The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[gothatway]

John145 said:

without data, the base qualitative information leads to only 1 logical outcome.

Uncontrolled immigration > wealth disparity

I've got the feeling that you and I might be on the same side (vote leave, yes ?), but I really don't understand your point. What do you mean by the above? What is the relevance of data from the Congressional Budget Office (sounds US) to this discussion?

[EddieSteadyGo]

gothatway said:

John145 said:

without data, the base qualitative information leads to only 1 logical outcome.

Uncontrolled immigration > wealth disparity

I've got the feeling that you and I might be on the same side (vote leave, yes ?), but I really don't understand your point. What do you mean by the above? What is the relevance of data from the Congressional Budget Office (sounds US) to this discussion?

I think the problem is that John has decided what he wants the answer to be i.e. increasing inequality of wealth in the UK has been caused by immigration.

Hence he is looking for charts which appears to be support his opinion, even if the chart in question is related to the US economy and nothing to do with the UK.

And yet he hasn't spent any time reading the relevant articles or understanding the key metrics which have been developed by experts and show, in fact, his personal perception of reality isn't supported by the objective analysis.

Lets just hope his opinion on the best course of action to vote in the EU referendum isn't based on equally flaky reasoning.

[///ajd]

cookie118 said:

FiF said:

You know what I'm proposing, don't intend to say it again for your deaf ears. It's been posted and linked often enough, even recently as yesterday, for even someone as blinkered as you to understand what is being proposed. If you want to argue about what Vote Leave waffle on about, then please argue with them not me nor the Leave Alliance.

So you keep on saying that me and ajd are blinkered because we disagree with you-but then say that we should ignore the plans from the official leave campaign and instead focus on the one you think is best?

Yes, that is the other 'slight' issue.

Some brexiters here are basically saying "don't listen to/trust the official leave campaign, they are idiots who are presenting a rubbish economic case, whereas the ph case which they know about but are ignoring is totally ace and would lead to economic nirvana."

On this basis, the argument to vote leave is still fine even though the key leavers don't know what they are doing. Right.....

[turbobloke]

///ajd said:

Some brexiters here are basically saying "don't listen to/trust the official leave campaign, they are idiots who are presenting a rubbish economic case, whereas the ph case which they know about but are ignoring is totally ace and would lead to economic nirvana."

On this basis, the argument to vote leave is still fine even though the key leavers don't know what they are doing. Right.....

That's not quite right, you've added some made-up elements.

The official Leave campaign folks aren't idiots, and I don't recall seeing a post seriously suggesting they are - but they do have other failings and some posts have pointed these out.

There's no "PH case" but there are various approaches based on an analysis by others and these have been linked on PH then discussed variously since the thread began.

The most sensible of these are indeed routinely ignored by Remain supporters and/or subjected to pointlessly repetitive questions, when those seemingly interested could look back for themselves if they were interested enough.

Any basis for voting to Leave the EU is independent of the people putting it forward.

[///ajd]

turbobloke said:

///ajd said:

Some brexiters here are basically saying "don't listen to/trust the official leave campaign, they are idiots who are presenting a rubbish economic case, whereas the ph case which they know about but are ignoring is totally ace and would lead to economic nirvana."

On this basis, the argument to vote leave is still fine even though the key leavers don't know what they are doing. Right.....

That's not quite right, you've added some made-up elements.

The official Leave campaign folks aren't idiots, and I don't recall seeing a post seriously suggesting they are - but they do have other failings and some posts have pointed these out.

There's no "PH case" but there are various approaches based on an analysis by others and these have been linked on PH then discussed variously since the thread began.

The most sensible of these are indeed routinely ignored by Remain supporters and/or subjected to pointlessly repetitive questions, when those seemingly interested could look back for themselves if they were interested enough.

Any basis for voting to Leave the EU is independent of the people putting it forward.

come on you know what fif meant when he said "go and talk to vote leave about what they waffle on about, not me"

flexcit is not ignored by remain - we've discussed it enough - its ignored by the official leave campaign! and now it seems you are trying to ignore that as clearly the largest elephant in the room.


anyhow

"A source close to Cameron said that there was now overwhelming evidence, backed up by Sunday’s Observer survey of economists, that leaving the EU would cause a “serious economic shock” and that “the suggestion that crashing your economy is the best way of dealing with immigration is clearly nonsense”.

the bit in bold has just effectively been proposed on here.....

[turbobloke]

You'd need to ask FiF.

[FiF]

Stop being ridiculous ///ajd, the reason I told you to go and talk to vote Leave was because of comments like this

///ajd said:

proposing some cake and eat it Norway option, for free, with no immigration, cos we're Great Britain. The Davies QT flag waving rule britannia proposal.

Typical of your invent something that's not been said or even suggested by the poster approach. Not even worthy of interaction with you.

Noting TB'S comment about attrition loop, and not going to be sucked in, it's clear what has been proposed and none of it is as you describe. The reason you can't see the way forward is because you haven't looked, and if you have looked and not liked what you've seen then have ignored it, to which you have admitted doing. Thus the repetitive twaddle from you.

