth to cater for all the Astute/trafalgar class on top of that.

 

Any SSBN to be found in Devonport would surely be in the refit facility rather than at a operational berth. Furthermore, Devonport is most certainly NOT at all equipped and licensed to handel Trident D5 missiles and their associated thermonuclear warheads - you obviously know that fact of the matter but failed to mention it for some reason. Preliminary research shows that moving UK nuclear facilities out of Scotland might cost £20bn (or more) and take over a decade to realise. Furthermore, if UK armed forces were to have to move out of Scotland alltogether where do you propose we relocate the decommissioned (but still radioactive) RN nuclear submsrines currently located in Rosyth? Devonport is going to get a bit crowded is it not - which is perhaps why a potential alternative base at Milford Haven was also under consideration.

 

Again, there are good reasons I think why we chose (back in the 1960's) to base our SSBN force well away from a heavily populated area.

[Wes Tender]

So today we learn that our Wes feels that (what ammounts to) expert testimony is not evidence (there he goes again) as far as he is concerned. And to be fair there are two 'schools of thought' in regard to this matter - I.e. his opinion and everyone else's. You speak as if nobody else shares my opinions, when mine are often taken from many pro-Brexit sources from across the spectrum of backgrounds of professions of the Brexit campaign. For the record: if I'm not feeling very well then I might consult a doctor. If some bugger is suing me then a visit to my solicitor would be in order. And if I want to know what impact leaving the EU might have on British business (and hence my livelihood) mine too then the opinions of business leaders are worth listening to methinks. Indeed, who is better qualified to comment on the implacations here for the big financial institutions in the City of London than the Governor of the Bank of England is? A former Bank of England Governor. perhaps?

Or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He gave his opinion on information given to him by the Treasury and produced "evidence" lol, which was easily pulled apart. To be fair, there are two types of business, big business and small business. The small businesses are the backbone of the nation and the general consensus amongst their leaders is that they are hampered by the bureaucracy from Brussels.

 

Boris Johnson perhaps

 

I have to ask if all the evidence There you go again we see before us here is not good enough for him then what would be? Perhaps if Doctor Who came back in the Tardis from 2026 with a copy of the Financial Times stuck in his back pocket that would do - but something tells me he would then only puff himself up again into full little englander pomposity mode and exclaim that foreigners should mind there own "damn business" once more...You really could not be more ridiculous with an analogy if you tried. Even if I'm still alive, do you really think that there will be printed newspapers then? Of course, the referendum result would have happened 10 years ago, so if a majority of the electorate believe the propaganda that CEC does and don't care enough about all the other issues that he doesn't even consider important, then we would see the repercussions of the risks involved in our remaining in, especially if the likes of Turkey are allowed to join.

 

He then (despite clearly knowing the square root of bugger-all about defence issues) repeats his opinion It isn't my opinion. I quoted others that I agree with that moving our nuclear deterant out of Scotland would not be such a difficult and expensive business. In reply I can only repeat that the best estimates we have state the polar opposit of that. Furthermore, the MOD's record of successfully estimating costs of this nature is in fact an appalling one - a bit like the Chancellor's so the numbers provided are highly likley to underestimate the true cost. For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8800733/Submarine-jetty-project-is-slammed-for-running-92-million-over-budget.html

 

Yes Devonport already accomdates some RN nuclear submarines. However, I can only assume that he doesn't comprehend the key difference between what is a a nuclear PROPELLED submarine (SSN) and one that is also nuclear ARMED (SSBN). Surely only someone with a passport issued in 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' would think that many English people would welcome a huge new nuclear weapon facility being constructed in their neighbourhood.

 

Batman has shot you down in flames here and as a submariner based in Plymouth, I'm far more inclined to believe his viewpoint. My father was a Naval Officer and I have lived in Plymouth, Chatham and Portsmouth areas as a result. Navy Towns think a bit differently towards issues like this, you know.

 

In wider implacations for our armed forces should Scotland achieve the independance he seeks to encourage, I don't encourage it. They can make up their own minds without the fact is that the last remaining UK shipyard currently capable of constructing sophisticated frigate or destroyer sized warships is the BAE facility located on the Clyde. Wrong.Restablishing that capability 'south of the border' would clearly add more yet expense. We might also consider the importance Scottish air bases play in vital RAF 'air policing' taskings and the significant role Scottish battalions have long played in the Army. Naturally the problems here are by no means restricted to defence alone - for example without North Sea oil and gas our balance of payments problems can only worsen (because they become imports) and how are we to divide the UK's national debt between Scotland and what then remains of the UK ..etc ..etc. So all a bit of a unholy mess really.

 

Look, Scotland isn't going to leave the Union for the reasons given in that article I linked to. You did read it, didn't you?

 

I also see that he chooses to raise the immigration issue again - this despite the fact that I have already informed him (twice I believe) that other comparable nations seeking to gain full access to the EU Single Market have to accept the 'free movement' principle as this is a intrinsic part of the EU Single Market concept. That is what the Single Market is in effect - a place where goods, services, money, and people are free to move according to market demands. We could I suppose reject tariff-free access to what are easily our most important export markets - but only at a cost to our economy and long term national prosperity that is obvious.

 

Once again, you are wrong. I know that you are too bone-headed to accept opinions contrary to what you want to believe, but do have a listen to that excellent commentary by Daniel Hannan. Furthermore, even with tariffs, which would be counter-productive to the EU, they amount to less than we have to pay currently for our membership.

 

Naturaly I awaite your reply with interest ... if not much expectation of any originality or indeed reasonable argument.

 

And equally, I await your reply to the simple questions I asked you which would take us away from the economic debate that you constantly rabbit on about, and towards the other issues that exercise the minds of a substantial proportion of the electorate. Would you like me to post them again, or will you just scroll up a few posts and kindly provide some answers? I have kept it simple for you, as most people could respond with a yes or no.

 

I have highlighted some of your atrocious spelling mistakes in red. Must do better.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Always a sure sign methinks that when you see people resorting to the pettiness of critcising spelling mistakes, rather than attempting to address the issue at hand properly, then you know that they are losing the argument. As for my replies not being comprehensive enough I can only appolgise for this oversight. It is rather difficult however to reply to a large number of different matters in a single post without it starting to resemble a small book!

 

So if you would kindly highlight which particular example of "Brussels meddling" has got you so hot under the collar this morning then I'd be more than happy to address the point - is it the outrage of the new digital tachograph regulations?

 

In the meantime perhaps you would comment on this latest evidence to emerge showing that leaving the EU would be highly disadvantageous to UK science. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/07/uk-life-sciences-health-wealth-would-benefit-from-staying-in-eu

 

Or is this something else that doesn't much bother you?

[Batman]

Any SSBN to be found in Devonport would surely be in the refit facility rather than at a operational berth. Furthermore, Devonport is most certainly NOT at all equipped and licensed to handel Trident D5 missiles and their associated thermonuclear warheads - you obviously know that fact of the matter but failed to mention it for some reason. Preliminary research shows that moving UK nuclear facilities out of Scotland might cost £20bn (or more) and take over a decade to realise. Furthermore, if UK armed forces were to have to move out of Scotland alltogether where do you propose we relocate the decommissioned (but still radioactive) RN nuclear submsrines currently located in Rosyth? Devonport is going to get a bit crowded is it not - which is perhaps why a potential alternative base at Milford Haven was also under consideration.

 

Again, there are good reasons I think why we chose (back in the 1960's) to base our SSBN force well away from a heavily populated area.

why would they need to be housed in a refit complex. without the weapons loaded, they are just like an SSN.

They are not kept in a refit complex in faslane.

 

you say devonport would be crowded, you do realise it is still the largest naval base in Europe and the RN itself is now a shadow of its former self and the dockyard can handle a huge number of vessels compared to what it does today.

 

As for the weapons facilities, they would not need to be in plymouth, or even near plymouth. They would be moved at a huge cost, granted. but lets not pretend it is impossible.

 

the main reason Faslane was chosen in the 1960s (over falmouth) was because of the poor weather and heavy cloud cover. At the time, that provided some protection from Soviet spy satellites. Which of course is redundant now.

 

of course, this was all central in the referendum debate up there because that base is set to grow and already provides vast amounts to the local economy and the No side played up to that

Edited 8 May, 2016 by Batman

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As you know any SSBN found in Devonport will be unarmed, in refit and therefore not operational. The real 'base' for our nuclear deterrent force is in Scotland rather than Devon. The record shows that I have never claimed that moving UK nuclear facilities out of Scotland would be impossible. I do say however that this problem would surely be a expensive, difficult and time consuming matter. That is the point here.

 

As for potential overcrowding, we now have some 19 old decommisioned nuclear submarines still in existance - with more coming as new boats are completed - and a operational fleet of a further 11 boats. I'm not sure that Devonport could easily accomdate that number of hulls without further difficulty and investment.

[Batman]

there are 12 decommissioned subs in devonport. 8 of which are still fuelled

there are 7 in Rosyth. None of which are fuelled.

Where they are in Devonport, there is oodles of space and they will take the remaining T-class SSNs. There is loads of space as none of that area is really used due to the RN being as small as it is.

you keep talking about over-crowding. But devonport is huge. Despite the MoD selling off parts of the old south yard to housing companies and boat builders, it still remains the biggest Naval base in NATO (outside of the USA) and Europe (outside of a Russian one)

 

Source - a very good friend who works in the disposal group and me working there for over 16 years

 

 

anyway, this is way off course from the OP

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

there are 12 decommissioned subs in devonport. 8 of which are still fuelled

there are 7 in Rosyth. None of which are fuelled.

Where they are in Devonport, there is oodles of space and they will take the remaining T-class SSNs. There is loads of space as none of that area is really used due to the RN being as small as it is.

you keep talking about over-crowding. But devonport is huge. Despite the MoD selling off parts of the old south yard to housing companies and boat builders, it still remains the biggest Naval base in NATO (outside of the USA) and Europe (outside of a Russian one)

 

Source - a very good friend who works in the disposal group and me working there for over 16 years

 

 

anyway, this is way off course from the OP

 

If one base can accomodate all these nuclear boats then why do we now use two sites? You tell me. Again the real point here is the expense involved in moving out of Scotland.

[Batman]

If one base can accomodate all these nuclear boats then why do we now use two sites? You tell me. Again the real point here is the expense involved in moving out of Scotland.

 

we have two nuclear sites as strategically, have one is not good. Also, the investment in the local areas is vast (jobs, security etc). the RN could probably have just 1 dockyard now given the size but that would be political suicide for any government. You could probably disband the RAF as the RN and the Army could easily take it on. but that will never happen.

 

I never said there would not be an expense. But had Scotland voted yes, it was very much do-able. Obviously at cost but nothing is free when you move

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So we agree then that moving out of Faslane and Rosyth would involve the MOD in considerable expense and is therefore undesirable - however indifferent one person on here is to the prospect.

[hutch]

Some people might think that the MOD spending large amounts of taxpayer's money on large infrastructure projects in England is probably a good thing. I'm one of those people.

[Wade Garrett]

EU at its finest. Sign us up for more of this!!!!1

 

 

 

How anyone could defend that, the lack of democracy, is beyond me. Hopefully it finds its way onto mainstream broadcasting media. An absolute disgrace.

[Wade Garrett]

They asked everyone did they?

 

Seriously Charlie, are you taking the p!ss!

 

If the EU told everyone to kill their first born, I reckon you would find a way to defend it. It's like the EU is the only vagina out there for you to put your cock in.

[derry]

So if the US and the EU agree the TTIP the NHS will have to be opened up for competitive bidding from US health companies. So the NHS will be privatised and asset stripped. That's clever Dave and George.

 

The Germans have tabled a proposal for a EU army with the German military in command. Their last experience ended in defeat I seem to remember. The only really experienced military in the EU 'at the moment' is the British if a tad under equipped.

 

How's the immigration issue going? I'm not sure that people are buying the shots in the dark on the economic front. I think the main issue, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, " it's immigration stupid" I don't think the politicians have grasped that. Due to get a lot worse before mid summer.

[Batman]

So if the US and the EU agree the TTIP the NHS will have to be opened up for competitive bidding from US health companies. So the NHS will be privatised and asset stripped. That's clever Dave and George.

 

The Germans have tabled a proposal for a EU army with the German military in command. Their last experience ended in defeat I seem to remember. The only really experienced military in the EU 'at the moment' is the British if a tad under equipped.

 

How's the immigration issue going? I'm not sure that people are buying the shots in the dark on the economic front. I think the main issue, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, " it's immigration stupid" I don't think the politicians have grasped that. Due to get a lot worse before mid summer.

 

this is only tip of the iceberg. Incredible how anyone can be so pro EU.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Some people might think that the MOD spending large amounts of taxpayer's money on large infrastructure projects in England is probably a good thing. I'm one of those people.

 

I myself favour that the MOD spends all that it can on procuring the very latest military equipment and ensuring that we still have enough trained personnel to do the job. But 'each to his own' I suppose.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Seriously Charlie, are you taking the p!ss!

 

If the EU told everyone to kill their first born, I reckon you would find a way to defend it.

 

I think you will find that the EU Commission's 'Mandatory Infanticide (2013) Regulation was blocked when France vetoed the proposal on the grounds that they sounded too Jewish.

[Batman]

So.

 

EU Army

Albania and Turkey (plus more horrifically poor countries) joining/being close to joining

10s of Billions of £££ handed over every year

massive population explosion every 12 months. approaching 500k NEW people every year

need to build a house every 7 mins to keep up (lets not mention school/police/NHS needs)

TTiP being forced upon the country (nothing what so ever we can do about it if we remain)

Fishing quotas imposed on our fishermen in our own waters

in a system that is largely undemocratic and pushing full-force for even greater union

unable to negotiate our own trade deals

 

 

sounds amazing

Edited 8 May, 2016 by Batman

[Wade Garrett]

I think you will find that the EU Commission's 'Mandatory Infanticide (2013) Regulation was blocked when France vetoed the proposal on the grounds that they sounded too Jewish.

 

Fair play!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It strikes me that in this referendum we are being asked to choose between bull-sh!t and b0ll0cks.

 

A very straight forward and accurate assessment of our options!

 

The remain camp portray the leave vote as little Englanders but they ignore, probably the majority of us, who believe in the European concept but just think it is currently grossly undemocratic and dysfunctional. Can no-one else recognise that the Euro benefits German exports at the expense of the recovery of struggling economies in southern Europe. The idea that governments like Greece and Italy can have governments imposed on them is appalling and the fact that the EU parliamentary gravy train is increasingly made up of crackpot protest parties is totally ludicrous.

 

Most of all the idea that you can have a right to free movement in the EU when the minimum wage in some parts is more than a fifth less than ourselves is absolutely absurd. It is a magnet that cripples our schools and health care and most importantly when we really need to help good people like the Syrian refugees we have to sit on our hands. Criminal.

 

I hope that we can speak out for the millions of people across Europe who agree. Maybe then we can change Europe to be the ethical trading zone that my parents voted for in the seventies. A vote leave will not be as black and white as marketed it will be a kick up the arse.

Edited 8 May, 2016 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So.

 

EU Army

Albania and Turkey (plus more horrifically poor countries) joining/being close to joining

10s of Billions of £££ handed over every year

massive population explosion every 12 months. approaching 500k NEW people every year

need to build a house every 7 mins to keep up (lets not mention school/police/NHS needs)

TTiP being forced upon the country (nothing what so ever we can do about it if we remain)

Fishing quotas imposed on our fishermen in our own waters

in a system that is largely undemocratic and pushing full-force for even greater union

unable to negotiate our own trade deals

 

 

sounds amazing

 

• There is no suggestion of the UK ever being forced to join some so called 'EU Army' if it did not wish to do so.

• New nations seeking to join the EU are subject to veto power from any existing member state.

• The UK gains far more from its single market access than it makes in (net) contributions to the budget.

• Around half of all net immigration into the UK is from OUTSIDE of the EU. Our economy relies on migrant labour.

• The House building issue is a problem that long predates our EU membership.

• The European Commission has confirmed that health services are not included in the (unsigned) TTIP.

• Fishing quotas are required to maintain fish stocks.

• The European Commission is appointed by the elected governments of member states. MEP's are directly elected.

• The UK is already part of the largest tariff free international market in the world.

[aintforever]

Love the way pro EU people gloss over the uncontrolled mass immigration and its effects.

 

Wages forced downwards for the lowest paid, the housing crisis, public services stretched to breaking point - none of these issues can ever be sorted if we don't have control, or even any idea of how many hundreds of thousands will turn up every year.

[Batman]

Love the way pro EU people gloss over the uncontrolled mass immigration and its effects.

 

Wages forced downwards for the lowest paid, the housing crisis, public services stretched to breaking point - none of these issues can ever be sorted if we don't have control, or even any idea of how many hundreds of thousands will turn up every year.

 

Build a house every 7 mins. And a hospital very 3 months. Be alright!

 

Also, now claimed by the PM that there could/will be war and genocide in Europe if we leave.

 

There is project fear and there is that! Wow!!!!!!

Edited 8 May, 2016 by Batman

[Wes Tender]

Build a house every 7 mins. And a hospital very 3 months. Be alright!

 

Also, now claimed by the PM that there could/will be war and genocide in Europe if we leave.

 

There is project fear and there is that! Wow!!!!!!

 

Presumably this risk of war and genocide in Europe if we voted to leave the EU, did not exist in the few months before Cameron attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate the reforms that he said were required as a condition of our continued membership. Had it existed, then surely our Prime Minister would not have threatened to campaign to leave the EU if those reforms were not forthcoming, when the very security of Europe was in danger if we left.

 

It is all a questions of perspective. The influx of terrorists coming into the EU posing as refugees has to be weighed up against the possibility of World War 3 if we left. It's a shame that NATO will be powerless to prevent it.

[buctootim]

Presumably this risk of war and genocide in Europe if we voted to leave the EU, did not exist in the few months before Cameron attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate the reforms that he said were required as a condition of our continued membership. Had it existed, then surely our Prime Minister would not have threatened to campaign to leave the EU if those reforms were not forthcoming, when the very security of Europe was in danger if we left.

 

It was a totally bizarre claim - and counter productive too I imagine.

[Wes Tender]

It was a totally bizarre claim - and counter productive too I imagine.

 

I agree totally. Cameron doesn't come out of this well at all and his standing amongst the British public has been undermined.

[Whitey Grandad]

I agree totally. Cameron doesn't come out of this well at all and his standing amongst the British public has been undermined.

 

The sign of desperation of a worried man under pressure.

[Wade Garrett]

The sign of desperation of a worried man under pressure.

 

Wise words Whitey, Dave and George aren't handling it too well.

[derry]

The latest scare stories are bizarre. I cannot believe that anybody but a fool would spout such trash. I can't help thinking he really wants out with his behaviour.

[Wes Tender]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7138226/Germany-sabotaged-David-Camerons-EU-renegotiation-and-he-let-them-explosive-claims-from-IDS.html

 

A pretty damning indictment of Cameron's lack of negotiating skills and an excellent strapline for an advertising hoarding campaign:-

 

"We have gone from wanting to lead in Europe to being on the end of a lead in Europe.”