The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
TEKNOPUG said:
wiggy001 said:
///ajd said:
Good news!!!
I've found another professor who appears to know about economics and stuff and is talking about
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RHFp3-qE_T8
Certainly adds some useful thoughts on trade deals and reality.
So a country with a big economy like China (2nd biggest economy in the world) can dictate beneficial terms for itself over a smaller country economically such as Switzerland (19th biggest economy in the world).I've found another professor who appears to know about economics and stuff and is talking about
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RHFp3-qE_T8
Certainly adds some useful thoughts on trade deals and reality.
On that basis does it not therefore make sense that a country with a big economy like the UK (5th biggest economy in the world) could negotiate trade deals beneficial to us with every country in the world that has a smaller economy than us?
The ivory towers I've been in weren't equipped with crystal balls, perhaps that's changed.
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.
A bit cringeworthy actually.
Cheers,
Tony
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.
A bit cringeworthy actually.
Cheers,
Tony
REALIST123 said:
What was interesting to me was that they all, without exception, strongly resent what Cameron and Osborne have been up to recently with a blatant propaganda campaign. They are, or were, all staunch Tory voters but would find it difficult to vote that way in the future, particularly if the vote is to stay and Cameron and Osborne manage to hold on to their jobs.
), they too are getting annoyed with the scare stories....just not enough to change their minds.Murph7355 said:
FiF said:
I'd like to hear the details of how he thinks something like this would work, in practice. Considering that the most likely post Brexit scenario we would be completely out from CAP, yet still supporting equivalent payments to farmers and regional development funds from UK government in order to keep stability in the industry.
Having thrown his assertion out there it needs backing up with some detail around the proposition, otherwise it is a worthless gambit.
Of course there will be some horse trading in the two year Article 50 negotiations, but as written before, both parties, EU and UK, will both be keen to minimise risks, neither side will want a drama. There may be some theatrical arm waving, but deep down no real drama desired.
No one knows how it would work as it's all very hypothetical, but here's where I think his line of thought was (and it's not unreasonable in generic terms) :Having thrown his assertion out there it needs backing up with some detail around the proposition, otherwise it is a worthless gambit.
Of course there will be some horse trading in the two year Article 50 negotiations, but as written before, both parties, EU and UK, will both be keen to minimise risks, neither side will want a drama. There may be some theatrical arm waving, but deep down no real drama desired.
UK: we'd like free trade in the auto sector, no tariffs. How about it?
EU: Germany are very receptive but to get this through France want you to keep contributing to the CAP.
Assuming they then dug their heels in, we would need to decide if a free trade deal on cars with the EU was worth the CAP payments. If we didn't then we have no free trade on cars. If we did, we'd probably need to tell farmers they'll still be getting their subsidies through CAP.
Etc.
The big point for me here and with this whole vote - it's then our choice that we make with our interests at the fore.
REALIST123 said:
Hosenbugler said:
I'm of a similar frame of mind. I'm also deeply suspicious of the DT poll that suggested that the "leavers" of the elder generation are turning away from the leave vote. Polls can be easily skewed to get a result the pollster wants (yes I do have experience) and I would not be surprised if thats what has been done in that case.
That perception is reinforced by what I hear from people . Virtually everyone I have talked to wants out. My daughter and son in law take little or no interest in politics, yet they cannot wait to vote out, and frequently mention the matter. Son in law travels widely in the UK in doing the specialist job he has, and mentions that he sees large numbers of leave posters/signs and very few remain.
About the only claim I have not heard from Remainians is that the Moon may spin out of orbit and the seas dry up if we vote for Brexit , still, give them time I think, near another month to go!
That perception is reinforced by what I hear from people . Virtually everyone I have talked to wants out. My daughter and son in law take little or no interest in politics, yet they cannot wait to vote out, and frequently mention the matter. Son in law travels widely in the UK in doing the specialist job he has, and mentions that he sees large numbers of leave posters/signs and very few remain.
About the only claim I have not heard from Remainians is that the Moon may spin out of orbit and the seas dry up if we vote for Brexit , still, give them time I think, near another month to go!
I'm one of the leavers of the elder generation. I was talking to a few mates recently and they are all committed leavers, never had another thought.
What was interesting to me was that they all, without exception, strongly resent what Cameron and Osborne have been up to recently with a blatant propaganda campaign. They are, or were, all staunch Tory voters but would find it difficult to vote that way in the future, particularly if the vote is to stay and Cameron and Osborne manage to hold on to their jobs.
