The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Kiwi LS2 said:
Does anyone know any further info into how the OECD arrived at this conclusion?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-oecd-i...
It seems they are in part echoing Osbournes £4,300 claim, but there is no substance to the story on Reuters. These stories will keep appearing, and more often than not the direct impact on people's back pocket will swing the vote.
That is the first claim that made me laugh out loud.http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-oecd-i...
It seems they are in part echoing Osbournes £4,300 claim, but there is no substance to the story on Reuters. These stories will keep appearing, and more often than not the direct impact on people's back pocket will swing the vote.
A cost of a month's pay by 2020. Bearing in mind that we will be 3 and a 1/2 years away by the time of the referendum and for two of those years we will still be members and negotiating our withdrawal if we vote leave.
CrutyRammers said:
///ajd said:
The "no causality" excuse is tolerated a bit too easily in my view.
It is all very easy to create a "cloud of uncertainty" when it suits and imply that there is no correlation between the performance of our country and whether it is in the EU or not.
However this falls down a bit when claims are made about the EU holding us back or implying that we'd be better out. There is no evidence for this, and you can't claim one whilst denying the other.
If you try and look for evidence you have to try and find some measure of our economic performance - it is not usual to look at something like GDP which is generally recognised as a suitable performance indicator.
Then you would have to look at the relative performance of our GDP in relation to other countries.
The data for this - provided helpfully by a brexiter on here - proves that our GDP has steadily climbed up the world rankings from our position when we joined the EU.
So, by all means debate causality - but if you look at the stats, the fact is our economy has steadily climbed up the world rankings since we joined the EU.
It is certainly hard to claim the EU has harmed us when viewed in the context of this data.
Jeeze, not this sIt is all very easy to create a "cloud of uncertainty" when it suits and imply that there is no correlation between the performance of our country and whether it is in the EU or not.
However this falls down a bit when claims are made about the EU holding us back or implying that we'd be better out. There is no evidence for this, and you can't claim one whilst denying the other.
If you try and look for evidence you have to try and find some measure of our economic performance - it is not usual to look at something like GDP which is generally recognised as a suitable performance indicator.
Then you would have to look at the relative performance of our GDP in relation to other countries.
The data for this - provided helpfully by a brexiter on here - proves that our GDP has steadily climbed up the world rankings from our position when we joined the EU.
So, by all means debate causality - but if you look at the stats, the fact is our economy has steadily climbed up the world rankings since we joined the EU.
It is certainly hard to claim the EU has harmed us when viewed in the context of this data.
t again.This kind of falacy is covered in GCSE science, or was when I went to school. The statement "the fact is our economy has steadily climbed up the world rankings since we joined the EU. " is true, but no conclusions can be drawn from it vis a vis our being in the EU without a control.
Can you provide one?
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
Greg66 is digging a bigger hole
If it helps you to get through the day, keep telling yourself that. Though the sharp ///ajd is an exception so you can relax in their company as everyone else tells you the truth.
HTH
Pan Pan Pan said:
Perhaps a fourth question could be put as :
Are you happy to vote for a corrupt, unaccountable, un democratic, over regulating, money grabbing, money wasting, unfair, inefficient, failing, time bomb filled (Greece/Turkey) organization that even after 40 years has not been able to convince the majority of the UK public of its value, and where those who do vote for it only do so because they are scared wimpering ninnies with no faith in their own country, or do you vote for the UK on the 23rd? UK or EU? it boils down to just that.
Get off the fence Are you happy to vote for a corrupt, unaccountable, un democratic, over regulating, money grabbing, money wasting, unfair, inefficient, failing, time bomb filled (Greece/Turkey) organization that even after 40 years has not been able to convince the majority of the UK public of its value, and where those who do vote for it only do so because they are scared wimpering ninnies with no faith in their own country, or do you vote for the UK on the 23rd? UK or EU? it boils down to just that.
Zod said:
danllama said:
Are the remainers still in denial about further integration?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556298/Pl...
When you can't find anything to support your case, make something up! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556298/Pl...
When unable to counter the points being made, you resort to vacuous one-liners.
Anyway another read for people, this being the No to the EU thread. Only about half way through and already learnt some things I didn't know about the EU.
It's courtesy of the Bruges Group, would like a few more references to the source documents than is available, but that's a personal complaint and fired in before the usual suspects jump into the park with their output.
Speaking of output, have we any decent considered pieces linked in the Yes to the EU thread yet?
http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/papers/emergency...
It's courtesy of the Bruges Group, would like a few more references to the source documents than is available, but that's a personal complaint and fired in before the usual suspects jump into the park with their output.
Speaking of output, have we any decent considered pieces linked in the Yes to the EU thread yet?
http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/papers/emergency...
FiF said:
Anyway another read for people, this being the No to the EU thread. Only about half way through and already learnt some things I didn't know about the EU.
It's courtesy of the Bruges Group, would like a few more references to the source documents than is available, but that's a personal complaint and fired in before the usual suspects jump into the park with their output.
Speaking of output, have we any decent considered pieces linked in the Yes to the EU thread yet?
http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/papers/emergency...
The sovereignty discussion hits home.It's courtesy of the Bruges Group, would like a few more references to the source documents than is available, but that's a personal complaint and fired in before the usual suspects jump into the park with their output.
Speaking of output, have we any decent considered pieces linked in the Yes to the EU thread yet?
http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/papers/emergency...
Bruges Group said:
‘Sovereignty’ is a nebulous concept with little immediate impact on most voters, so when campaigning it is better to talk of our inability to make our own laws or to change the ones the EU foists on us. In other words, our lack of independence.
So how much independence have we lost? There is no easy answer, because there is no single way to measure ‘amount’ of law. Column-inches? Impact? Frequency of use?
In October 2010 the House of Commons Library published a detailed research paper stretching to 59 pages, reviewing many different studies of this issue. Its conclusion was that between 15% and 50% of British law comes from the European Union, depending how you measure it.
This is much lower than the proportion the EU itself believes it delivers.
The EU considers that it is responsible for at least 75% of our laws (84%
in the case of Germany between 1998 and 2004, according to the German
Federal Justice Ministry). This was confirmed by Vivienne Reding,
Vice-President of the European Commission, in early 2014 in this podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0IqaAhF_YA
Some have subsequently claimed that she herself was misinformed, but this does seem rather unlikely.
Probably the most accurate assessment was published by Business for Britain in March 2015. Their study found that since 1993 (the year the Maastricht Treaty came into force) 64.7% of British laws originated from the EU or are deemed by the House of Commons Library to have been EU-influenced. The authors point out that the reason that their percentage is higher than that claimed by the House of Commons Library in 2010 is that the latter did not include EU Regulations which are automatically transposed into British law without passing through Parliament.
Quite an indictment of EU control freakery and the impotence of Westminster both now and if we remain.So how much independence have we lost? There is no easy answer, because there is no single way to measure ‘amount’ of law. Column-inches? Impact? Frequency of use?
In October 2010 the House of Commons Library published a detailed research paper stretching to 59 pages, reviewing many different studies of this issue. Its conclusion was that between 15% and 50% of British law comes from the European Union, depending how you measure it.
This is much lower than the proportion the EU itself believes it delivers.
The EU considers that it is responsible for at least 75% of our laws (84%
in the case of Germany between 1998 and 2004, according to the German
Federal Justice Ministry). This was confirmed by Vivienne Reding,
Vice-President of the European Commission, in early 2014 in this podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0IqaAhF_YA
Some have subsequently claimed that she herself was misinformed, but this does seem rather unlikely.
Probably the most accurate assessment was published by Business for Britain in March 2015. Their study found that since 1993 (the year the Maastricht Treaty came into force) 64.7% of British laws originated from the EU or are deemed by the House of Commons Library to have been EU-influenced. The authors point out that the reason that their percentage is higher than that claimed by the House of Commons Library in 2010 is that the latter did not include EU Regulations which are automatically transposed into British law without passing through Parliament.
JagLover said:
Kiwi LS2 said:
Does anyone know any further info into how the OECD arrived at this conclusion?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-oecd-i...
It seems they are in part echoing Osbournes £4,300 claim, but there is no substance to the story on Reuters. These stories will keep appearing, and more often than not the direct impact on people's back pocket will swing the vote.
That is the first claim that made me laugh out loud.http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-oecd-i...
It seems they are in part echoing Osbournes £4,300 claim, but there is no substance to the story on Reuters. These stories will keep appearing, and more often than not the direct impact on people's back pocket will swing the vote.
A cost of a month's pay by 2020. Bearing in mind that we will be 3 and a 1/2 years away by the time of the referendum and for two of those years we will still be members and negotiating our withdrawal if we vote leave.
On the question of whether the EU is good for the British economy, in the absence of any clear facts, you have to look at the situation and come to a view on the balance of probabilities.
My starting point would be that it costs us money and is set up on a fundamental level to redistribute both money and economic advantage to less economically developed regions. See unused airports in Spain etc, Ford Transit production being moved to Turkey. Factor in the relentless agenda to expand to encompass more less economically developed countries and the answer is fairly obvious. Add in the economic drag of the bureaucratic, inefficient, nature of EU politics.
Of course there are factors that ameliorate those impacts, but so far no one has really been able to explain what they are?
turbobloke said:
FiF said:
Anyway another read for people, this being the No to the EU thread. Only about half way through and already learnt some things I didn't know about the EU.
It's courtesy of the Bruges Group, would like a few more references to the source documents than is available, but that's a personal complaint and fired in before the usual suspects jump into the park with their output.
Speaking of output, have we any decent considered pieces linked in the Yes to the EU thread yet?
http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/papers/emergency...
The sovereignty discussion hits home.It's courtesy of the Bruges Group, would like a few more references to the source documents than is available, but that's a personal complaint and fired in before the usual suspects jump into the park with their output.
Speaking of output, have we any decent considered pieces linked in the Yes to the EU thread yet?
http://www.brugesgroup.com/images/papers/emergency...
Bruges Group said:
‘Sovereignty’ is a nebulous concept with little immediate impact on most voters, so when campaigning it is better to talk of our inability to make our own laws or to change the ones the EU foists on us. In other words, our lack of independence.
So how much independence have we lost? There is no easy answer, because there is no single way to measure ‘amount’ of law. Column-inches? Impact? Frequency of use?
In October 2010 the House of Commons Library published a detailed research paper stretching to 59 pages, reviewing many different studies of this issue. Its conclusion was that between 15% and 50% of British law comes from the European Union, depending how you measure it.
This is much lower than the proportion the EU itself believes it delivers.
The EU considers that it is responsible for at least 75% of our laws (84%
in the case of Germany between 1998 and 2004, according to the German
Federal Justice Ministry). This was confirmed by Vivienne Reding,
Vice-President of the European Commission, in early 2014 in this podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0IqaAhF_YA
Some have subsequently claimed that she herself was misinformed, but this does seem rather unlikely.
Probably the most accurate assessment was published by Business for Britain in March 2015. Their study found that since 1993 (the year the Maastricht Treaty came into force) 64.7% of British laws originated from the EU or are deemed by the House of Commons Library to have been EU-influenced. The authors point out that the reason that their percentage is higher than that claimed by the House of Commons Library in 2010 is that the latter did not include EU Regulations which are automatically transposed into British law without passing through Parliament.
Quite an indictment of EU control freakery and the impotence of Westminster both now and if we remain.So how much independence have we lost? There is no easy answer, because there is no single way to measure ‘amount’ of law. Column-inches? Impact? Frequency of use?
In October 2010 the House of Commons Library published a detailed research paper stretching to 59 pages, reviewing many different studies of this issue. Its conclusion was that between 15% and 50% of British law comes from the European Union, depending how you measure it.
This is much lower than the proportion the EU itself believes it delivers.
The EU considers that it is responsible for at least 75% of our laws (84%
in the case of Germany between 1998 and 2004, according to the German
Federal Justice Ministry). This was confirmed by Vivienne Reding,
Vice-President of the European Commission, in early 2014 in this podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0IqaAhF_YA
Some have subsequently claimed that she herself was misinformed, but this does seem rather unlikely.
Probably the most accurate assessment was published by Business for Britain in March 2015. Their study found that since 1993 (the year the Maastricht Treaty came into force) 64.7% of British laws originated from the EU or are deemed by the House of Commons Library to have been EU-influenced. The authors point out that the reason that their percentage is higher than that claimed by the House of Commons Library in 2010 is that the latter did not include EU Regulations which are automatically transposed into British law without passing through Parliament.
Bruges Group said:
Europol, too, has immunity from prosecution. Why? All our policemen are accountable for their ac-
tions, and so is Interpol. Europol is authorised to gather information on political and religious beliefs,
ethnic origins, and sexual activities. One employee has already been caught selling information from
the Schengen database to criminals. Since 1215 it has been one of Britain’s constitutional bulwarks
that no person, not even the monarch, is above the law. Why, then, have we had to accept that such a
shady EU task force, unknown to most people, should be allowed to delve into the most intimate as-
pects of our private lives, without defamed and injured citizens having any recourse in law against it?
tions, and so is Interpol. Europol is authorised to gather information on political and religious beliefs,
ethnic origins, and sexual activities. One employee has already been caught selling information from
the Schengen database to criminals. Since 1215 it has been one of Britain’s constitutional bulwarks
that no person, not even the monarch, is above the law. Why, then, have we had to accept that such a
shady EU task force, unknown to most people, should be allowed to delve into the most intimate as-
pects of our private lives, without defamed and injured citizens having any recourse in law against it?
turbobloke said:
Zod said:
danllama said:
Are the remainers still in denial about further integration?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556298/Pl...
When you can't find anything to support your case, make something up! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556298/Pl...
When unable to counter the points being made, you resort to vacuous one-liners.
As I pointed out, it's in the Treaty of Rome. The document Grayling claism to hav euncovered is something signed by the speakers of a few parliaments. How seriously would we take something signed by Bercow? There is no point. It's hot air, like the rest of the Leave campaign's desperate case.Zod said:
Mr Whippy said:
Just move to North Korea already if you're into those kinds of things!
A healthy society by definition should need NO regulation, no laws, no anything, because they can manage themselves.
A healthy society by definition should need NO regulation, no laws, no anything, because they can manage themselves.
Exactly how much control do you feel you need others to have over you?
I take it the EU has got it *just right*, but the UK hasn't?
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Zod said:
Mr Whippy said:
Just move to North Korea already if you're into those kinds of things!
A healthy society by definition should need NO regulation, no laws, no anything, because they can manage themselves.
A healthy society by definition should need NO regulation, no laws, no anything, because they can manage themselves.
Exactly how much control do you feel you need others to have over you?
I take it the EU has got it *just right*, but the UK hasn't?
Dave
Zod said:
I went to the gym, but your absurd request doesn't really deserve a reply. Declining? In absolute terms? In relative terms (if so relative to which countries)?
Too many laws and regulations? What's the right amount? 67? 3? 1,256,784?
Typical politician/remainer answer,answer a question with a question.Too many laws and regulations? What's the right amount? 67? 3? 1,256,784?
Its not hard,yes or no will do,I'll even make it 2 questions to make it easier for you.
1.Is the eu a declining economic bloc?
2.Does the eu over regulate and interfere with too many laws?
Zod said:
As I pointed out, it's in the Treaty of Rome. The document Grayling claism to hav euncovered is something signed by the speakers of a few parliaments. How seriously would we take something sigend by Bercow? There is no point. It's hot air, like every other point made by you and the Leave campaign.There are absolutely no downsides to being in the EU? None at all?
CrutyRammers said:
Zod said:
As I pointed out, it's in the Treaty of Rome. The document Grayling claism to hav euncovered is something signed by the speakers of a few parliaments. How seriously would we take something sigend by Bercow? There is no point. It's hot air, like every other point made by you and the Leave campaign.There are absolutely no downsides to being in the EU? None at all?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff