The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
I thought you chaps would be interested to know that the government have taken advertising space on facebook apparently targetting expats to register to vote in the referendum. Presumably the thinking is we are more likely remainers. I'm not sure what the trigger is for the ad's and it's possible you are all receiving them too but a very unscientific survey of a couple of friends suggests its just us with 'expat looking' profiles ie friends split between the UK and another country.


Cobnapint

8,596 posts

150 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
Tony427 said:
Car crash "Remain TV" courtesy of Matt Hancock on the Daily Politics.

Leave also given a good drubbing but Hancock was by far the weakest and worst representative, and he has been almost as awful previously.

Why do the Conservatives contine to put this guy up. He wasn't even aware of the facts and figures which should have been at his fingertips which Andrew Neil had to remind him of.
My thoughts exactly - he does the government no favours. Neil was playing with him like my neighbours cat does with a semi-conscious sparrow.

More revealing were the figures being prised out of him that have just been released in a report by the god-like, highly respected, never doubted IFS, about a British recession if we Brexited.

Baring in mind that following the last recession our GDP dipped by 7% - the final figure just in from the IFS - that doesn't take into account any measures the presiding government could take to alleviate the situation - is....brace yourselves.....minus 0.1% growth.

Get the locust repellent.

Esseesse

8,969 posts

207 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
As for UKIP and immigration; They saw it as a best way to get traction with some segments of UK population. If you look throughout the ukip the future thread on these very pages you'll notice religious devotion to Nigel and whatever he has to say at that particular moment in time. He's an unquestionable authority on everything. Some pollsters were saying that numbers and statistics and economic debate is a 'snooz-fest' for most voters. Immigration and perceived 'tangible' issues are more of a vote winning.

Whatever happens on 23rd, it's interesting times that we live in.
If you're following the US elections/Trump this seems to be true.

If you follow the Scott Adams blog on Trump's persuasion, he says that when it comes to persuading people identity beats analogy, which beats reason. Once you get down to reasoning (snooz-fest) you're in the weeds and few people will listen, a stalemate. Vote leave should dismiss the economic arguments by pointing to what the EU has done to Southern European economies/unemployment and move on to ground that is an easy win for them.

zbc

849 posts

150 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
fblm said:
I thought you chaps would be interested to know that the government have taken advertising space on facebook apparently targetting expats to register to vote in the referendum. Presumably the thinking is we are more likely remainers. I'm not sure what the trigger is for the ad's and it's possible you are all receiving them too but a very unscientific survey of a couple of friends suggests its just us with 'expat looking' profiles ie friends split between the UK and another country.
I get these too. They probably do assume that we are more likely to be remainers though I know plenty who aren't but I guess that we are also less likely to be registered to vote and less likely to see other adverts or media coverage that is available in the UK.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
wc98 said:
any thoughts on this statement from juncker ?

"The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said."

now while i have no love for the far right or left i have even less love for the thought and free speech police. those willing to ride roughshod over democratically elected people/parties should be held in utter contempt as the lowest of the low. who gets to decide what constitutes "populism" ?

the argument surrounding democracy is now completely over after this statement by juncker afaic .
I can sort of see things from Junker's point of view. He sees national governments as regional authorities within the EU.

Westminister treats local councils in the same manner. All you have to do is look back at the fights between Liverpool council and central government in the 1980's.

Liverpool residents had expressed their democratic preference, but Westminister did not respect the results.

If you scale up the issue, it is entirely reasonable that Brussels would want to ostracise people that, in their view, are far right.


wiggy001

6,542 posts

270 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
zbc said:
wc98 said:
any thoughts on this statement from juncker ?

"The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said."

now while i have no love for the far right or left i have even less love for the thought and free speech police. those willing to ride roughshod over democratically elected people/parties should be held in utter contempt as the lowest of the low. who gets to decide what constitutes "populism" ?

the argument surrounding democracy is now completely over after this statement by juncker afaic .
The difficulty is though that one of the common behaviours of extreme parties is to limit freedom of speech. Look at the recent actions of the Polish and Hungarian governments. What should the EU do in this case? Ignore the abuse of free speech and restriction of diplomacy by media manipulation or rather use whatever limited powers they may have to try to ensure a certain level of freedoms?
There is no difficulty at all. If the party in power got there democratically then there should be no curtailment of their rights or influence within the EU. If democracy begins to slide within the EU then, and only then, should the EU use its powers to reinstate democracy. If the people vote for an extreme party then so be it.



Mr Whippy

28,944 posts

240 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
don4l said:
wc98 said:
any thoughts on this statement from juncker ?

"The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said."

now while i have no love for the far right or left i have even less love for the thought and free speech police. those willing to ride roughshod over democratically elected people/parties should be held in utter contempt as the lowest of the low. who gets to decide what constitutes "populism" ?

the argument surrounding democracy is now completely over after this statement by juncker afaic .
I can sort of see things from Junker's point of view. He sees national governments as regional authorities within the EU.

Westminister treats local councils in the same manner. All you have to do is look back at the fights between Liverpool council and central government in the 1980's.

Liverpool residents had expressed their democratic preference, but Westminister did not respect the results.

If you scale up the issue, it is entirely reasonable that Brussels would want to ostracise people that, in their view, are far right.
I for one welcome our new socialist overlords!

Mr_B

10,480 posts

242 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
You make up things that are not there. Nobody but you could read that there is 'unanimous' support for anything. Unless you think that PEGIDA would welcome refugees migrants (for the record I don't think that PEGIDA, or other far-right nutjobs would welcome them, I do think that refugees are less welcome now than they were, there is still, as there never was 'unanimous' support or lack of it, when we talk about Germany (or EU) as a whole). I tried to explain that to you over four pages. Pathological liars, like yourself, just can't help themselves.

Stop trying to change subject to make yourself look less of a liar. Why would I get angry that work-shy clown and co were obliterated at GE? Another bizarre claim.

Now, what happened to the edited post claim? You know the one that presumably shows how 'honest' I am? Luckily there are timestamps on edits as well as on the new posts that can't be faked, which show, beyond doubt, that, once again, you are a liar. You lied before, you lie now and in all likelihood, you'll lie again.

You can try to apologize or you can just come with more bizarre claims. Either way, it'll be entertaining.
Take a calm look at both threads and where you come in. In both it was me asking if that was really the case and debating the points and open to listening. You turn up in both and say it is falt-out not the case. In the German migrant thread you may remember the point in case was did the initial positive response then translate in to what was talk of a million plus migrants coming in a very short space of time that was months.
I said I doubted it and those that posted polling saying this seemed to back that up. You took 4 people on PH telling you the early scenes of arriving migrants as positive as translating that it meant any number was being positively received. The actual evidence posted to the thread by some of those you actually relied on said not. Most pompously of all, you declared it "settled" and beyond argument now.

Now fast forward to penny Mordaunt's comments and again I make a point asking if it really is a clear cut as portrayed, while being open to the fact it may not be. Enter you and another declaration it is again beyond argument. When asking if that's the case you display your normal anger at anyone not blindly willing to accept you word on it, most amusingly manifesting itself with your Ukip tourettes. I still have no idea why you mention them. Does anyone ?

We then get to you wanting to argue the toss over Cameron and his pro Turkish accession to the EU... to which you promptly say nothing at all even though it was at the heart of the matter about the effect it would have being in or out the EU.

I can't tell what you've done with your posts, you either edited them or deleted one. I don't have screen grabs either way, so no, I can't prove it.
Bottom line, do try to not just turn up on a thread and decree something and get angry when others don't see it as you desperately want to.

zbc

849 posts

150 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
wiggy001 said:
zbc said:
wc98 said:
any thoughts on this statement from juncker ?

"The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said."

now while i have no love for the far right or left i have even less love for the thought and free speech police. those willing to ride roughshod over democratically elected people/parties should be held in utter contempt as the lowest of the low. who gets to decide what constitutes "populism" ?

the argument surrounding democracy is now completely over after this statement by juncker afaic .
The difficulty is though that one of the common behaviours of extreme parties is to limit freedom of speech. Look at the recent actions of the Polish and Hungarian governments. What should the EU do in this case? Ignore the abuse of free speech and restriction of diplomacy by media manipulation or rather use whatever limited powers they may have to try to ensure a certain level of freedoms?
There is no difficulty at all. If the party in power got there democratically then there should be no curtailment of their rights or influence within the EU. If democracy begins to slide within the EU then, and only then, should the EU use its powers to reinstate democracy. If the people vote for an extreme party then so be it.
So when Corbyn gets elected and decides to close the Telegraph and Mail and nationalise all the TV channels allowing them only to show his speeches or Romanian folk dances you will be happy about that and not want someone else to encourage them not to do that.

Murph7355

37,648 posts

255 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
FiF said:
But already said we will be continuing to support the CAP payments to farmer? Unless you're saying that France would insist on double CAP payments or something. Sorry but at the moment I've laid out a clear position, just asking for reciprocity to try and understand what is being suggested. Not too much to ask.
What is being suggested is that we wouldn't be continuing to support "CAP" payments to a farmer if we left the EU. We would be out of CAP (one assumes).

We may then decided to replace CAP payments with something else of our own making, but we wouldn't be contributing to the EU CAP.

If we then entered into a trade negotiation with the EU on cars, and strings were attached that meant to get the best deal we would also need to contribute to the EU CAP, then we would have a choice to make.

Personally I think CaptainSlow's version of events is more likely IF we have a decent negotiating team (granted a big "if", and perhaps one of the riskiest parts of a vote to leave. But one worth taking IMO).

zbc

849 posts

150 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Personally I think CaptainSlow's version of events is more likely IF we have a decent negotiating team (granted a big "if", and perhaps one of the riskiest parts of a vote to leave. But one worth taking IMO).
Assuming there would have to be some political input to such a team who would you like to see involved?

Guybrush

4,330 posts

205 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
John Redwood makes some sensible comments: http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/04/27/why-we-wil...

Why we will be better off out of the EU:

1 We will be able to spend £10bn a year on our priorities instead of sending that abroad and not getting it back. That adds 0.6% to our GDP.

2. We will regain control of our fishing grounds, which will enable us to rebuild our fishery and return to being net exporters instead of net importers of fish.

3. We will be able to buy more of our food free of interventions by the EU designed to cut UK output and foster EU imports. Past EU milk quotas and their response to BSE did damage to our dairy and beef farmers. Our food will be cheaper.

4. We can have our own energy policy geared to delivering more cheaper power. This means more of our income to spend on other things, and will be a big boost to industry which relies on energy.

5. We will be able to disapply costly and unhelpful regulations and EU requirements on all domestic business and exports to non EU destinations if we wish, whereas in the EU every rule has to apply to everything we do.

6. We will be free to negotiate our own trade deals with other countries, including the US one Mr Obama confirmed.

7. Our balance of payments will improve when we stop sending such large contributions to the continent.

8. There is no evidence that our growth rate accelerated when we joined the EEC, nor is there any evidence of much boost to our output from being in the Single market. The single market was completed around the same time as the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a cost of EU membership, which slashed output and incomes very badly in the UK before we got out.

Murph7355

37,648 posts

255 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
zbc said:
Assuming there would have to be some political input to such a team who would you like to see involved?
I'd prefer it if there was no political input. Politicians invariably mess up business decisions with their extra-motives.

If it had to be a died in the wool politician, I'm genuinely not sure. As a risky proposition on this forum, I'm one of those who like Boris and think that over a negotiating table, he'd probably be one of our most backbone equipped political types. Or Rhys-Mogg...I've never failed to be impressed by his line of reasoning (I'm someone who is able to see beyond an accent). I've also rated much of what I've heard from Hannan over the last few months (seems calm and to the point whilst assertive).

Guybrush

4,330 posts

205 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
More from John Redwood: http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/09/19/better-off...

Better off out – business benefits from leaving the EU:

Leaving will be better for business.

Business now agrees we were right to quit the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which damaged jobs and closed factories.

Business now agrees we were right to say No to the Euro, which has helped to create mass unemployment and property crashes in several countries of the EU.

Out of the EU the UK can negotiate her own free trade agreements with China, the USA and India, after 43 years in an EU which has stopped us doing that and has not done it for us.

Out of the EU the UK can decide what regulations and taxes to impose on all our domestic business and all our exports to non EU countries, which represents around 85% of our total income and output.

The UK will continue to trade with the EU, and they will not wish or be able to impose new tariff barriers on us and certainly will not want us imposing barriers on them.

The UK will avoid new taxes like the Financial Transactions Tax, and unfriendly changes to Corporation Tax and VAT which the EU currently carries out.

Legend83

9,947 posts

221 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
Cobnapint said:
Baring in mind that following the last recession our GDP dipped by 7% - the final figure just in from the IFS - that doesn't take into account any measures the presiding government could take to alleviate the situation - is....brace yourselves.....minus 0.1% growth.

Get the locust repellent.
I thought the IFS chose a mid-point impact of other bodies modelling? Which ended up closest to the NIESR who predicted a 2-3.5% shrinkage in the economy.

Where do you get 0.1% from?

worsy

5,776 posts

174 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
Funkycoldribena said:
Anyone seen anything of that little weasel, William Hague? Have I missed him somewhere?
He retired* at the last election.

  • from politics

Hosenbugler

1,854 posts

101 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
zbc said:
The difficulty is though that one of the common behaviours of extreme parties is to limit freedom of speech. Look at the recent actions of the Polish and Hungarian governments. What should the EU do in this case? Ignore the abuse of free speech and restriction of diplomacy by media manipulation or rather use whatever limited powers they may have to try to ensure a certain level of freedoms?
Juncker's comments highlight immigration and in turn highlights how important schengen is to the EU federal project. The aim of the EU is a one state Union, with the individual nation states , in the fullness of time, ceasing to exist. Mass imigration helps to dilute national identity , helps people like Juncker to suppress, and eventually usurpe any power/status the national parliaments once had.

It seems that in Juncker's eyes a national parliament can be as extreme as it likes as long as it does the EU bidding and subjegates itself to uncontrolled immigration.

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

197 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
zbc said:
So when Corbyn gets elected and decides to close the Telegraph and Mail and nationalise all the TV channels allowing them only to show his speeches or Romanian folk dances you will be happy about that and not want someone else to encourage them not to do that.
As I said on the other thread, you're proposing an unelected, unacountable institution which has a habit of ignoring its own laws and procedures to oversee an elected one. Elections and limited parliaments are the best defence thus found against tyranny. Otherwise, who watches the watchmen? It must be down to the people ultimately.

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
fblm said:
I thought you chaps would be interested to know that the government have taken advertising space on facebook apparently targetting expats to register to vote in the referendum. Presumably the thinking is we are more likely remainers. I'm not sure what the trigger is for the ad's and it's possible you are all receiving them too but a very unscientific survey of a couple of friends suggests its just us with 'expat looking' profiles ie friends split between the UK and another country.

Expats do not have a vote. There has been a high profile court case that has confirmed this. That ad is aimed at people who will be away on holiday or on business.

Sam All

3,101 posts

100 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
Hosenbugler said:
Juncker's comments highlight immigration and in turn highlights how important schengen is to the EU federal project. The aim of the EU is a one state Union, with the individual nation states , in the fullness of time, ceasing to exist. Mass imigration helps to dilute national identity , helps people like Juncker to suppress, and eventually usurpe any power/status the national parliaments once had.

It seems that in Juncker's eyes a national parliament can be as extreme as it likes as long as it does the EU bidding and subjegates itself to uncontrolled immigration.
Everytime I think of Juncker, I keep substituting the first 5 characters of his name for 4 others. The man with the grand plan.