The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
wiggy001 said:
So you see, the problem exists on both sides. With a couple of exceptions:
- The Remain side has completely failed to make a positive case for staying
- The Remain side have completely failed to tell us what the EU will look like in 5 years' time, despite insisting on the same from the Leave side in the event of Brexit
- The Remain side can confidently predict we will be thousands of pounds per person worse of in several decade's time, but the same people cannot accurately predict the UK finances in 6 months' time
- The Remain side has completely failed to make a positive case for staying
- The Remain side have completely failed to tell us what the EU will look like in 5 years' time, despite insisting on the same from the Leave side in the event of Brexit
- The Remain side can confidently predict we will be thousands of pounds per person worse of in several decade's time, but the same people cannot accurately predict the UK finances in 6 months' time
Spot on. It does come down to neither side actually knows and can state any actual hard core facts. Predictions, yes, some of which could be self fulfilling. However I would like to see the Leave campaign be far more aspirational. Remain has so far been 95% fear....the four horseman of the apocalypse and all, no actual benefits. Sooner or later one side needs to become more positive, when being all shouty.
The underlying arguments are really interesting, the more actual debates I hear (not emotional rhetoric shouty bits) the more I'm leaning toward leave. Listening to Cam's chum, Steve Hilton (I think that's his name) on 5Live yesterday was very much an eye opener. No matter which daft questions were thrown at him, it was always a calm measured response, laying out the facts as far as he could, and then offering potentials where possible. The part that did go off the rails was when he was advocating Cam should stay if out win!! That just sounded odd.
Edited by sanf on Thursday 26th May 23:05
Tony427 said:
Mrr T said:
I agree the problem does not exist at airports. Have you noticed the other difference at an airport people walk on to the plane at a ferry or the train the cars and lorries drive on. Giving irregular immigrants some where to hide. As for the Belgium and Dutch accepting immigrants without papers you are joking?
You do also realise it not just holiday makers who would be effected but the ferries and train are vital links for trade with the EU.
Our borders are in France so that our Customs Officers can work in France searching wagons, buses, cars and trains and also checking passports. I would suggest that these searching duties and passport checking duties can be just as successfully carried out by companies in France, rather than the Border Force, thus enabling our Customs officers to move back to Dover. Passports would once again be checked again at Dover much as they are at airports now. You do also realise it not just holiday makers who would be effected but the ferries and train are vital links for trade with the EU.
Searching duties ( apart from Man Utd toilets) can easily be delegated to specialist providers. The drugs and human smelling dogs I presume dont know or care if he border force or a private company is providing their pedigree chum.
As it happens I am well aware of how important the ferries and trains are given that my business is based on importing products from Europe, as I have mentioned previously, and I have at least two deliveries per month coming through Dover. I go through there myself about once a month.
Whether the lorry is searched by Border Force or GS4, or Serco or " Immigrants R U " makes no difference whatsoever to the flow of traffic. Indeed fining ferry companies similar to Airlines as suggested for "stowaways" would probably help the whole situation.
Moreover the fact that the wagons would be searched more thoroughly would mean that I may even be able to relax a bit and not worry about the chances of the load having to be dumped because some unwelcome " guests" has shat and pissed everywhere thus rendering the shipment a total loss and adding extra costs and problems onto my business.
Indeed if we could be sure that the search providers wouldn't be creative in their business I may even go as far as suggesting that we pay a bounty to the search teams for each illegal immigrant found.
Thus, in my view, by taking the borders back to the UK we would actually icrease the layers of security and its effectiveness.
Costs may increase but hey we will have £350m per week to pay for it all ( yes I am being flippant...a bit....say its £8 billion per year.).
Cheers,
Tony
So let say we move borders control back to Dover/Folkstone. With private contractors checking vehicles in France. The problem is that today the biggest protection is the lorry drivers who know they will suffer heavy fines if irregular immigrants are found. Unless the French authorities introduce similar penalities and station police along side the civilian staff this protection will be lost. So the level of checking in France will need to be much higher delaying vehicles and increasing costs.
We know it's not possible to check lorries in transit so this would mean the final check for ferries would be in Dover. Once again this causes practical problems. Even if you wanted to fine lorry drives and the ferry companies how would you monitor this. Once on UK soil they can just drop off the lorry while it queues to pass immigration and maybe customs and claim asylum. You would have no idea which lorry or ferry company they crossed with. I agree it would be easier for the tunnel but even then you would often not know which lorry.
So of the 4/5bn we might save for leaving the EU would be off set by a very large cost of many more irregular immigrants.
turbobloke said:
cookie118 said:
From what I've seen, I think you may have it backwards with the top quote and that the 'quiet' voters are the remainers.
So quiet they won't turn out to vote?The outcome next month may well depend on turnout percentages in different age groups.
With Remain ahead in the polls, which is relatively meaningless at this stage given the margins involved yet people not so interested in polls and politics won't realise, the quiet Remainians may well consider it sewn up already and not bother going out to vote.
After all the to-and-fro it could be that simple turnout is what decides it!
One thing I have realised is that with a referendum you aren't voting for a person but a side of a debate. Therefore it seems to me that it's harder for things to pivot around quickly based on a single person's speech/performance/revelations. Rather things change gradually over days or weeks.
cookie118 said:
After all the to-and-fro it could be that simple turnout is what decides it!
One thing I have realised is that with a referendum you aren't voting for a person but a side of a debate.
You've got Nichola telling all her followers that it's in Scotland's interests to vote yes. While also saying that a no vote will trigger another Indy ref and hence something else that is in Scotland's interests.
Which way do you go if you're a true blue face...?
Mrr T said:
Tony427 said:
Mrr T said:
I agree the problem does not exist at airports. Have you noticed the other difference at an airport people walk on to the plane at a ferry or the train the cars and lorries drive on. Giving irregular immigrants some where to hide. As for the Belgium and Dutch accepting immigrants without papers you are joking?
You do also realise it not just holiday makers who would be effected but the ferries and train are vital links for trade with the EU.
Our borders are in France so that our Customs Officers can work in France searching wagons, buses, cars and trains and also checking passports. I would suggest that these searching duties and passport checking duties can be just as successfully carried out by companies in France, rather than the Border Force, thus enabling our Customs officers to move back to Dover. Passports would once again be checked again at Dover much as they are at airports now. You do also realise it not just holiday makers who would be effected but the ferries and train are vital links for trade with the EU.
Searching duties ( apart from Man Utd toilets) can easily be delegated to specialist providers. The drugs and human smelling dogs I presume dont know or care if he border force or a private company is providing their pedigree chum.
As it happens I am well aware of how important the ferries and trains are given that my business is based on importing products from Europe, as I have mentioned previously, and I have at least two deliveries per month coming through Dover. I go through there myself about once a month.
Whether the lorry is searched by Border Force or GS4, or Serco or " Immigrants R U " makes no difference whatsoever to the flow of traffic. Indeed fining ferry companies similar to Airlines as suggested for "stowaways" would probably help the whole situation.
Moreover the fact that the wagons would be searched more thoroughly would mean that I may even be able to relax a bit and not worry about the chances of the load having to be dumped because some unwelcome " guests" has shat and pissed everywhere thus rendering the shipment a total loss and adding extra costs and problems onto my business.
Indeed if we could be sure that the search providers wouldn't be creative in their business I may even go as far as suggesting that we pay a bounty to the search teams for each illegal immigrant found.
Thus, in my view, by taking the borders back to the UK we would actually icrease the layers of security and its effectiveness.
Costs may increase but hey we will have £350m per week to pay for it all ( yes I am being flippant...a bit....say its £8 billion per year.).
Cheers,
Tony
So let say we move borders control back to Dover/Folkstone. With private contractors checking vehicles in France. The problem is that today the biggest protection is the lorry drivers who know they will suffer heavy fines if irregular immigrants are found. Unless the French authorities introduce similar penalities and station police along side the civilian staff this protection will be lost. So the level of checking in France will need to be much higher delaying vehicles and increasing costs.