[///ajd]

FiF said:

Stop being ridiculous ///ajd, the reason I told you to go and talk to vote Leave was because of comments like this

///ajd said:

proposing some cake and eat it Norway option, for free, with no immigration, cos we're Great Britain. The Davies QT flag waving rule britannia proposal.

Typical of your invent something that's not been said or even suggested by the poster approach. Not even worthy of interaction with you.

Noting TB'S comment about attrition loop, and not going to be sucked in, it's clear what has been proposed and none of it is as you describe. The reason you can't see the way forward is because you haven't looked, and if you have looked and not liked what you've seen then have ignored it, to which you have admitted doing. Thus the repetitive twaddle from you.

i know why you refuse to debate it

its because you can't have it all ways

sucked in indeed - if you start to say "this option" then the question is quickly "but what about this"

you don't want to do that as you know your brexit case just falls to bits

prove me wrong and explain what your flexcit path & end state is!

[anonymous-user]

John145 said:

Let's ignore the fishing community then. Sorry former fishing community.

[footnote]Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday]

This point has been raised by the leave campaigners a lot.
And Nigel farage and ukip have used the issue to try and attack the eu

However farage sat on the fisheries committee in the eu.
I say sat on the commitee but he attended 1/42 meetings over three years.
If anyone has ignored the fishing community it is farage-while he uses its plight for political gain.

[steveT350C]

Any legal boffins, or anyone for that matter, able to challenge this article on the European Arrest Warrant?

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/67...

Vote leave it is

[Cobnapint]

confused_buyer said:

zygalski said:

But it does show a wide consensus regarding the economic implications of Brexit among economists.
I put more faith in them in judging the economic costs/benefits than the man in the pub.

The problem is that on the two huge economic decisions we have had to make as a nation in the last 30 years with regard to Europe the man in the pub turned out to be right and the economists wrong.

And who cares if the economists 'are' right - money isn't everything. I'd happily see GDP take a dip in the short term if it meant more control over our borders, laws, etc. plus the freedom to trade with other parts of the world.

The futures bright - the futures Brexit.

Edited by Cobnapint on Sunday 29th May 19:29

[gothatway]

Cobnapint said:

And who cares if the economists 'are' right - money isn't everything. I'd happily see GDP take a dip in the short term if it meant more control over our borders, laws, etc. plus the freedom to trade with other parts of the world.

The futures bright - the futures Brexit.

Edited by Cobnapint on Sunday 29th May 19:29

I fully agree. Unfortunately those on the Remain side seem to want something more quantitative, more tangible. They're obviously lacking confidence, probably imagination too. And I suspect they are extremely risk-averse.

[Cobnapint]

gothatway said:

Cobnapint said:

And who cares if the economists 'are' right - money isn't everything. I'd happily see GDP take a dip in the short term if it meant more control over our borders, laws, etc. plus the freedom to trade with other parts of the world.

The futures bright - the futures Brexit.

Edited by Cobnapint on Sunday 29th May 19:29

I fully agree. Unfortunately those on the Remain side seem to want something more quantitative, more tangible. They're obviously lacking confidence, probably imagination too. And I suspect they are extremely risk-averse.

They're not that risk averse - no matter what Cameron etc say about Turkey not coming in for years, the fact remains - they're coming in. Yes, as Cameron says, we have a veto. It's the fact whether you are going to use it that is the question. When Turkey finally achieves all the required 72 benchmarks and it comes to the vote....which fellow NATO member is gonna tell 'em to ps off.

Nobody.

[gothatway]

The EU will surely find it extremely expensive to buy off the Greek and Cypriot vetoes against Turkey joining. Still, they are plenty of rich countries contributing to EU coffers, aren't there ?

[FiF]

///ajd said:

i know why you refuse to debate it

its because you can't have it all ways

sucked in indeed - if you start to say "this option" then the question is quickly "but what about this"

you don't want to do that as you know your brexit case just falls to bits

prove me wrong and explain what your flexcit path & end state is!

The reason I refuse to debate it with you is quite simple, and it's due to your repeated tactic of putting up something that someone hasn't said and trying to twist what they have said into some fiction that you put up in order to knock down. It's disingenuous and have no intention of wasting my time with you. These are my last words to you.

The Market solution sets out the case for why the first stage of the exit process should be as proposed, yes it's a sub optimal situation, but there is no way that anything else can be reached in the time available, that will give a safe, soft, fiscally neutral landing, retaining access to the single market, passporting rights, mutual recognition of standards and eliminating technical barriers to trade, little disruption to trade on either side, but with some concessions, eg four freedoms, still maintaining some payments into EU, still maintaining cooperation, no bonfire of regulations, no massive monetary savings. But the key is out from the dead hand of the EU, out from some regulations that matter and now in a position to review and change.

The path to make those changes will be a long one, for example it sets out a proposal for changes to the Fisheries Policy. Those aren't going to be effected overnight, it will take years, as it needs changes to many areas, not least deciding if that is what we do want to do, and involves many stakeholders. That's just one area. Now extend that to the review of legislation, as will getting our government and civil service back up into the condition to govern, getting our in position and influence back on the global bodies currently denied to us by the EU. 40 years of entanglement are not going to be undone in a few years, it's going to be a long process, that's why it's important to have a state immediately after leaving where there is very little change, a sustainable holding position.

There is no end state, and I fully realise what people like you will make of that statement, but it's simply a recognition that the world is changing, it will continue to change, it has changed from the time when the EU model was founded, which model no longer fits the world today, and the best thing for the UK is to be outside that outdated model which is being rapidly outpaced by events.

But in essence if you want some vision of an end state in respect of our relationship with the EU it's we don't want to be isolationist and inward looking, but a cooperative and supportive sponsor, trading partner and ally rather than a subordinate state in a political union under a supranational government.

I have no idea why you say I want it all ways when have clearly always talked about compromises. I can only conclude it's another of your episodes of making stuff up that people haven't said.

[0000]

gothatway said:

The EU will surely find it extremely expensive to buy off the Greek and Cypriot vetoes against Turkey joining. Still, they are plenty of rich countries contributing to EU coffers, aren't there ?

Cyprus recently asked for Turkish to be made an official EU language. I'd suggest the deal has already been done.

[0000]

gothatway said:

Unfortunately those on the Remain side seem to want something more quantitative, more tangible.

Curiously, only from one side of the argument though.

[wc98]

alfie2244 said:

zygalski said:

2 vs 600. Seriously?
I'll back the 600 thanks.

Baa Baa

600 economists all saying the same thing ? hmmmm.
The study says that 94 per cent of public funding for economic theory comes from EU sources.
https://research.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2016/05/19/eu...

[///ajd]

FiF said:

///ajd said:

i know why you refuse to debate it

its because you can't have it all ways

sucked in indeed - if you start to say "this option" then the question is quickly "but what about this"

you don't want to do that as you know your brexit case just falls to bits

prove me wrong and explain what your flexcit path & end state is!

The reason I refuse to debate it with you is quite simple, and it's due to your repeated tactic of putting up something that someone hasn't said and trying to twist what they have said into some fiction that you put up in order to knock down. It's disingenuous and have no intention of wasting my time with you. These are my last words to you.

The Market solution sets out the case for why the first stage of the exit process should be as proposed, yes it's a sub optimal situation, but there is no way that anything else can be reached in the time available, that will give a safe, soft, fiscally neutral landing, retaining access to the single market, passporting rights, mutual recognition of standards and eliminating technical barriers to trade, little disruption to trade on either side, but with some concessions, eg four freedoms, still maintaining some payments into EU, still maintaining cooperation, no bonfire of regulations, no massive monetary savings. But the key is out from the dead hand of the EU, out from some regulations that matter and now in a position to review and change.

The path to make those changes will be a long one, for example it sets out a proposal for changes to the Fisheries Policy. Those aren't going to be effected overnight, it will take years, as it needs changes to many areas, not least deciding if that is what we do want to do, and involves many stakeholders. That's just one area. Now extend that to the review of legislation, as will getting our government and civil service back up into the condition to govern, getting our in position and influence back on the global bodies currently denied to us by the EU. 40 years of entanglement are not going to be undone in a few years, it's going to be a long process, that's why it's important to have a state immediately after leaving where there is very little change, a sustainable holding position.

There is no end state, and I fully realise what people like you will make of that statement, but it's simply a recognition that the world is changing, it will continue to change, it has changed from the time when the EU model was founded, which model no longer fits the world today, and the best thing for the UK is to be outside that outdated model which is being rapidly outpaced by events.

But in essence if you want some vision of an end state in respect of our relationship with the EU it's we don't want to be isolationist and inward looking, but a cooperative and supportive sponsor, trading partner and ally rather than a subordinate state in a political union under a supranational government.

I have no idea why you say I want it all ways when have clearly always talked about compromises. I can only conclude it's another of your episodes of making stuff up that people haven't said.

thanks - you describe first step as - i assume flexcit - and therefore the norway soft landing.

this is when things get a bit vague from here. mention of fisheries, but is that it?

what about
- single market access for ever? or do we step out? why?
- how much will we pay?
- what our immigration posn will be and why?

you say i read more into things - not really, just that when someone talks about wanting one thing i may point out the likely consequences. they say they haven't said it - but thats not the point, the consequence highlighted is still there and that is what goes unanswered. a prime example would be limiting immigration and maintaining single market access. often a poster here will rant about the former, but fall mysteriously silent when asked about the consequences of such a policy on the latter. "i didn't say that!" goes the cry - well quite.

[Cobnapint]

0000 said:

Cyprus recently asked for Turkish to be made an official EU language. I'd suggest the deal has already been done.

Oh dear. Money has changed hands already has it?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/661689/Turkey-...

...no chance of getting membership...? I'd say 2021 at the latest.