The view seems to be that there would be nothing to lose if we stay in the EU so they'll vote UKIP, or not bother at all, even if that risked the economic chaos of a labour government.
I hadn't thought that far ahead but it's made me think. I realise that this is a small group but it will be interesting to see the domestic political fallout whichever way this goes.
Cameron has launched an all out war against Leave and has burned every bridge in sight with the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party. I can't see how he can possibly reconcile that split, the debate (such as it's been) has been so toxic it may make reconciliation impossible.
Labour has done the sensible thing and said we're In and then kept their heads down and said nothing else, they're still unelectable under Corbyn though.
In my opinion Cameron has alienated huge numbers of Tory voters beyond repair, it's not inconceivable the Tory party could split.
this is actually quite simple.
UK - 'we operate tariff free imports regardless of country of origin or type of product IF it is reciprocated by tariff free imports of UK origin & type of product.' come trade with the UK.
Case closed.
IF germany/france/italy wants to sell cars and bikes to uk, they need to make sure there are no tariffs for UK origin goods of any type in the EU. Combine this with Dutch food exports to the UK, and we have all the big boys in the EU club forcing EU to go tariff free with UK simply because these 4 countries need the export income from goods exported to UK.
It is actually quite simple. We reciprocate to anyone equally, regardless of product type or origin. the ball is in their court if they want our money. People who want premium german cars will pay premium. Others can have more choice from the rest of the world depending on their budget which is now artificially restricted due to EU rules.
UK - 'we operate tariff free imports regardless of country of origin or type of product IF it is reciprocated by tariff free imports of UK origin & type of product.' come trade with the UK.
Case closed.
IF germany/france/italy wants to sell cars and bikes to uk, they need to make sure there are no tariffs for UK origin goods of any type in the EU. Combine this with Dutch food exports to the UK, and we have all the big boys in the EU club forcing EU to go tariff free with UK simply because these 4 countries need the export income from goods exported to UK.
It is actually quite simple. We reciprocate to anyone equally, regardless of product type or origin. the ball is in their court if they want our money. People who want premium german cars will pay premium. Others can have more choice from the rest of the world depending on their budget which is now artificially restricted due to EU rules.
John145 said:
Is this in addition to the rebate we receive or just part of the rebate package?
I don't understand this mentality of x y and z have received money from the EU, surely if we left the pot they could access would be bigger as we're net contributors to the EU.
You are absolutely right except that institutions like Oxford University believe that those nasty Tories won't give them that same £60+m once we leave the EU.I don't understand this mentality of x y and z have received money from the EU, surely if we left the pot they could access would be bigger as we're net contributors to the EU.
What they fail to acknowledge is that if that happens less people will vote for the Tories at the next election, and a party which will honour or indeed improve on those amounts given to Oxford will take control of No 10. This is called democracy and it is what those voting to leave the EU want above anything else.
wiggy001 said:
You are absolutely right except that institutions like Oxford University believe that those nasty Tories won't give them that same £60+m once we leave the EU.
What they fail to acknowledge is that if that happens less people will vote for the Tories at the next election, and a party which will honour or indeed improve on those amounts given to Oxford will take control of No 10. This is called democracy and it is what those voting to leave the EU want above anything else.
I don't get this generalization; the "Oxford Uni wants something". There are many people working for Oxford and unless they made official statement, how could you possibly make that statement?What they fail to acknowledge is that if that happens less people will vote for the Tories at the next election, and a party which will honour or indeed improve on those amounts given to Oxford will take control of No 10. This is called democracy and it is what those voting to leave the EU want above anything else.
Same with generalization of what 'leave' wants above anything else.
jjlynn27 said:
wiggy001 said:
You are absolutely right except that institutions like Oxford University believe that those nasty Tories won't give them that same £60+m once we leave the EU.
What they fail to acknowledge is that if that happens less people will vote for the Tories at the next election, and a party which will honour or indeed improve on those amounts given to Oxford will take control of No 10. This is called democracy and it is what those voting to leave the EU want above anything else.
I don't get this generalization; the "Oxford Uni wants something". There are many people working for Oxford and unless they made official statement, how could you possibly make that statement?What they fail to acknowledge is that if that happens less people will vote for the Tories at the next election, and a party which will honour or indeed improve on those amounts given to Oxford will take control of No 10. This is called democracy and it is what those voting to leave the EU want above anything else.
Same with generalization of what 'leave' wants above anything else.
Recently I saw this comment where the National Farmers' Union backed staying in the EU. There was little rationale given for this which is fair enough as the statement came off a single vote. I then saw an interview with some farmers of the back of this story where they were saying they wished to remain because (and I'm paraphrasing) "they get a lot of cash from the EU" and "they are worried the Tories will cut that cash" once we leave.
So it's a natural assumption that as least one of the reasons farmers would want to stay in the EU is because of the above given that the NFU represents the majority of farmers in the UK.
But this ignores the facts that:
1. The EU doesn't give the farmers a penny. The EU has no money of its own. The EU gives UK farmers some of our own money back.
2. There is no indication that I'm aware of that any major party would reduce these payments if we leave the EU.
3. If they did, we would be free to replace our government with one that will reinstate or even increase these payments.
I believe the same is likely to be true of any establishment, industry, business or individual that receives "EU Funding" in any form and to an extent it is a natural worry if you rely on such funding.
In the case of Oxford Uni, individuals or indeed the whole establishment may want to remain for the above reasons and may (and have) publish their views as such. But people such as myself do not follow their logic for the reasons I have explained. This isn't "Turkeys voting for Christmas" which these people seem to believe it is.
As for my second generalisation, most people that I speak to that want to leave want to do so for democracy reasons. Not immigration. Not red tape. Not security. This is where, imho, UKIP has got it wrong in recent years as they have focussed on immigration.
I concede that I may very well be wrong on both of my assumptions.
Edited by wiggy001 on Wednesday 25th May 12:51
jjlynn27 said:
I don't get this generalization; the "Oxford Uni wants something". There are many people working for Oxford and unless they made official statement, how could you possibly make that statement?
After reading this?https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/international-oxford/ox...
"While recognising that individual members of the University will hold different views on the Referendum, and while encouraging open debate on the issue, the University’s Council wishes to affirm the value that the UK’s membership of the EU provides to the University."
That's a reasonsble take on things, but the Council has spoken and they uttered a fairly open "kerching".
wiggy001 said:
jjlynn27 said:
wiggy001 said:
You are absolutely right except that institutions like Oxford University believe that those nasty Tories won't give them that same £60+m once we leave the EU.
What they fail to acknowledge is that if that happens less people will vote for the Tories at the next election, and a party which will honour or indeed improve on those amounts given to Oxford will take control of No 10. This is called democracy and it is what those voting to leave the EU want above anything else.
I don't get this generalization; the "Oxford Uni wants something". There are many people working for Oxford and unless they made official statement, how could you possibly make that statement?What they fail to acknowledge is that if that happens less people will vote for the Tories at the next election, and a party which will honour or indeed improve on those amounts given to Oxford will take control of No 10. This is called democracy and it is what those voting to leave the EU want above anything else.
Same with generalization of what 'leave' wants above anything else.
Recently I saw this comment where the National Farmers' Union backed staying in the EU. There was little rationale given for this which is fair enough as the statement came off a single vote. I then saw an interview with some farmers of the back of this story where they were saying they wished to remain because (and I'm paraphrasing) "they get a lot of cash from the EU" and "they are worried the Tories will cut that cash" once we leave.
So it's a natural assumption that as least one of the reasons farmers would want to stay in the EU is because of the above given that the NFU represents the majority of farmers in the UK.
But this ignores the facts that:
1. The EU doesn't give the farmers a penny. The EU has no money of its own. The EU gives UK farmers some of our own money back.
2. There is no indication that I'm aware of that any major party would reduce these payments if we leave the EU.
3. If they did, we would be free to replace our government with one that will reinstate or even increase these payments.
I believe the same is likely to be true of any establishment, industry, business or individual that receives "EU Funding" in any form and to an extent it is a natural worry if you rely on such funding.
In the case of Oxford Uni, individuals or indeed the whole establishment may want to remain for the above reasons and may (and have) publish their views as such. But people such as myself do not follow their logic for the reasons I have explained. This isn't "Turkeys voting for Christmas" which these people seem to believe it is.
As for my second generalisation, most people that I speak to that want to leave want to do so for democracy reasons. Not immigration. Not red tape. Not security. This is where, imho, UKIP has got it wrong in recent years as they have focussed on immigration.
I concede that I may very well be wrong on both of my assumptions.
.As for democracy being reason for voting out. I'd agree with you that that is the best reason to get out. One that is the hardest, if at all possible, to argue against. That doesn't mean that I believe that UK vote is worthless within EU, especially on the matters where every country can veto a decision.
I see myself as pragmatic person, and to me, well-being of my family and few very close friends is paramount. Everything else is distant second. I care more for UKs economic prosperity than anything else. I fully accept that other people might have different views, and that to them different things are more important. Democracy, independence, self-determination or whatever else. Doesn't make either side right or wrong.
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.
On the subject of the car industry - and I never thought I'd say this - there was actually some sensible discussion on the EU and Car Industry on the Jeremy Vine thing I caught in the car an hour or so ago.
Prof Garel Rhys who pops up on this subject every now and again took the view it wouldn't make much difference either way.
Prof Garel Rhys who pops up on this subject every now and again took the view it wouldn't make much difference either way.
Norfolkit said:
This is going to be fascinating (and worrying) how it plays out.
Cameron has launched an all out war against Leave and has burned every bridge in sight with the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party. I can't see how he can possibly reconcile that split, the debate (such as it's been) has been so toxic it may make reconciliation impossible.
Labour has done the sensible thing and said we're In and then kept their heads down and said nothing else, they're still unelectable under Corbyn though.
In my opinion Cameron has alienated huge numbers of Tory voters beyond repair, it's not inconceivable the Tory party could split.
This. Cameron has launched an all out war against Leave and has burned every bridge in sight with the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party. I can't see how he can possibly reconcile that split, the debate (such as it's been) has been so toxic it may make reconciliation impossible.
Labour has done the sensible thing and said we're In and then kept their heads down and said nothing else, they're still unelectable under Corbyn though.
In my opinion Cameron has alienated huge numbers of Tory voters beyond repair, it's not inconceivable the Tory party could split.
And just how cagey is the invisible May playing it?
No head above the parapet. No ever more doom laden claims. No alienation of core Tory voters.
Cheers,
Tony
confused_buyer said:
On the subject of the car industry - and I never thought I'd say this - there was actually some sensible discussion on the EU and Car Industry on the Jeremy Vine thing I caught in the car an hour or so ago.
Prof Garel Rhys who pops up on this subject every now and again took the view it wouldn't make much difference either way.
Garel Rhys is generally unpolluted with modern junk theories, preferring credible evidence. Prof Garel Rhys who pops up on this subject every now and again took the view it wouldn't make much difference either way.
This is a selection of comments from him over the past 15 years, sometimes clearly O/T for this thread, all chosen to be in keeping with PH.
“Electronic speed cameras are hiding behind a guise of pedestrian safety to raise money, and are planned for motorways where there are no pedestrians. The Government is blatantly dishonest.”
“Labour's plans to tax and penalise car use are leading Britain into a former Soviet-style regime.”
“Labour is using the car as a milch cow in a most dishonest way.”
“The Government's anti-car measures will take away what the car has given — mobility with freedom to travel as and when people please.”
“Planned levies, tolls, charges, penalties and electronic speed cameras are, in reality, taxes. They are intended to raise revenue in addition to planned new and existing taxes on motoring.”
“Road tolls are threatening disaster, cutting off areas of the country and towns, because it will become too expensive to transport goods... The impact threatens to be very serious...There will be no-go areas.”
“If a nation does not have a healthy home market for the cars it produces, it faces a serious situation. How can its economy prosper?”
All quotes from:
Professor Garel Rhys as Head of Automotive Economics at Cardiff Business School, and Parliamentary Adviser on Trade and Industry.
turbobloke said:
Garel Rhys is generally unpolluted with modern junk theories, preferring credible evidence.
The interesting thing he said is that the UK industry is quite odd with 80% of cars made here exported (with about half to the EU) and 85% of cars sold here imported with 40% from Germany or German owned companies.confused_buyer said:
turbobloke said:
Garel Rhys is generally unpolluted with modern junk theories, preferring credible evidence.
The interesting thing he said is that the UK industry is quite odd with 80% of cars made here exported (with about half to the EU) and 85% of cars sold here imported with 40% from Germany or German owned companies.///ajd said:
Good news!!!
I've found another professor who appears to know about economics and stuff and is talking about brexit
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RHFp3-qE_T8
Certainly adds some useful thoughts on trade deals and reality.
any thoughts on this statement from juncker ?I've found another professor who appears to know about economics and stuff and is talking about brexit
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RHFp3-qE_T8
Certainly adds some useful thoughts on trade deals and reality.
Edited by ///ajd on Wednesday 25th May 13:26
"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 .
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?"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 .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff