EU referendum

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

what do you think of his performance in answering the questions posed tonight?

 

I think he is fighting his corner quite successfully against a pretty hostile audience. You will think differently of course.

[Batman]

Cameron is normally quite impressive on these but not so far.

 

very worked up when pressed by the audience

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

very worked up when pressed by the audience

 

He looks calm enough to me.

[CB Fry]

very worked up when pressed by the audience

He was calm enough. There were a few dins in awful shirts talking sh ite about the dictatorship and Neville Chamberlain who I would have merrily said "oh, do fu ck off you cretin" to.

 

Probably why I'm not Prime Minister.

[Jonnyboy]

[ScepticalStan]

 

The Cox murderer wasn't really a terrorist though was he? If there was a white supremacist paramilitary organisation which had taken control of an area the size of Great Britain and recruited thousands of people to it's cause that he had pledged allegiance to prior to murdering this woman, then yeah. But there isn't and he hadn't. In fact, he had a history of mental illness confirmed. He literally was a lone crackpot.

 

No-one had any qualms with calling the IRA terrorists or indeed Breivik or McVeigh. Are we seriously supposed to start calling white murderers 'terrorists' even when they're not just to even up the score?

[Jonnyboy]

The Cox murderer wasn't really a terrorist though was he? If there was a white supremacist paramilitary organisation which had taken control of an area the size of Great Britain and recruited thousands of people to it's cause that he had pledged allegiance to prior to murdering this woman, then yeah. But there isn't and he hadn't. In fact, he had a history of mental illness confirmed. He literally was a lone crackpot.

 

No-one had any qualms with calling the IRA terrorists or indeed Breivik or McVeigh. Are we seriously supposed to start calling white murderers 'terrorists' even when they're not just to even up the score?

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/lee-rigby-murderer-adebowale-is-borderline-schizophrenic-recommended-for-broadmoor-9015617.html

[Wes Tender]

You really don't understand the nature of what research evidence is do you? I find this quite remarkable in a man of your age.

 

Researchers can't practically collate patient immigration status with waiting times from every single GP surgery in the land - I doubt these are even generated. So they study what is calculated to be a representative sample and base their conclusions on that. This is reasonable and common practice in the real world. If you on the other hand have any reputable evidence that immigration has significantly incresed GP waiting times (as claimed on here) then I suggest that you either produce it or shut up.

 

Also, I must note (without rising to the bait) that you have elected to call me "arrogant" (for the umpteenth time) while at the same time proudly stating that you intend to ignore everyone else's opinion! This is as clear a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black' as could be possibly imagined. Not for the first time on this thread your epic lack of self-awareness seemingly prevents you from comprehending even this eminently obvious point.

 

LOL. I'm waiting for the next link to some obscure Oxbridge academics' studies and conclusions that large scale immigration can actually reduce the demand for housing and school places. Hurry up with it though, as there are only four days to go to get it out into the public domain.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

^ Why would you care anyway?

 

You have - quite literaly - spent months on here doing little else but attempt to discredit every single devlopment that might question the wisdom of your cause. I sure no one will expect you to change your ways in the last 4 days.

[John B]

Some good news for the Remain Camp but a lot more to come

 

Michael Gove as well as a most of the electorate are appalled by Nigel Farage’s recent Breaking Point poster making Sayeeda Warsi quit the Leave campaign saying "Are we prepared to tell lies, to spread hate and xenophobia just to win a campaign?"

 

 

Economic issues are central to the UK referendum debate. Winners of the Nobel prize in economics believe that the UK would be better off economically inside the EU. British firms and workers need full access to the single market. In addition, Brexit would create major uncertainty about Britain’s alternative future trading arrangements, both with the rest of Europe and with important markets like the USA, Canada and China. And these effects, though one-off, would persist for many years. Thus the economic arguments are clearly in favour of remaining in the EU.

 

George Akerlof

Kenneth Arrow

Angus Deaton

Peter Diamond

James Heckman

Eric Maskin

James Mirrlees

Christopher ****arides

Robert Solow

Jean Tirole

 

 

Turkey is not going to join the EU in the next thirty years just a lie and scaremongering from the Leave team

 

The UK's car industry, more leading businessmen have backed the campaign to stay in the EU.In a joint statement, the car industry's trade body and company executives warned that leaving would increase costs and threaten jobs.

 

Directors at Toyota UK, Vauxhall, Jaguar Land Rover and BMW, as well as from component makers GKN and Magal Engineering, voiced their support.

 

Rory Harvey, chairman of Vauxhall, said: "We are part of a fully integrated European company where we benefit from the free movement of goods and people. We believe not to be part of the EU would be undesirable for our business and the sector as a whole."

 

Richard Scudamore, executive chairman of the Premier League, pledged his support to remain in the EU, and said the 20 clubs in the top tier also wanted to remain.

 

Diageo's chief executive has written to the company's 4,773 UK employees, telling them that it would be "better for the UK, better for Diageo and better for the Scotch whisky industry that we remain in". Mr Menezes said Diageo benefitted from ease of access to the European single market, as well as trade deals that the EU has negotiated with the rest of the world. "The EU has so far concluded, or is negotiating, over 50 of these global agreements, many of which provide significant commercial benefits for Diageo," Mr Menezes said in his letter. Negotiating new deals after a Brexit could take years, he said.

 

This has led to on the betting sites REMAIN 72% LEAVE 28%

[Nolan]

Just noticed baroness warsi had 'defected'.

 

It's very curious that if you google her name & Leave EU for prior to June. Absolutely zero comes up.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[John B]

I was surprised last week that she was in the Leave Camp but she was

 

But here is some even better news

 

Pound and shares soar as Brexit fears ease

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jun/20/pound-shares-markets-eu-referendum-brexit-fears-business-live?page=with:block-5767900de4b0b4b233941b25#block-5767900de4b0b4b233941b25

 

Sterling is rallying hard this morning - another sign that Brexit worries are easing.

 

The pound has jumped more than two cents, or 1.5%, to $1.4572, after weekend opinion polls showed the Remain campaign picking up more support.

 

That’s its highest level since June 7, before opinion polls showed the Leave campaign in the ascendant.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Just noticed baroness warsi had 'defected'.

 

It's very curious that if you google her name & Leave EU for prior to June. Absolutely zero comes up.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Look closer:

 

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/refugees-must-not-be-left-to-drown-off-uk-coast-says-yorkshire-academic-1-7938724

 

Baroness Warsi of Dewsbury, who made history in 2010 when she became the first Muslim to serve in the Cabinet, declined to comment on the tone of the referendum campaign. However the peer, who resigned in 2014, did confirm that she was supporting Britain’s exit from the European Union.

[Nolan]

Seems I want the only one who noticed and the times amended their headline

 

http://order-order.com/2016/06/20/warsi-wanted-europe-declined-join-leave-campaign/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

So Baroness Warsi who has been invisible during the campaign decided to swap sides. Meanwhile, Switzerland decides to withdraw its interest in joining the EU. They obviously don't realise the damage that this will do their economy, which will nosedive into decline right away.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So Baroness Warsi who has been invisible during the campaign decided to swap sides. Meanwhile, Switzerland decides to withdraw its interest in joining the EU. They obviously don't realise the damage that this will do their economy, which will nosedive into decline right away.

 

You feel that deciding not to join the EU is the same thing as leaving it after 43 years of successful membership?

 

One flew over the cuckoo's nest .... and landed on here it seems.

[moonraker]

So Baroness Warsi who has been invisible during the campaign decided to swap sides. Meanwhile, Switzerland decides to withdraw its interest in joining the EU. They obviously don't realise the damage that this will do their economy, which will nosedive into decline right away.

 

Prey tell the significance of a small, albeit very successful, landlocked country with a long history of neutralism and non-alignment having any bearing on the choice facing the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, an historic seafaring globally engaged nation. Your predilection to draw analogies where there are none is further evidence, as if any were required, of your poor grasp of the situation and the momentous decision we face.

Edited 20 June, 2016 by moonraker

[OldNick]

very worked up when pressed by the audience

I thought he showed passion, not worked up. The only time he was flustered was when he was put on the spot about the silver bullet and immigration.

[Wes Tender]

You feel that deciding not to join the EU is the same thing as leaving it after 43 years of successful membership?

 

One flew over the cuckoo's nest .... and landed on here it seems.

 

Did I say that they were the same thing? No, I thought not. Frankly I'm surprised that at your age your understanding of the English language is so lacking. Just to clarify for your benefit, what I posted was merely a throwaway line; that one news event was an individual deciding to switch allegiances in the Referendum debate, whereas simultaneously here was another news item reporting that an important European Country had decided after deliberations over many years that they did not wish to join the sclerotic EU.

 

Clear?

[Wes Tender]

Prey tell the significance of a small, albeit very successful, landlocked country with a long history of neutralism and non-alignment having any bearing on the choice facing the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, an historic seafaring globally engaged nation. Your predilection to draw analogies where there are none is further evidence, as if any were required, of your poor grasp of the situation and the momentous decision we face.

 

It will be up to the electorate to decide the significance of Switzerland deciding not to join the EU. I note that you don't think it very significant, but effectively the Swiss, as one of the richest and most successful economies in the World have decided that they can do far better outside the EU, as could we. As you rightly say we are a great seafaring nation, with a glorious history of global trade. I'm pleased to hear that you espouse our historic background that makes us much more disposed towards looking outwards to the opportunities of World trade rather than being happy to be just one small part of an organisation comprising 28 other Countries who can and do frequently outvote us.

 

Having been an advocate for leaving the EU since Maastricht, I am perfectly well aware of how momentous this decision is for us as a nation.

 

PS. The post you quoted was not meant to be an analogy.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Backtracking already Wes?

 

You were attempting to draw some (bogus) analogy between Switzerland deciding not to join the EU (at this time) with the impact our leaving the EU would have now. Not only are the two situations not very comparable, they are I think OBVIOUSLY not very comparable. But that did not stop you trying anyway of course.

 

As for making yourself "clear" this is something I can agree with. Indeed, the campaign of denial and misinformation you have elected to wage on here closely mirrors the shameless lies, evasions and predudice the official 'Project Squalid' has subjected the British people to. This has all been utterly transparent ever since this thread started.

 

Why don't you go back to critcising spelling mistakes again? Let's face it, you're not much good at the issues are you?

[trousers]

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

Turkey is not going to join the EU in the next thirty years just a lie and scaremongering from the Leave team

 

 

Let's look at some facts before throwing accusations about lies.

 

It is British government policy for turkey to join the EU

 

Thir embassy in turkeys website says it is working towards turkey joining

 

The pm has repeatedly ( prior to the referendum) said he wants turkey to join, is its strongest advocate of it joining and the EU is safer with turkey in.

 

The EU recently did a deal where their membership was accelerated.

 

We have paid 1billion pounds to a fund to help turkey join.

 

It is Eu policy for turkey to join.

 

The pm refused 4 times to say he'll veto their membership .

 

Now you can say that you still don't think they'll join, that's an opinion, but in light of the above its not a lie.

 

If it's a lie , let's stop giving them money to help them join. We need it hete

 

If it's a lie let's stop civil servants working on it.

 

If it's a lie let the prime minister say he'll use his veto.

 

And if it's a lie let's have the Eu & our government change its policy.

[shurlock]

It will be up to the electorate to decide the significance of Switzerland deciding not to join the EU. I note that you don't think it very significant, but effectively the Swiss, as one of the richest and most successful economies in the World have decided that they can do far better outside the EU, as could we. As you rightly say we are a great seafaring nation, with a glorious history of global trade. I'm pleased to hear that you espouse our historic background that makes us much more disposed towards looking outwards to the opportunities of World trade rather than being happy to be just one small part of an organisation comprising 28 other Countries who can and do frequently outvote us.

 

Having been an advocate for leaving the EU since Maastricht, I am perfectly well aware of how momentous this decision is for us as a nation.

 

PS. The post you quoted was not meant to be an analogy.

 

 

Remind me how much trade the UK does with the big emerging economies of the world?

 

You've not got a clue, Les.

Edited 20 June, 2016 by shurlock

[John B]

Let's look at some facts before throwing accusations about lies.

 

It is British government policy for turkey to join the EU

 

Thir embassy in turkeys website says it is working towards turkey joining

 

The pm has repeatedly ( prior to the referendum) said he wants turkey to join, is its strongest advocate of it joining and the EU is safer with turkey in.

 

The EU recently did a deal where their membership was accelerated.

 

We have paid 1billion pounds to a fund to help turkey join.

 

It is Eu policy for turkey to join.

 

The pm refused 4 times to say he'll veto their membership .

 

Now you can say that you still don't think they'll join, that's an opinion, but in light of the above its not a lie.

 

If it's a lie , let's stop giving them money to help them join. We need it hete

 

If it's a lie let's stop civil servants working on it.

 

If it's a lie let the prime minister say he'll use his veto.

 

And if it's a lie let's have the Eu & our government change its policy.

 

It is a lie to say that Turkey are about to join the EU they might join in the future so might Russia but not for decades surely helping Turkey to become a Western democracy is a good thing is it not

 

But as I only have three posts I would like to reply to the out warrior Wes Tender on Switzerland and not discuss blatant fear mongering further

 

Switzerland’s longstanding application to join the EU has not had a significant impact on the country’s politics for more than 20 years, as its accession negotiations have been suspended since 1992 in the wake of a referendum to join the European Economic Area, when the Swiss voted down the idea of closer ties with the EU.

 

Some politicians even argued that the vote was an unnecessary formal procedure that didn’t make much sense as Switzerland is no longer regarded by the EU as an official candidate to join the block so not particularly relevant but more relevant is that other small Balkan countries wish to join as they see economic advantages to joining the EU.

 

If we leave do you fancy Boris for PM and Farage an unelected member of the House of Lords is Boris going to close the unelected Lords and what is he going to do about the monarchy as we cant vote them out.

 

I agree with Michael Heseltine that Boris does not seem to have the right values to be PM not that Cameron has either

 

The reason I mentioned this is that I saw this fascinating insight into Brexit and Boris Johnson, by his former colleague Martin Fletcher, a former Times foreign correspondent

 

For 25 years our press has fed the British public a diet of distorted, mendacious and relentlessly hostile stories about the EU - and the journalist who set the tone was Boris Johnson.

I know this because I was appointed Brussels correspondent of The Times in 1999, a few years after Johnson’s stint there for The Telegraph, and I had to live with the consequences.

Johnson, sacked by The Times in 1988 for fabricating a quote, made his mark in Brussels not through fair and balanced reporting, but through extreme euro-scepticism. He seized every chance to mock or denigrate the EU, filing stories that were undoubtedly colourful but also grotesquely exaggerated or completely untrue.

The Telegraph loved it. So did the Tory Right. Johnson later confessed: “Everything I wrote from Brussels, I found was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party, and it really gave me this I suppose rather weird sense of power."

Johnson’s reports also had an amazing, explosive effect on the rest of Fleet Street. They were much more fun than the usual dry and rather complex Brussels fare. News editors on other papers, particularly but not exclusively the tabloids, started pressing their own correspondents to match them. By the time I arrived in Brussels editors only wanted stories about faceless Brussels eurocrats imposing absurd rules on Britain, or scheming Europeans ganging up on us, or British prime ministers fighting plucky rearguard actions against a hostile continent. Much of Fleet Street seemed unable to view the EU through any other prism. It was the only narrative it was interested in.

Stories that did not bash Brussels, stories that acknowledged the EU’s many achievements, stories that recognised that Britain had many natural allies in Europe and often won important arguments, almost invariably ended up on the spike.

Boris Johnson is now campaigning against the cartoon caricature of the EU that he himself created. He is campaigning against a largely fictional EU that bears no relation to reality. That is why he and his fellow Brexiteers could win next week. Johnson may be witty and amusing, just as Donald Rumsfeld was in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but he is extremely dangerous. What began as a bit of a jape could inflict terrible damage on this country.

[buctootim]

Let's look at some facts before throwing accusations about lies.

 

It is British government policy for turkey to join the EU

 

Thir embassy in turkeys website says it is working towards turkey joining

 

The pm has repeatedly ( prior to the referendum) said he wants turkey to join, is its strongest advocate of it joining and the EU is safer with turkey in.

 

The EU recently did a deal where their membership was accelerated.

 

We have paid 1billion pounds to a fund to help turkey join.

 

It is Eu policy for turkey to join.

 

The pm refused 4 times to say he'll veto their membership .

 

Now you can say that you still don't think they'll join, that's an opinion, but in light of the above its not a lie.

 

If it's a lie , let's stop giving them money to help them join. We need it hete

 

If it's a lie let's stop civil servants working on it.

 

If it's a lie let the prime minister say he'll use his veto.

 

And if it's a lie let's have the Eu & our government change its policy.

 

The join EU push was the pet project of the PM Davutoglu and he has gone, lost a power battle with Erdogan. Erdogan is now taking the country on a authoritarian non secular path further away from the EU. not closer to it. However the EU currently need Turkey to take the Syrian refugees and to help end the fighting there - as they supply IS - so no-one is going to say anything to rock that boat. The EU aren't going to admit any country which doesn't meet a range of non negotiable standards on free press, human rights etc.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/turkey-erdogan-eu-160506132224863.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/erdogans-draconian-new-law-demolish-turkeys-eu-ambitions

Edited 20 June, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

Backtracking already Wes?

 

You were attempting to draw some (bogus) analogy between Switzerland deciding not to join the EU (at this time) with the impact our leaving the EU would have now. Not only are the two situations not very comparable, they are I think OBVIOUSLY not very comparable. But that did not stop you trying anyway of course.

 

As for making yourself "clear" this is something I can agree with. Indeed, the campaign of denial and misinformation you have elected to wage on here closely mirrors the shameless lies, evasions and predudice the official 'Project Squalid' has subjected the British people to. This has all been utterly transparent ever since this thread started.

 

Why don't you go back to critcising spelling mistakes again? Let's face it, you're not much good at the issues are you?

 

Sorry, but I'm not backtracking at all. And once again, despite having it explained to you, you're really not very good at understanding plain English, are you? I have already said that it was not an analogy, that it was just two unconnected incidences, an individual's position on our membership of the EU (not ours) and a Country's position on their prospective membership position.

 

Making myself clear, referred to correcting your poor grasp of the written word, rather than to opinions on the referendum. I accept that both sides have indulged in propaganda; do you? Of course my position in this debate has been transparent since this thread started, as is yours and Timmy's. Well done for reaching that conclusion.

 

Regarding the spelling, I have now noted that you have managed to accumulate three separate spellings for Brexit. As Eric Morecambe quipped when challenged on his piano playing, they were all the right notes, but not necessarily in the correct order.

[buctootim]

I saw this fascinating insight into Brexit and Boris Johnson, by his former colleague Martin Fletcher, a former Times foreign correspondent

 

For 25 years our press has fed the British public a diet of distorted, mendacious and relentlessly hostile stories about the EU - and the journalist who set the tone was Boris Johnson.

I know this because I was appointed Brussels correspondent of The Times in 1999, a few years after Johnson’s stint there for The Telegraph, and I had to live with the consequences.

Johnson, sacked by The Times in 1988 for fabricating a quote, made his mark in Brussels not through fair and balanced reporting, but through extreme euro-scepticism. He seized every chance to mock or denigrate the EU, filing stories that were undoubtedly colourful but also grotesquely exaggerated or completely untrue.

The Telegraph loved it. So did the Tory Right. Johnson later confessed: “Everything I wrote from Brussels, I found was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party, and it really gave me this I suppose rather weird sense of power."

Johnson’s reports also had an amazing, explosive effect on the rest of Fleet Street. They were much more fun than the usual dry and rather complex Brussels fare. News editors on other papers, particularly but not exclusively the tabloids, started pressing their own correspondents to match them. By the time I arrived in Brussels editors only wanted stories about faceless Brussels eurocrats imposing absurd rules on Britain, or scheming Europeans ganging up on us, or British prime ministers fighting plucky rearguard actions against a hostile continent. Much of Fleet Street seemed unable to view the EU through any other prism. It was the only narrative it was interested in.

Stories that did not bash Brussels, stories that acknowledged the EU’s many achievements, stories that recognised that Britain had many natural allies in Europe and often won important arguments, almost invariably ended up on the spike.

Boris Johnson is now campaigning against the cartoon caricature of the EU that he himself created. He is campaigning against a largely fictional EU that bears no relation to reality. That is why he and his fellow Brexiteers could win next week. Johnson may be witty and amusing, just as Donald Rumsfeld was in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but he is extremely dangerous. What began as a bit of a jape could inflict terrible damage on this country.

 

Very interesting quote, thanks. Obviously I knew about the widespread EU distortions in much of the press , but not the origins of it.

 

I used to meet with Maria Damanaki, the former EU commissioner for fisheries, as she developed the CFP reforms. She had a total staff of 13 people. The UK Fisheries minister had a staff of hundreds. The idea that the EU is some huge bureaucracy is just a media construct for gullible people.

Edited 20 June, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

 

Remind me how much trade the UK does with the big emerging economies of the world?

 

You've not got a clue, Les.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/26/the-truth-about-britains-trade-outside-the-european-union/

 

Typical of your snide MO, Shylock. A simple one-liner disparaging the poster without resorting to any constructive debate of opinions when they run contrary to yours. It really is a quick fix, which inflates your idea of your own self-worth whilst superficially inferring that you know what you are talking about.

 

Our trade with the rest of the World is hampered by our membership of the EU. Call me Dave yesterday cited the length of time that the EU had taken negotiating a trade deal with Canada and insinuated that little Olde England would therefore take even longer. The possibility that having to satisfy the selfish interests of another 27 countries might well have prolonged the process, or that our historic connections with Canada, the common language and our shared cultural backgrounds might be advantageous in reducing the negotiating timescale don't appear to have occurred to him.

[buctootim]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/26/the-truth-about-britains-trade-outside-the-european-union/

 

Typical of your snide MO, Shylock. A simple one-liner disparaging the poster without resorting to any constructive debate of opinions when they run contrary to yours. It really is a quick fix, which inflates your idea of your own self-worth whilst superficially inferring that you know what you are talking about.

 

Our trade with the rest of the World is hampered by our membership of the EU. Call me Dave yesterday cited the length of time that the EU had taken negotiating a trade deal with Canada and insinuated that little Olde England would therefore take even longer. The possibility that having to satisfy the selfish interests of another 27 countries might well have prolonged the process, or that our historic connections with Canada, the common language and our shared cultural backgrounds might be advantageous in reducing the negotiating timescale don't appear to have occurred to him.

 

He's right though, you really don't. Until you learn to read research instead of Express reports of research you will continue to flounder and make a fool of yourself.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Sorry, but I'm not backtracking at all. And once again, despite having it explained to you, you're really not very good at understanding plain English, are you? I have already said that it was not an analogy, that it was just two unconnected incidences, an individual's position on our membership of the EU (not ours) and a Country's position on their prospective membership position.

 

Making myself clear, referred to correcting your poor grasp of the written word, rather than to opinions on the referendum. I accept that both sides have indulged in propaganda; do you? Of course my position in this debate has been transparent since this thread started, as is yours and Timmy's. Well done for reaching that conclusion.

 

Regarding the spelling, I have now noted that you have managed to accumulate three separate spellings for Brexit. As Eric Morecambe quipped when challenged on his piano playing, they were all the right notes, but not necessarily in the correct order.

 

Whenever you see aging right-wing 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' types (such as yourself) attempting to score petty pints about spelling etc (and then keeping score!) you know full well that this is always a telling insight into their character - so please carry on. As for my comprehension I read you like a book - all that petty predudice, xenophobia and longing for a past Britian that only looks such a fine place through the lenes of rose-tinted spectacles. It's quite pathetic really.

 

Yes both sides are indeed engaging in propaganda, I have conceeded that very point several times on here already - do try to keep up. But there is a difference I think between spinning the evidence and facts of the matter to within a inch of their life and then outright lies - such as the notorious '£350m a week' whopper your side still clings to I note.

 

You defend every other offence against reason Project Squalid come up with, so why not defend that one if you can.

[rpb]

Some surprisingly good insights here for the USA from John Oliver ...

[Wes Tender]

Whenever you see aging right-wing 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' types (such as yourself) attempting to score petty pints about spelling etc (and then keeping score!) you know full well that this is always a telling insight into their character - so please carry on. As for my comprehension I read you like a book - all that petty predudice, xenophobia and longing for a past Britian that only looks such a fine place through the lenes of rose-tinted spectacles. It's quite pathetic really.

 

Yes both sides are indeed engaging in propaganda, I have conceeded that very point several times on here already - do try to keep up. But there is a difference I think between spinning the evidence and facts of the matter to within a inch of their life and then outright lies - such as the notorious '£350m a week' whopper your side still clings to I note.

 

You defend every other offence against reason Project Squalid come up with, so why not defend that one if you can.

 

The £350 million figure has been defended as a gross amount, akin to somebody's earnings before deductions. Personally I would prefer it to be quoted as the net figure, but as the Remain camp put out the scandalous "every household would be £4300 worse off" statement, then let's see you defend that. Even last night, Call me Dave insisted that we risked our trade with the EU's 508 million population, rather carelessly overlooking that 65 million of them were us in the UK.

 

I'm not longing for a past Britain; I'm optimistic for our future prosperity outside of the stagnant EU, and better prospects for future generations. I realise that this is a concept that you cannot countenance, that in your blinkered mindset an assured future is only cemented by belonging to this failed project, but it seems that pretty well half of the electorate share this vision, so go ahead and label them all as deluded fantasists if it makes you feel better.

[shurlock]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/26/the-truth-about-britains-trade-outside-the-european-union/

 

Typical of your snide MO, Shylock. A simple one-liner disparaging the poster without resorting to any constructive debate of opinions when they run contrary to yours. It really is a quick fix, which inflates your idea of your own self-worth whilst superficially inferring that you know what you are talking about.

 

Our trade with the rest of the World is hampered by our membership of the EU. Call me Dave yesterday cited the length of time that the EU had taken negotiating a trade deal with Canada and insinuated that little Olde England would therefore take even longer. The possibility that having to satisfy the selfish interests of another 27 countries might well have prolonged the process, or that our historic connections with Canada, the common language and our shared cultural backgrounds might be advantageous in reducing the negotiating timescale don't appear to have occurred to him.

 

Dear god, les you could have done much better than citing Peter Lilley

 

As it stands:

 

The UK currently exports more to Ireland than China and HK combined. FACT

 

Only nine percent of UK exports go to the seven largest emerging economies. FACT

 

Still, in the deluded brexiter world, the UK will 'do a Canada' and/or rely on WTO rules to access European and other markets. The vain hope that it can cut and paste its former EU-negotiated trade deals has been effectively dismissed by the WTO Director-General FWIW. As such, the UK would have to negotiate thousands of tariffs covering its entire trade portfolio and lose preferential access to 58 countries covered by those EU-negotiated deals - tantamount to £9bn of additional tariffs on goods imports to UK consumers and a £5bn tariff on British exports at destination. Even assuming the UK can overcome all this, the WTO (or even the Canadian deal with the EU for that matter) doesn't cover most services, an area in which the UK enjoys a comparative advantage and consistently runs a trade surplus.

 

Still it is not as deluded as your whopper that the UK will strike bilateral trade deals in double-quick time because of "shared language and culture". The likes of the US, India and China are negotiating new deals with the EU and for the foreseeable future couldn't give two s**ts about a market of 65 million consumers compared to the EU's 500 million. Or at least won't move until the UK clarifies its trade relationship with the EU.

 

Despite your blabbering about selfish interests, there is a reason why negotiations with the likes of China and other emerging economies take time. Trade negotiations are inherently complex -as the WTO DG points out merely adjusting members’ existing terms can often take several years to complete - in some cases up to 10 years. With politically and institutionally opaque economies like China that are home to all kinds of trade distortions, the challenges of securing a level playing field are compounded. Never mind the bargaining power that comes with negotiating en masse, unlike the pretty friendly -and some one would say one-sided deals that China has been able to strike when negotiating bilaterally.

 

But hey the UK is special and different, aint she pal.

Edited 20 June, 2016 by shurlock

[OldNick]

Whenever you see aging right-wing 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' types (such as yourself) attempting to score petty pints about spelling etc (and then keeping score!) you know full well that this is always a telling insight into their character - so please carry on. As for my comprehension I read you like a book - all that petty predudice, xenophobia and longing for a past Britian that only looks such a fine place through the lenes of rose-tinted spectacles. It's quite pathetic really. Yes both sides are indeed engaging in propaganda, I have conceeded that very point several times on here already - do try to keep up. But there is a difference I think between spinning the evidence and facts of the matter to within a inch of their life and then outright lies - such as the notorious '£350m a week' whopper your side still clings to I note.You defend every other offence against reason Project Squalid come up with, so why not defend that one if you can.

Im still not sure which way to go, but Canada is not really the way I expect Britain to be. They are on the doorstep of the worlds major power and have that to help motor their economy. If immigration was not an issue Iam certian that the leave vote woud be miles behind as Im suire most of the population understands that being in gives us much economic advantages.The vote seems to me to have become a case of if we leave we may have a better say in immigration and if we stay we have to follow Europe. There has been little else on the agenda.

[buctootim]

Im still not sure which way to go, but Canada is not really the way I expect Britain to be. They are on the doorstep of the worlds major power and have that to help motor their economy. If immigration was not an issue Iam certian that the leave vote woud be miles behind as Im suire most of the population understands that being in gives us much economic advantages.The vote seems to me to have become a case of if we leave we may have a better say in immigration and if we stay we have to follow Europe. There has been little else on the agenda.

 

Thats basically it imo. What swayed it for me is that the British government could bring non EU immigration down but choose not to - despite clamour from the electorate - because multinational businesses want free movement of staff and low margin employers want cheap labour. A shortfall in EU labour would simply result in more non EU immigration. Once you realise the numbers wouldn't change if we left then there becomes no reason to take the economic hit.

[Johnny Bognor]

For 25 years our press has fed the British public a diet of distorted, mendacious and relentlessly hostile stories about the EU - and the journalist who set the tone was Boris Johnson.

I know this because I was appointed Brussels correspondent of The Times in 1999, a few years after Johnson’s stint there for The Telegraph, and I had to live with the consequences.

Johnson, sacked by The Times in 1988 for fabricating a quote, made his mark in Brussels not through fair and balanced reporting, but through extreme euro-scepticism. He seized every chance to mock or denigrate the EU, filing stories that were undoubtedly colourful but also grotesquely exaggerated or completely untrue.

The Telegraph loved it. So did the Tory Right. Johnson later confessed: “Everything I wrote from Brussels, I found was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party, and it really gave me this I suppose rather weird sense of power."

Johnson’s reports also had an amazing, explosive effect on the rest of Fleet Street. They were much more fun than the usual dry and rather complex Brussels fare. News editors on other papers, particularly but not exclusively the tabloids, started pressing their own correspondents to match them. By the time I arrived in Brussels editors only wanted stories about faceless Brussels eurocrats imposing absurd rules on Britain, or scheming Europeans ganging up on us, or British prime ministers fighting plucky rearguard actions against a hostile continent. Much of Fleet Street seemed unable to view the EU through any other prism. It was the only narrative it was interested in.

Stories that did not bash Brussels, stories that acknowledged the EU’s many achievements, stories that recognised that Britain had many natural allies in Europe and often won important arguments, almost invariably ended up on the spike.

Boris Johnson is now campaigning against the cartoon caricature of the EU that he himself created. He is campaigning against a largely fictional EU that bears no relation to reality. That is why he and his fellow Brexiteers could win next week. Johnson may be witty and amusing, just as Donald Rumsfeld was in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but he is extremely dangerous. What began as a bit of a jape could inflict terrible damage on this country.

 

Very interesting and obviously a more principled man that Corbyn, who now supports something he spent his life fighting against ;-)

[Wes Tender]

Dear god, les you could have done much better than citing Peter Lilley

 

As it stands:

 

The UK currently exports more to Ireland than China and HK combined. FACT

 

Only nine percent of UK exports go to the seven largest emerging economies. FACT

 

Still, in the deluded brexiter world, the UK will 'do a Canada' and/or rely on WTO rules to access European and other markets. The vain hope that it can cut and paste its former EU-negotiated trade deals has been effectively dismissed by the WTO Director-General FWIW. As such, the UK would have to negotiate thousands of tariffs covering its entire trade portfolio and lose preferential access to 58 countries covered by those EU-negotiated deals - tantamount to £9bn of additional tariffs on goods imports to UK consumers and a £5bn tariff on British exports at destination. Even assuming the UK can overcome all this, the WTO (or even the Canadian deal with the EU for that matter) doesn't cover most services, an area in which the UK enjoys a comparative advantage and consistently runs a trade surplus.

 

Still it is not as deluded as your whopper that the UK will strike bilateral trade deals in double-quick time because of "shared language and culture". The likes of the US, India and China are negotiating new deals with the EU and for the foreseeable future couldn't give two s**ts about a market of 65 million consumers compared to the EU's 500 million. Or at least won't move until the UK clarifies its trade relationship with the EU.

 

Despite your blabbering about selfish interests, there is a reason why negotiations with the likes of China and other emerging economies take time. Trade negotiations are inherently complex -as the WTO DG points out merely adjusting members’ existing terms can often take several years to complete - in some cases up to 10 years. With politically and institutionally opaque economies like China that are home to all kinds of trade distortions, the challenges of securing a level playing field are compounded. Never mind the bargaining power that comes with negotiating en masse, unlike the pretty friendly -and some one would say one-sided deals that China has been able to strike when negotiating bilaterally.

 

But hey the UK is special and different, aint she pal.

 

Firstly, I'm not your pal.

 

Secondly, who to believe regarding Trade, eh? The former Trade and Industry Minister, or Shylock, whose expertise on trade is an unknown quantity to me.

 

I was aware that our trade with Ireland was greater than that to China and Hong Kong combined, but that fact is usually used to demonstrate the point I made, that the EU comprising 28 member states makes it incredibly difficult to finalise trade deals with the significant players because of conflicts of interest involving one or more members of the EU. The EU's trade deals are hardly a shining example of how good they are at arranging these things.

 

We have several options available to us apart from the WTO route post a Brexit, and two years to sort it out when things will continue much as they are. I'm confident that despite of all the forecasts of doom and gloom from Call me Dave and Osborne, that the various options have long ago been discussed and that once they have realise that Project Fear has failed to frighten the electorate, those contingency plans will spring into action and they will have their minds concentrated on whether they can remain in power at the next General Election by persuading the electorate of their capabilities.

 

Despite all the bluster about how this is strictly a one off in/out vote, the implications of our departure will be seismic to the EU and open up the probability that the Euro will collapse and other members will hold their own referenda and follow us out of the door. We could therefore arrive at a situation that continued trade between the EU Countries that remain and those who could choose to leave will be vital to keep their economies going and that reforms will take place which would make it more attractive for us to consider rejoining, or even that a two-tier project might emerge

 

Just a small correction though, you appear to have ignored the point I made earlier that the EU market of 500 million, includes our 65 million population.

[Joesaint]

For the sake of democracy VOTE LEAVE

[saint si]

For the sake of democracy VOTE LEAVE

 

You make a strong argument.

 

How about mine... for the sake of democracy AND the economy vote REMAIN.

[Nolan]

You make a strong argument.

 

How about mine... for the sake of democracy AND the economy vote REMAIN.

Please explain how letting Neil kinnock and Peter mandelson make laws is democratic?

[buctootim]

Please explain how letting Neil kinnock and Peter mandelson make laws is democratic?

 

They don't. Does that clarify things in any way?

[Nolan]

They don't. Does that clarify things in any way?

I don't think you understand what European commissioners do. You might want to read up on it before you vote.

[buctootim]

I don't think you understand what European commissioners do. You might want to read up on it before you vote.

 

Which laws do they make?

[View From The Top]

Not all outers are racist but all racists are outers. #justsaying.

[Nolan]

Not all outers are racist but all racists are outers. #justsaying.

So all the anti semites in the labour party are voting leave? I expect a comfortable win then.

[Nolan]

Which laws do they make?

Seeing as meps don't make laws.... I'll let you do the math.

[buctootim]

All laws are made by MEPs and the Council of Ministers.

 

The commissioners propose laws which then have to be approved by both the MEPs and the Council.

Edited 20 June, 2016 by buctootim

[Nolan]

All laws are made by MEPs and the Council of Ministers.

 

The commissioners propose laws which then have to be approved by both the MEPs and the Council.

So we get to be 1/28 of the vote for laws that commissioners make up.

 

Or 1/1 of the vote for laws that British politicians make up.

 

Hmmmmm

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Firstly, I'm not your pal.

 

Secondly, who to believe regarding Trade, eh? The former Trade and Industry Minister, or Shylock, whose expertise on trade is an unknown quantity to me.

 

I was aware that our trade with Ireland was greater than that to China and Hong Kong combined, but that fact is usually used to demonstrate the point I made, that the EU comprising 28 member states makes it incredibly difficult to finalise trade deals with the significant players because of conflicts of interest involving one or more members of the EU. The EU's trade deals are hardly a shining example of how good they are at arranging these things.

 

We have several options available to us apart from the WTO route post a Brexit, and two years to sort it out when things will continue much as they are. I'm confident that despite of all the forecasts of doom and gloom from Call me Dave and Osborne ...

 

Rest assured that there is no need to inform me that I am not your "pal".

 

With what I have come to recognise as a typical degree of duplicity, I see you are now implying that forecasts of economic turmoil and decline that may well lay ahead for the UK economy originate from politicians, when every man (and his dog) on here knows that virtualy every serious economist predicts this and they are supported in that assessment by the majority of our business leaders. This is beyond clear now. Your only reply to this key point is to endlessly parrot deeply unconvincing Vote Leave accusations of corruption and/or incompetence against all those who disagree with their view. How very convenient.

 

As for your blithe assumption that the UK can somehow quickly and easily form new trading arrangments with other nation states this attitude betrays your abysmally poor understanding of the complexity of the issue. More significantly, this also flies in the face of authoritative advice offered to the British people recently by the head of the World Trade Organisation :

 

https://next.ft.com/content/745d0ea2-222d-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

 

But if you can provide any reason at all why people should take your word for it ahead of the WTO's Roberto Azevêdo then by all means give it a go. Indeed, I can hardly wait ...