We know it's not possible to check lorries in transit so this would mean the final check for ferries would be in Dover. Once again this causes practical problems. Even if you wanted to fine lorry drives and the ferry companies how would you monitor this. Once on UK soil they can just drop off the lorry while it queues to pass immigration and maybe customs and claim asylum. You would have no idea which lorry or ferry company they crossed with. I agree it would be easier for the tunnel but even then you would often not know which lorry.
So of the 4/5bn we might save for leaving the EU would be off set by a very large cost of many more irregular immigrants.
Why would the laws as currently applied have to be dropped? The lorry drivers would still legally responsible for the wagons once on UK soil. That would not change. In addition the ferry companies would also be responsible for the stowaways thus two parties would be highly motivated to ensure that illegal immigrants are found and ejected from the boat/ lorry/ train.
As for people who might get through and then seeking asylum I am sure a government intent on protecting the borders would take note that the last time we looked France was not at war with anyone, it is a safe country, and therefore the asylum seekers should be sent back, much as it appears the EU itself is doing to migrants in Greece being deported back to Turkey.
The staff in France would be employed by the ferry companies, or our government and would check wagons in France just as ferry company staff do now but there would be more of them and better managed. When we queue in France for the ferry we are often asked to open the back of the wagon or the van or boot of the car to check for illegals by the british ferry staff, not the French.
Have you seen the number of cameras at the ports. Lots of NPR cameras also, probably face recognition of drivers in addition I would hazard a guess. No you probably haven't because it seems you speak from no practical experience of crossing the channel, if you had you would not be appearing so ignorant of the true facts. Or you had your eyes shut.
It is perfectly possible to check for stowaways on wagons in transit with a carbon dioxide probe within the wagon, its a system fixed to the wagon with tamper proof alarms and a signal in the cab. Its basically a mobile version of the probes used at the ports. Someone I used to work with invented it. or rather his team did.
But then you didnt know about that did you?
Oh, and what about the rumoured dogs checking the cars and wagons on the car and lorry decks. I have seen the dogs on the ships but never seen them in action, but they do have free rein on the car decks once at sea when the passengers and lorry drivers are forbidden access. Plus the many cameras on the decks. I think this would be called checking in transit.
See what I mean about ignorant.
And who are these irregular immigrants of which you speak. They are not iregular they are illegal.
You really must try harder not to expose yourself to ridicule through lack of knowledge or experience.
Cheers,
Tony
Edited by Tony427 on Thursday 26th May 20:29
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.
you got the job, when can you start campaigning to leave 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.
wc98 said:
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.
you got the job, when can you start campaigning to leave 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.
But you see my point? To make the leave campaign work, there has to be an alternative story with an economic case which can capture the centre ground. And to my post above, there is no "x" percent growth or "y" pounds case which the Leave campaign are prepared to advocate.
They (the Leave campaigners) could have made it, but they chose not to. Yes, it exposes them to potential criticism but it would be essential to winning over a majority IMHO.
Zod said:
Well, fear of the Fourth Reich, an invasion of Turks, ever closer union etc appears not to be working. There are four more weeks of this to endure though.
The evidence does appear to support you.The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
don4l said:
Zod said:
Well, fear of the Fourth Reich, an invasion of Turks, ever closer union etc appears not to be working. There are four more weeks of this to endure though.
The evidence does appear to support you.The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
Amazing what courage a bottle of red wine gives
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.
The other lady I was thinking of was Ruth Lea - see http://www.betteroffout.net/in-conversation-with-r...don4l said:
Zod said:
Well, fear of the Fourth Reich, an invasion of Turks, ever closer union etc appears not to be working. There are four more weeks of this to endure though.
The evidence does appear to support you.The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
don4l said:
The evidence does appear to support you.
The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
Donald's been sniffing the barmaid's apron...The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
jjlynn27 said:
Mr_B said:
Oh dear, you didn't take a slow clam read , did you ? The bit about the difference between me asking if something is correct that your declared "settled" got you all angry when people don't listen to you trying to shut it down, you didn't take it in and understand it, did you ?
In both cases and fair minded PH reader would see me ask for evidence and accepting I could be wrong but having a say on what I feel is correct.
It was you with your high standard of evidence of being told something by 4 people on PH that was slightly related, and then holding it up as evidence and declaring it "settled".
It really does go to the heart of the matter with your pro EU gibberish that you have a desperation to want to just declare something "settled" and then beyond argument. There's a real arrogance to that, but then, it doesn't seem to bother you you aren't open to listening to anyone else, so sure of yourself that its you who is right and anyone disagreeing is thick. How very EU in a way.
Your post at 11.27 yesterday contained nothing about the subject matter of Mordaunt or Cameron on the EU , it was a rambling defence of yourself and your deluded comments and claim that a majority in Germany at the time were pro millions of refugees when those you were actually reliant on were posting posting opinion polls say this wasn't so.
Again, you get so worked up and touchy when people don't take your delectation of something. It's not a healthy complex to have.
So, nothing on 'edited' post lie? As you said; people can draw their own conclusion, about 'honesty'. In both cases and fair minded PH reader would see me ask for evidence and accepting I could be wrong but having a say on what I feel is correct.
It was you with your high standard of evidence of being told something by 4 people on PH that was slightly related, and then holding it up as evidence and declaring it "settled".
It really does go to the heart of the matter with your pro EU gibberish that you have a desperation to want to just declare something "settled" and then beyond argument. There's a real arrogance to that, but then, it doesn't seem to bother you you aren't open to listening to anyone else, so sure of yourself that its you who is right and anyone disagreeing is thick. How very EU in a way.
Your post at 11.27 yesterday contained nothing about the subject matter of Mordaunt or Cameron on the EU , it was a rambling defence of yourself and your deluded comments and claim that a majority in Germany at the time were pro millions of refugees when those you were actually reliant on were posting posting opinion polls say this wasn't so.
Again, you get so worked up and touchy when people don't take your delectation of something. It's not a healthy complex to have.
You seem to decry 'angry' and 'rabid' quite a lot. Why would I be angry about you being a liar? Like some other, mostly rabid(!) kippers , you are disposable entertainment. Nothing more than that. You read, or pretend to read, I can't possibly know, something that is just not there. You did it with German immigration thread, where you have to be as thick as you are to even consider the possibility of anything being unanimous within the whole country. So yes, you made that up. (No, I didn't delete any posts there either, in order to make you look dim). People are indeed very welcome to read those posts and make up their own mind.
There are plenty of people who disagree with me on any number of subjects, that doesn't make them thick, you made that up. I do think that you are, Mr_B, spectacularly thick, in addition to being a proven liar.
Keep digging, still very funny.
You do indeed have to be spectacularly thick to declare anything "settled " as you did in the German thread. The fact you did so is what brought about the question if that was really the case. But then, as with the Penny Mordaunt thing, you do seem to dislike people who don't take your word for it there when you've declared something settled an beyond reproach.
Do you ever wonder if its not some personality trait that brings on this anger when people don't accept your high standard of proof on a topic of four people on PH telling you something ? Digging in to the rubbish you post on PH is always good for a laugh. The reactions from you are hysterical.
Norfolkit said:
Cobnapint said:
If Cam stays after a Brexit - fully expect open borders to remain, he's that soft.
If Cam stays after a Brexit - fully expect not to notice we've left, he's that soft.don4l said:
The evidence does appear to support you.
The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
Ah... Don in full cock-womble meltdown mode. Truly a thing to behold. The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
don4l said:
Zod said:
Well, fear of the Fourth Reich, an invasion of Turks, ever closer union etc appears not to be working. There are four more weeks of this to endure though.
The evidence does appear to support you.The fact that Angela Merkel is running Europe doesn't seem to bother the remainers. Clearly, people are not worried about the Fourth Reich. In fact, many of you appear to be welcoming it with open arms.
It makes me wonder why you bothered fighting in the second world war.
Well... when I say "you" I mean your courageous grandparents who clearly believed in their country, and were willing to fight to maintain its independence.
I find it ironic that so many people gave their lives so that you would have the freedom to give away your freedom.
Hopefully, you can now understand why some people view the "remainers" as little more than traitors.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff