The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[mondeoman]

Einion Yrth said:

mondeoman said:

But where are the retaliatory statements? Leave's comment on the IFS report today on 2 years additional austerity: "its rubbish and paid for by the EU". That was it. No counterpoint, just a dismissal.

That really doesn't work for me.

The onus is on the party claiming other than the null hypothesis (in this case "nothing much will change") to make their case. Does the IFS case satisfy you? If yes you may choose to vote in, in no case however does anyone have a requirement to refute a claimed position.

In a perfect world, maybe. But in a political dog-fight, where you're trying to win floating voters, you gotta paint a rosy picture, not just say "that's rubbish". That's nursery school debating. Better to say "that's rubbish, and here's why...."

[EddieSteadyGo]

danllama said:

MikeT66 said:

I'm still undecided, really - mainly due to ps-poor genuine information from both sides - but this campaign is quite frankly disgraceful...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

I am lost for words. How the fk did we come to a point where this is OK??

Imagine a black youth where the white man is, pointing at an old white lady? Would it be allowed?

Just fk off.

I wish you would follow your own advice with your aggressive and abusive attitude.

If you don't agree with the post, fair enough. But your consistent attitude is way over the top. Hope you are a nicer individual in real life.

[wc98]

///ajd said:

I'm no fan of Junker and indeed I consider Martin Schultz to be a real tit who has said some stupid things about the UK. They should know their place as servants of the member states and sometimes they forget that.

I'm not sure Junker has been misquoted but he clearly can't go around just ignoring states as he disagrees with their politics from a "they are far right and will probably do something nasty".

However, if he was referring to taking action if the far right in Austria actually did something nasty, that would be a different matter.

Junker would have no mandate whatsoever to block nations just because he didn't like their ruling party, and he is daft to say such a thing (if indeed he really did).

However, if he was saying - for example, and be deliberately extreme - if the Austrian far-right started to put certain demographics into concentration camps, or started deporting EU citizens from Austria, and breaking the 4 freedoms - then in that case they may face sanctions. That would imply either ECHR or EU regulatory breaches that the other 27 nations would probably want action taken against anyway.

There is the other issue that a far right Austrian government might well have chosen to take Austria OUT of the EU anyway. In which case any sanctions by Junker are a bit pointless as they want to stick two fingers up to the EU anyway. I'm only speculating, does anyone know if the potential (i.e. nearly elected) far right Austrian government want to come out of the EU?

What did you think of the video by Ngaire? She makes some pretty convincing points, no?

The bigger economies - including the EU as a mass of 28 critically important nations of course - would hold the balance of power in any negotiation.

thanks for the response. regarding the freedom party of austria , according to wiki they are eurosceptic but in the event of turkish accession to the eu the would immediately demand austria leave the eu.

ngaire's take on the situation is perfectly reasonable, but we all know the academic version of how trade deals work is not how they work in reality. see saudi arms deals and british oversea "aid" for examples.

[dandarez]

EddieSteadyGo said:

danllama said:

MikeT66 said:

I'm still undecided, really - mainly due to ps-poor genuine information from both sides - but this campaign is quite frankly disgraceful...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

I am lost for words. How the fk did we come to a point where this is OK??

Imagine a black youth where the white man is, pointing at an old white lady? Would it be allowed?

Just fk off.

I wish you would follow your own advice with your aggressive and abusive attitude.

If you don't agree with the post, fair enough. But your consistent attitude is way over the top. Hope you are a nicer individual in real life.

WTF are you on about? He's not disagreeing with the post or poster, his angst is at the link Saatchi advert. I totally agree with him!

[EddieSteadyGo]

dandarez said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

danllama said:

MikeT66 said:

I'm still undecided, really - mainly due to ps-poor genuine information from both sides - but this campaign is quite frankly disgraceful...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

I am lost for words. How the fk did we come to a point where this is OK??

Imagine a black youth where the white man is, pointing at an old white lady? Would it be allowed?

Just fk off.

I wish you would follow your own advice with your aggressive and abusive attitude.

If you don't agree with the post, fair enough. But your consistent attitude is way over the top. Hope you are a nicer individual in real life.

WTF are you on about? He's not disagreeing with the post or poster, his angst is at the link Saatchi advert. I totally agree with him!

It is a comment based on my opinion of reading recent posts.

As an example, I don't usually agree with your posts, but I don't tell you to fk off.

This thread would be better with less attitude and more opinion.

[wc98]

mondeoman said:

Einion Yrth said:

mondeoman said:

But where are the retaliatory statements? Leave's comment on the IFS report today on 2 years additional austerity: "its rubbish and paid for by the EU". That was it. No counterpoint, just a dismissal.

That really doesn't work for me.

The onus is on the party claiming other than the null hypothesis (in this case "nothing much will change") to make their case. Does the IFS case satisfy you? If yes you may choose to vote in, in no case however does anyone have a requirement to refute a claimed position.

In a perfect world, maybe. But in a political dog-fight, where you're trying to win floating voters, you gotta paint a rosy picture, not just say "that's rubbish". That's nursery school debating. Better to say "that's rubbish, and here's why...."

i have to agree with you, the response on the economic issues has been tragic by the leave campaign. the short bits of film i have seen from boris on his soap box prattling on about the power of vacuum cleaners could have been scripted by the remain camp.

[wc98]

dandarez said:

WTF are you on about? He's not disagreeing with the post or poster, his angst is at the link Saatchi advert. I totally agree with him!

o think a lot of people tend to forget every single saatchi advert is also an advert for the impact saatchi can have for saatchi, as well as the topic of the advert.

[Sam All]

wc98 said:

i have to agree with you, the response on the economic issues has been tragic by the leave campaign. the short bits of film i have seen from boris on his soap box prattling on about the power of vacuum cleaners could have been scripted by the remain camp.

Assign the task to a few MBA student types at the LBS or the LSE and you would witness a better presentation.

Perhaps Boris is saving the best for the last couple of weeks

[EddieSteadyGo]

wc98 said:

mondeoman said:

Einion Yrth said:

mondeoman said:

But where are the retaliatory statements? Leave's comment on the IFS report today on 2 years additional austerity: "its rubbish and paid for by the EU". That was it. No counterpoint, just a dismissal.

That really doesn't work for me.

The onus is on the party claiming other than the null hypothesis (in this case "nothing much will change") to make their case. Does the IFS case satisfy you? If yes you may choose to vote in, in no case however does anyone have a requirement to refute a claimed position.

In a perfect world, maybe. But in a political dog-fight, where you're trying to win floating voters, you gotta paint a rosy picture, not just say "that's rubbish". That's nursery school debating. Better to say "that's rubbish, and here's why...."

i have to agree with you, the response on the economic issues has been tragic by the leave campaign. the short bits of film i have seen from boris on his soap box prattling on about the power of vacuum cleaners could have been scripted by the remain camp.

In order to rebut the point effectively the leave campaign need their own perspective and vision (with specifics).

So, for example, IFS say there will be 2 years of extra austerity.

Answer could be;

i) IFS are EU and Tory stooges, they say whatever they are paid to say, wouldn't trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em.

ii) Whilst the IFS are an important body their analysis is based on assumptions provided by other economists. We have shown that by leaving the EU our economy will be "x"% larger by 2020, and that means an extra £y pounds for every family in the country.

[Mr GrimNasty]

If anybody actually looked at what the IFS said, it did not take a position on all the doom mongering economic predictions of REMAIN and their establishment cohorts, it merely took those farcical numbers to see what effect it would have on 'austerity' etc.

It adds nothing more to the REMAIN side of the argument in terms of support for their predictions or credibility.

If the LEAVE campaign wants to put forward some equally hilariously rosy garden figures for leaving, the IFS could crunch those figures and tell you austerity will be over by the end of the first week after leaving!

[EddieSteadyGo]

Mr GrimNasty said:

If anybody actually looked at what the IFS said, it did not take a position on all the doom mongering economic predictions of REMAIN and their establishment cohorts, it merely took those farcical numbers to see what effect it would have on 'austerity' etc.

It adds nothing more to the REMAIN side of the argument in terms of support for their predictions or credibility.

If the LEAVE campaign wants to put forward some equally hilariously rosy garden figures for leaving, the IFS could crunch those figures and tell you austerity will be over by the end of the first week after leaving!

Not quite true; it didn't take the Remain campaign's assumptions or Government's forecast, but it didn't produce its own.

You're right that its work was to extrapolate these assumptions into the effect on austerity.

[Mr GrimNasty]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

If anybody actually looked at what the IFS said, it did not take a position on all the doom mongering economic predictions of REMAIN and their establishment cohorts, it merely took those farcical numbers to see what effect it would have on 'austerity' etc.

It adds nothing more to the REMAIN side of the argument in terms of support for their predictions or credibility.

If the LEAVE campaign wants to put forward some equally hilariously rosy garden figures for leaving, the IFS could crunch those figures and tell you austerity will be over by the end of the first week after leaving!

Not quite true; it didn't take the Remain campaign's assumptions or Government's forecast, but it didn't produce its own.

You're right that its work was to extrapolate these assumptions into the effect on austerity.

They based it on the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) scenarios, which if you take 2 seconds to look, qualifies as establishment cohorts (despite claims otherwise).

[EddieSteadyGo]

Mr GrimNasty said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

If anybody actually looked at what the IFS said, it did not take a position on all the doom mongering economic predictions of REMAIN and their establishment cohorts, it merely took those farcical numbers to see what effect it would have on 'austerity' etc.

It adds nothing more to the REMAIN side of the argument in terms of support for their predictions or credibility.

If the LEAVE campaign wants to put forward some equally hilariously rosy garden figures for leaving, the IFS could crunch those figures and tell you austerity will be over by the end of the first week after leaving!

Not quite true; it didn't take the Remain campaign's assumptions or Government's forecast, but it didn't produce its own.

You're right that its work was to extrapolate these assumptions into the effect on austerity.

They based it on the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) scenarios, which if you take 2 seconds to look, qualifies as establishment cohorts (despite claims otherwise).

I stated in my previous post I made it clear the IFS didn't produce their own assumptions.

I did actually check the details of the IFS press release earlier today, so your "2 seconds" jibe is directed at the wrong person. Maybe you should have suggested this to Nigel Farage so he could give a better answer when challenged on this point earlier today.

By the way, here is the link to the IFS press release in case anyone is interested.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8297

[Ridgemont]

EddieSteadyGo said:

In order to rebut the point effectively the leave campaign need their own perspective and vision (with specifics).

So, for example, IFS say there will be 2 years of extra austerity.

Answer could be;

i) IFS are EU and Tory stooges, they say whatever they are paid to say, wouldn't trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em.

ii) Whilst the IFS are an important body their analysis is based on assumptions provided by other economists. We have shown that by leaving the EU our economy will be "x"% larger by 2020, and that means an extra £y pounds for every family in the country.

Ok rewinding a bit. We've established they have based their analysis on a worst case scenario sourced elsewhere. Paul Johnson was flailing this morning when Redwood queried upside analysis (for example there are two main growth depreciators; Exchange rate and Investment, yet exchange rate continues to fluctuate and investment from the likes of the car manufacturers is predicted to be unaltered?). Johnson had no answer and I've not heard a coherent answer yet from Remain.

[hidetheelephants]

gothatway said:

Many of the most reasonable voices I have heard from those who want Out have been female - Julia Hartley-Brewer, Kate Hoey, Andrea Leadsom for example. There's another one, an economist, whose name escapes me at the moment - and doubtless many many more. Surely mobilising them would have huge benefit for the out campaign. Not just because they are less bombastic than the male of the species, but they would probably have a significant and disproportionate impact on the voting intention of other women (or is that a terribly sexist thing to think ?). Oh and they would show up Harriet Harmon for being a total waste of protein.

I agree entirely; the Nigel and Boris roadshow is a disaster.

///ajd said:

Indeed, I also read one report - that was actually being pushed by brexiters for some other stats - that confirmed that the vast majority of SMEs saw immigration as a positive benefit for their business. It could be argued these SMEs would not therefore want the 4 freedoms removed.

Given that no-one is campaigning to stop immigration, only to move to a level playing field for EU and non-EU immigrants it's not really an argument that holds water.

markh1973 said:

Even if Don4l's 63% is correct that isn't a counter to the fact there is likely to be an economic hit, of what size and for how long no-one can accurately predict.

Quite right, but equally no-one is addressing the economic risks of staying in and more importantly the media are not asking the question; the assumption that the good ship EU is going to merrily sail onwards more or less as-is is at best naive. There are massive problems in the EU economy and nowt is being done to sort it out, just more of the same 'move along, nothing to see here' nonsense.

EddieSteadyGo said:

danllama said:

MikeT66 said:

I'm still undecided, really - mainly due to ps-poor genuine information from both sides - but this campaign is quite frankly disgraceful...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

I am lost for words. How the fk did we come to a point where this is OK??

Imagine a black youth where the white man is, pointing at an old white lady? Would it be allowed?

Just fk off.

I wish you would follow your own advice with your aggressive and abusive attitude.

If you don't agree with the post, fair enough. But your consistent attitude is way over the top. Hope you are a nicer individual in real life.

What are you on about? It looks to me as if Dan is irate about the ridiculous and borderline racist poster, not MikeT66.

[zygalski]

danllama said:

MikeT66 said:

I'm still undecided, really - mainly due to ps-poor genuine information from both sides - but this campaign is quite frankly disgraceful...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

I am lost for words. How the fk did we come to a point where this is OK??

Imagine a black youth where the white man is, pointing at an old white lady? Would it be allowed?

Just fk off.

More accurate would be an elderly white lady waddling across to the other side of the road at the first sight of an approaching black person.

[MikeT66]

hidetheelephants said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

danllama said:

MikeT66 said:

I'm still undecided, really - mainly due to ps-poor genuine information from both sides - but this campaign is quite frankly disgraceful...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

I am lost for words. How the fk did we come to a point where this is OK??

Imagine a black youth where the white man is, pointing at an old white lady? Would it be allowed?

Just fk off.

I wish you would follow your own advice with your aggressive and abusive attitude.

If you don't agree with the post, fair enough. But your consistent attitude is way over the top. Hope you are a nicer individual in real life.

What are you on about? It looks to me as if Dan is irate about the ridiculous and borderline racist poster, not MikeT66.

Yes, that was how I read it - I never thought the frustration was aimed at me, more the campaign I mentioned.

[///ajd]

hidetheelephants said:

///ajd said:

Indeed, I also read one report - that was actually being pushed by brexiters for some other stats - that confirmed that the vast majority of SMEs saw immigration as a positive benefit for their business. It could be argued these SMEs would not therefore want the 4 freedoms removed.

Given that no-one is campaigning to stop immigration, only to move to a level playing field for EU and non-EU immigrants it's not really an argument that holds water.

What does move to a level playing field actually mean?

It doesn't sound like continued free movement, so that's potentially a threat to SMEs.

[Guybrush]

Remainians have done nothing to justify staying in the EU because they can't, which is why they are trying to unbalance those wishing to leave, by simply issuing scare stories which are easy to churn out.

[Axionknight]

Guybrush said:

Remainians have done nothing to justify staying in the EU because they can't, which is why they are trying to unbalance those wishing to leave, by simply issuing scare stories which are easy to churn out.

If the pro Brexit groups weren't totally incompetent beyond belief it wouldn't be much of a problem, I'll be voting to leave but in my opinion the people heading up the argument on the public stage have st it so badly it almost beggars belief, hopeless.