The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
FiF said:
Norfolkit said:
By the way when did the f
king EU give us a place on the Security Council, I think we might have earned that ourselves.
I think his comment refers to an issue from November last year. The European Parliament voted by a large majority for UK and France to give up their seats on the security council and hand them over to the EU. If the EU were to declare the matter of International Security and exclusive competence then suspect they could just take it.king EU give us a place on the Security Council, I think we might have earned that ourselves.That hasn't stopped Remainders arguing that Brexit would result in UK losing its seat, not quite sure what they were smoking when they thought that, but hey that's Remainders for you, Brexit = Tyrannosaurus Rex charging through the channel tunnel.
JawKnee said:
The Brexiters are contradicting themselves wildly it is laughable. They say it is impossible to ever change the EU yet they say a vote to remain causes just as much uncertainty as leaving because the EU might change.
Their arguments are falling apart at the seams.
Did you stamp your feet whilst typing that?Their arguments are falling apart at the seams.
KrissKross said:
JawKnee said:
The Brexiters are contradicting themselves wildly it is laughable. They say it is impossible to ever change the EU yet they say a vote to remain causes just as much uncertainty as leaving because the EU might change.
Their arguments are falling apart at the seams.
Did you stamp your feet whilst typing that?Their arguments are falling apart at the seams.
is that the EU is going in a direction that no one in the 1975 referendum voted for, and that the UK has no way of changing that, despite being the EU`s second largest net contributor of funds into the EU coffers. The power of any member state should at the least be commensurate with its annual contribution. If other member states want more say in how the EU is operated and where it will go, then they should stump up contributions which exceed that of the UK. Why does Germany wield greater influence over how the EU is run, than any other member state? Why does France wield greater influence on how the EU is run than the UK? When remainers can show that the UK has the same influence over how the EU operates and in what direction it will go, as Germany and/or France, their position might be more tenable. The only problem is they clearly cannot do that, and probably never ever will be able to. UE democratic? Don't make me laugh.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Monday 6th June 10:15
I've done something that I've never done before in a referendum or general election. I've made up my mind how I'm going to vote well before the time.
It is clear to me that it is more than unclear what will happen if we exit the EU. I am certain that in the short term we will all take a financial hit, but for how long is unknown. It will probably go on for the period of negotiations and possibly much longer.
Beyond that, neither side knows.
I am being asked to vote for something that may or may not be as good as what we've already got, possibly worse, possibly better.
What really irritated me was the suggestion as to what processes a government will put in place with regards immigration on exit. This is not, of course, policy. It is a wish.
I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
So I will no longer tick the undecided box if I'm asked which way I intend to vote.
It is clear to me that it is more than unclear what will happen if we exit the EU. I am certain that in the short term we will all take a financial hit, but for how long is unknown. It will probably go on for the period of negotiations and possibly much longer.
Beyond that, neither side knows.
I am being asked to vote for something that may or may not be as good as what we've already got, possibly worse, possibly better.
What really irritated me was the suggestion as to what processes a government will put in place with regards immigration on exit. This is not, of course, policy. It is a wish.
I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
So I will no longer tick the undecided box if I'm asked which way I intend to vote.
steveT350C said:
Does immigration increase GDP? Probably yes, although near impossible to prove.
Does immigration increase GDP per head of population? Probably not, although near impossible to prove.
Has house building along with schools, hospitals and other infrastructure requirements kept up with the level of immigration we have seen in the last 10 years? Absolute not, relatively easy to prove; school places, GP waiting times etc.
While we are in the EU, can we control or even predict the numbers of immigrants moving here so we can plan and cost increases in infrastructure requirements? 100% No!
It takes a long time to plan and build a hospital like the QE in Birmingham... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_Ho...
We need to build one of these nearly ever year to just keep up with demand.
A question of simple numbersDoes immigration increase GDP per head of population? Probably not, although near impossible to prove.
Has house building along with schools, hospitals and other infrastructure requirements kept up with the level of immigration we have seen in the last 10 years? Absolute not, relatively easy to prove; school places, GP waiting times etc.
While we are in the EU, can we control or even predict the numbers of immigrants moving here so we can plan and cost increases in infrastructure requirements? 100% No!
It takes a long time to plan and build a hospital like the QE in Birmingham... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_Ho...
We need to build one of these nearly ever year to just keep up with demand.
Are many immigrants very valuable in terms of both economic contribution and for their contribution to public services absolutely yes!. What is wrong with an immigration system that only lets this category in?
Derek Smith said:
...
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
...
The question is a good one, but applies to both sides equally. (Though ref the 350m/250m/whatever 100s of millions you do believe, the positive benefit is that we can spend it on what we want to spend it on. Not have the majority of it frittered away of another pointless layer of government and be told what we must spend the rest on).Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
...
Campaigning on both sides has been a disgrace and whether we stay or go, I think we know which direction politics is going.
The fear for me is that we have less ability to influence this when in the EU. We may not be able to change it even if we leave, but we have more chance of being able to influence it materially if we do as we can very firmly tell our politicians where to shove it. In the EU, the other 27 nations have to feel the same way, and the Commission need to be prepared to put that to the test.
You mention Johnson and Gove as off-putting/dangerous. What are your views on Juncker and Tusk? (Genuinely interested).
Derek Smith said:
What really irritated me was the suggestion as to what processes a government will put in place with regards immigration on exit. This is not, of course, policy. It is a wish.
I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Maybe it's a bit early in day for me still.I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
TEKNOPUG said:
Derek Smith said:
What really irritated me was the suggestion as to what processes a government will put in place with regards immigration on exit. This is not, of course, policy. It is a wish.
I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make...I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
Johnson and Gove are said to be dangerous when we have CMD ranting like a lunatic making all manner of armageddonist claims? Does not compute.
There's no way out for CMD and his Remain buddies, since if there really was any conceivable chance of WW3, recession, the sky falling in, the NHS collapsing, households losing over £4k every year, etc then he was a bloody idiot for putting disaster, catastrophe and penury as options on the table in the first place.
He should have made the case long ago for In, and there would be far less interest in taking the exit, but he failed then and he's failing now because the case is as weak as gnat's pee.
Basing a decision on liking or disliking the people involved is as silly as choosing subjects at school because the teachers are either friendly or strict (delete to taste). The subjects that you need to achieve your potential are the key factors, and a similar situation pertains with the Remain/Leave debate.
turbobloke said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Derek Smith said:
What really irritated me was the suggestion as to what processes a government will put in place with regards immigration on exit. This is not, of course, policy. It is a wish.
I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make...I think I would have made up my mind earlier if I hand't been worried that I was reacting to Johnson and Gove, two dangerous people, being the head of the exit campaign.
So I'm in.
There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?
Not the cruncher argument for me, but the question is a good one and could be asked of a number of claims, especially those that refer to the bright future that both sides hope for.
Johnson and Gove are said to be dangerous when we have CMD ranting like a lunatic making all manner of armageddonist claims? Does not compute.
There's no way out for CMD and his Remain buddies, since if there really was any conceivable chance of WW3, recession, the sky falling in, the NHS collapsing, households losing over £4k every year, etc then he was a bloody idiot for putting disaster, catastrophe and penury as options on the table in the first place.
He should have made the case long ago for In, and there would be far less interest in taking the exit, but he failed then and he's failing now because the case is as weak as gnat's pee.
Basing a decision on liking or disliking the people involved is as silly as choosing subjects at school because the teachers are either friendly or strict (delete to taste). The subjects that you need to achieve your potential are the key factors, and a similar situation pertains with the Remain/Leave debate.
FiF said:
There is an argument, presented here is that one reason that Remain have been ignoring the EEA/EFTA option is that:-
a) they realise it's a serious and viable option in the event that Britain does vote Leave.
b) recognising that the Remain campaign is in some trouble and that in the event of a Leave vote, the Remainers will need a path and a game plan that avoids taking the ‘mad’ exit route sketched out by the Official Vote Leave.
c) that means Remainers should now stop attacking the EEA option as a viable route out because they may well soon be selling it to the electorate as parliament’s answer to the British people’s stated wish?—?to leave the European Union.
As posted yesterday the Market Solution / Flexcit / The Adam Smith Institute proposal is gaining traction as a possible exit route and holding position towards making future changes outside the failing political construct that is the European Union.
I agree, and that is a very well presented article.a) they realise it's a serious and viable option in the event that Britain does vote Leave.
b) recognising that the Remain campaign is in some trouble and that in the event of a Leave vote, the Remainers will need a path and a game plan that avoids taking the ‘mad’ exit route sketched out by the Official Vote Leave.
c) that means Remainers should now stop attacking the EEA option as a viable route out because they may well soon be selling it to the electorate as parliament’s answer to the British people’s stated wish?—?to leave the European Union.
As posted yesterday the Market Solution / Flexcit / The Adam Smith Institute proposal is gaining traction as a possible exit route and holding position towards making future changes outside the failing political construct that is the European Union.
Unlike some Brexiteers, I am comfortable with current migration, I just think we need the ability to bring in controls in the future if it continues growing and/or we see automation killing employment in the unskilled labour market.
This option would give us the controls we want, and would allow the core EU to get closer which they need to do to survive.
PS - it is also reverting to the sort of EEC we joined in the first place!
FiF said:
I don't understand the logic either but understand the thought process, if that's the correct description. Too many people will decide this on personalities, it's really not X-factor.
Dominic Lawson has a good article in this weeks Sunday Times about all the previously "Euro-sceptic" Leftwingers falling dutifully in line to vote for the establishment.Part of it is personalities in his opinion. A decades defining vote being decided by their fear of a now "extremist" Boris Johnson (when he, and I, doubt there is any significant differences between his policies and that of Cameron).
The influence on Europe on our social policies is, as he pointed out, very exaggerated. The minimum wage, guaranteed paid holiday, anti-discrimination laws, all were UK legislation. When the European Commission was led by a Socialist it might have been correct (though anti-democratic) for the left to dream of social democracy being imposed by diktat. Now that it is led by someone of the centre right, and the biggest focus of Europe is deficit reduction and competitiveness, it seems rather delusional.
To be fair to Derek, I would have pencilled him in as a Remain vote a long time ago, so I appreciate the fact that he seems to have given a lot of thought to his vote and taken his time.
As he should have done - it is easily the most important political decision we will have made in our lives.
As he should have done - it is easily the most important political decision we will have made in our lives.
turbobloke said:
JawKnee said:
Their arguments are falling apart at the seams.
You'd think that if this was so, the Leave vote would be falling apart. While polls are imperfect, what's happened to the Leave vote over the past few weeks?Leave 45% (+6)
Remain 41% (-1)
Rees Mogg on Major's deranged intervention that the BBC put on play-loop.
“What we’ve had today are the bitter ramblings of a vengeful man.”
“He is the man who took us into the Exchange Rate Mechanism, destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs, had people evicted from their homes and led to the destruction of businesses for the sake of his failed European policy."
“And now he says things that are both hypocritical and untrue in his attack on Boris. And how magnanimous Boris was in saying we should rise above it; well, I’m going to sling the mud straight back at Sir John Major, a knight of the garter who ought to know how to behave better, who has said things about our campaign and then responds by using the most dishonest figure from their campaign about three million jobs..."
“We have an extraordinary attack, a hypocritical attack using dodgy figures of his own and it’s all to do with his bitterness over his failings that came from the Exchange Rate Mechanism that tarnished his whole prime ministership.”
Ouch!
“What we’ve had today are the bitter ramblings of a vengeful man.”
“He is the man who took us into the Exchange Rate Mechanism, destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs, had people evicted from their homes and led to the destruction of businesses for the sake of his failed European policy."
“And now he says things that are both hypocritical and untrue in his attack on Boris. And how magnanimous Boris was in saying we should rise above it; well, I’m going to sling the mud straight back at Sir John Major, a knight of the garter who ought to know how to behave better, who has said things about our campaign and then responds by using the most dishonest figure from their campaign about three million jobs..."
“We have an extraordinary attack, a hypocritical attack using dodgy figures of his own and it’s all to do with his bitterness over his failings that came from the Exchange Rate Mechanism that tarnished his whole prime ministership.”
Ouch!
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 6th June 11:13
Puggit said:
To be fair to Derek, I would have pencilled him in as a Remain vote a long time ago, so I appreciate the fact that he seems to have given a lot of thought to his vote and taken his time.
As he should have done - it is easily the most important political decision we will have made in our lives.
Oh I agree and I don't think that he's made the "wrong" decision at all. That should all be a matter of everyone's conscience and he's clearly put some thought into it. I just don't think that the reasons he's given stand up to any logic. I mean the same could be said of the Remain campaign, with regards to:As he should have done - it is easily the most important political decision we will have made in our lives.
"There was an exit table in my town recently, the £350m a week being mentioned a number of times, but not included on the literature. Why, if there are a multitude of benefits just waiting for us to grab from the trees, do they have to lie?"
I mean, why, if there are a multitude of benefits with our current membership, do they have to lie about how many jobs it will cost, how much your house will lose, how much your mortgage will increase, how much worse off everyone will be, how much gdp will fall, how much your holiday will rise, how much more dangerous the world will be? Why can't they just say something positive, if EU membership is so good?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff