Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

The Spectator magazine organised a debate on Britain's membership of the EU last night at The Palladium in London in front of an 2200 strong audience. In the line up were Dan Hannan, Nigel Farage and Kate Hoey arguing for leaving and Nick Clegg, Liz Kendall and Chukka Umunna for remaining in the EU.  Andrew Neil chaired the debate. 

Given that this is the biggest decision that the British people have been asked to vote on for a generation, why was this not televised? and I havn't seen any mention of this debate anywhere else in the media.    I've never read The Spectator so I have no idea of its political leanings or the make up of the audience. 

Even so you'd think that this debate would have been reported?   

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/live-from-the-london-palladium-the-spectators-brexit-debate/

[Sir Tigger KC]

Ah.... Turns out Boris Johnson is a former editor of The Spectator, so that answers any queries about the magazines political leanings and make up of the audience!   

No surprises then that the BBC havn't reported the debate....    Even so, with senior politicians like Clegg, Kendall, and Umunna arguing for Britain's membership of the EU you'd think it would be worthy of mention? 

[Varche]

mmm.

I tune into Sky News from time to time. Have to laugh at one regular item that debunks the myths. e.g. Laws from Brussels.

Out claim something like 82%
In claim something like 12%

Actual was between 33 and 35% (still a hellava lot).  If only each side would quote reality rather than stretching it.

[Migalot]

I wouldn't believe Sky on anything, TBH. 

The best research I have found comes from Business for Britain, which comes in at 64.7 per cent.

http://businessforbritain.org/2015/03/02/definitive-study-reveals-eu-rules-account-for-65-of-uk-law/

[Steve B]

If you look at both Sky & the BBC on how they report and put over this IN/OUT argument It is clear to see that they both want IN 

[Viral_Jim]

I wouldn't believe Sky on anything, TBH. 

The best research I have found comes from Business for Britain, which comes in at 64.7 per cent.

http://businessforbritain.org/2015/03/02/definitive-study-reveals-eu-rules-account-for-65-of-uk-law/

Yes, a study commissioned by a vote leave group. Can't imagine what would be unbalanced about that. 

Depends on your definition of best I suppose.

[Migalot]

I wouldn't believe Sky on anything, TBH. 

The best research I have found comes from Business for Britain, which comes in at 64.7 per cent.

http://businessforbritain.org/2015/03/02/definitive-study-reveals-eu-rules-account-for-65-of-uk-law/

Yes, a study commissioned by a vote leave group. Can't imagine what would be unbalanced about that. 

Depends on your definition of best I suppose.

Well, just point out where they're wrong and I'll believe you.

P.S. Remainers are bonkers. 

[Big Rod]

This is a carbon copy of the Scottish independence thing.

I hear the same 'soundbites', words and arguments going around and around.

It's like Groundhog day for us north of the border.

[Andy B]

This is a carbon copy of the Scottish independence thing.

I hear the same 'soundbites', words and arguments going around and around.

It's like Groundhog day for us north of the border.

And you've yet to get another chance to vote for the right result .......... 

[Viral_Jim]

Well, just point out where they're wrong and I'll believe you.

"Wrong" is a very subjective term. The numbers they get from their searches of EUR-Lex (on which their percentage is based) are different from those produced by fullfact.org - who apparently used the same search terms. Fullfact are a non-partisan not-for-profit site who fact check a number of different media claims. However that only accounts for a shift from about 65% to about 60%.

BfB also acknowledge that a load of laws e.g. those governing tobacco or olive growing don't affect us - but they include them anyway. I have no doubt that if they were in the Remain camp these would have been excluded for being "irrelevant" which they are.

P.S. Remainers are bonkers. 

Really, you do realise being on team "Brexit" stands you with Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Katie Hopkins don't you? - I'm comfortable being on the opposing team 


In truth, what actually bothers me about all this is that its a decision which is being argued by people in their 40's and 50's and being decided by them and the older generations (they account for the greatest percentage of voters, which is particularly relevant in lower turnout elections). However the mess an exit would create will be sorted out by those in their 20's and 30's.

Yet another example (along with house building and state pensions) where the baby boomer generation are saddling the younger generations with a big mess and expense to sort out.

People get so excited about 3 things when it comes to the EU referendum - "Immigrants", "How much money the EU costs us" and "They make x% of our laws" which funnily enough are just about the 3 least important things in the whole debate. However, what they are is easy to understand, you can put numbers on them, so people fixate.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

By far the most important aspect of the debate is democracy & sovereignty. These have been eroded & given away by politicians who had no right or permission to give them away. That is why they have lied to the population over and over again for over 40 years.
That alone to me, is an inarguable reason for Brexit.
Personalities have nothing to do with it. There are quite a few people with questionable personality traits on both sides of the debate.
You may not qualify as "bonkers" just by being in the remain camp, but you really would have to be bonkers to believe a word Cameron says. He couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.
He is in the process of pulling exactly the same con trick that Wilson pulled in the 1970,s.
I would recommend that everyone who intends voting, fire up BBC iplayer and watch Nick Robinsons "Them & us."
It is reasonably objective for the BBC, and gives a lot of historical facts on the subject, by those who were involved at the time. 

[Migalot]

P.S. Remainers are bonkers. 

Really, you do realise being on team "Brexit" stands you with Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Katie Hopkins don't you? - I'm comfortable being on the opposing team 


In truth, what actually bothers me about all this is that its a decision which is being argued by people in their 40's and 50's and being decided by them and the older generations (they account for the greatest percentage of voters, which is particularly relevant in lower turnout elections). However the mess an exit would create will be sorted out by those in their 20's and 30's.

If you base your views on the EU on the basis on personalities, then you have already lost the argument in my view. Incidentally, why don't you mention the names of Dan Hannan, Jacob Ress-Mogg or even Ian Botham. Doesn't fit your meme, I guess.

As for your ageist comments the older generation, that's just piffle. As, too, is your assertion that Brexit would "create a mess", which only the young could sort out.

If you really want to be run by big banks, corporates and all the other vested establishment interests (see TTIP) that want to enlarge the EU further and further to scrap national identities and local democracy, while creating a huge low-wage super society which will anyway collapse in bloody civil war, then go ahead and vote Remain like all the other useful lefties that can't see the wood for the trees (and big business loves you all!).

[Viral_Jim]

If you base your views on the EU on the basis on personalities, then you have already lost the argument in my view

I don't. I just thought I would match the banality of your comment about the state of mind of anyone wishing to remain.  .

I base it on the 30 plus years of relative prosperity the UK has enjoyed as part of the EU. The 30 years which have incidentally most benefited the groups most wanting to leave ie. the older generation. The ramifications of leaving the EU will last decades, long after most of those that argue for it will be tucked up at home on their civil service pensions (see below). Conversely, the people in their 20's and 30's are most likely to lose out from a Brexit as they typically have the less job security compared to those with more experience.

Perhaps the biggest lie in all of this debate is the idea that trade deals can be hammered out nice and neatly and we'll all be home by Christmas for tea and medals. The structure of the EU is designed to put the leaving party at a massive disadvantage, according to the terms of the EU treaties, if we want a trade deal, we would have to get unanimous agreement on certain points from all other member states. If we don't manage it within 2yrs, we are then on the standard WTO Tariff rules until we strike a deal. How much do you think we'll have to give away to get the job done? Sure, we can leverage against our big trading partners like Germany et al, but we also need agreement from the likes of Poland, Italy etc. who have just lost a chunk of funding by us leaving. Something tells me they'll want quite a package from us!

Then we have to make separate deals with other trading partners - notably the USA. 

As for your ageist comments the older generation, that's just piffle. As, too, is your assertion that Brexit would "create a mess", which only the young could sort out.

Why so? they are the generation that failed (until recently) to adjust retirement ages and pension benefits in line with increasing ages. Such that we now have a generation who will on average be retired for 30 plus years. Many on index linked Defined Benefit pensions, even those that aren't are the only social group not to be affected by austerity (benefiting as they do from the triple lock) while accounting for over 40% of the country's total welfare spend, while also accounting for the largest proportion of NHS spending.  People in their 20's and 30's now will be the first generation in British history who will have to fund both their own retirement and that of the generation before.

They are also the generation who were able to buy new-build houses at cheap prices (compared to wages) but are most likely to block new-build developments  which would shift the balance of housing demand/supply so that younger generations can enjoy the same. Because it will "devalue their homes" or "spoil their countryside".

These points are not ageism, they are statements about how the Baby-Boomer generation was too good to itself and Generations X & Y will have to pick up the tab. The problem of course is that pensioners account for the greatest number of voters and therefore hold the balance of political power. Intergenerational unfairness in the UK is well documented, and has been confirmed by IFS studies. Or piffle as you would say.

like all the other useful lefties that can't see the wood for the trees (and big business loves you all!).

On this point you genuinely could not be more wrong.  I'm the archetypical hard hearted Right Winger - public school educated, russel group university, blue chip employer. Don't mistake me for someone who's lost out somehow and blames my failings on the previous generation(s). I'm just able to see past all the psuedo-nationalist posturing about how Great a nation we are and how the world will fall over itself to do deals with us and how the EU is stealing our identity yadda yadda yadda.
 

[Varche]

Spot on about this is a vote not for today ( I hear fellow expats saying I am going to vote Remain because the exchange rate will go back up and my Uk pension will be worth more.) but for the future 40 , 50 years time. So we are in effect voting for our children or grandchildren, not ourselves. The key question is surely do you want your own democracy or do you want someone else in Brussels to do it for you?

Prosperity post war? Well it is true that many countries have seen great prosperity since the war. Especially those helped out by the Yanks after the war with the Marshall Plan. That sadly didn't extend to us Brits who the Yanks judged had had more than enough of their help during the war. So it is all the more remarkable that Britain became prosperous against other European economies that had new infrastructure.

The Spanish see no bad in the EU. They have gone from a poor country with little infrastructure to a richer one with a road and rail network and everyone has a new car instead of a Mule. They are obsessed at the moment with corruption in high places and the EU and the UK are not exempt from that. The difference is that in Spain a politician actually receives under the table cash for facilitating a deal. In the UK the politicians family member gets a sweet contract.

[Migalot]

Then we have to make separate deals with other trading partners - notably the USA. 

The EU has never had a trade deal with America, nor have we. Yet trade between the EU and the US, and British trade with America – with whom we have no trade deal – has grown, whereas British trade with the EU, despite the single market, has fallen. Trade matters more than trade agreements.

...they are the generation that failed (until recently) to adjust retirement ages and pension benefits in line with increasing ages. Such that we now have a generation who will on average be retired for 30 plus years. Many on index linked Defined Benefit pensions, even those that aren't are the only social group not to be affected by austerity (benefiting as they do from the triple lock) while accounting for over 40% of the country's total welfare spend, while also accounting for the largest proportion of NHS spending.  People in their 20's and 30's now will be the first generation in British history who will have to fund both their own retirement and that of the generation before.

Lumping everyone over 40 as "the generation that failed" is ridiculous. Was I responsible for Gordon Brown’s raid on pensions in 1997, which is now costing taxpayers nearly £10bn a year? Several chancellors have screwed the pensions system over the years — don't try and hold me responsible! My voice in the upcoming referendum is just as valid as yours, lad. 

...the Baby-Boomer generation was too good to itself and Generations X & Y will have to pick up the tab. The problem of course is that pensioners account for the greatest number of voters and therefore hold the balance of political power. Intergenerational unfairness in the UK is well documented, and has been confirmed by IFS studies. Or piffle as you would say.

We were too good to ourselves? Oh, please. Let me travel back in time 30yrs and refuse to buy my house so that you won't need to whinge.

And what about the huge increase in immigration that has come about with the expansion of the EU. Oh, yes, that has no effect on housing, schools, NHS etc., does it? And you want to vote for more (since the EU is pressing ahead with accession for Turkey, Serbia, Albania etc. etc.)?     

like all the other useful lefties that can't see the wood for the trees (and big business loves you all!).

On this point you genuinely could not be more wrong.  I'm the archetypical hard hearted Right Winger - public school educated, russel group university, blue chip employer. Don't mistake me for someone who's lost out somehow and blames my failings on the previous generation(s). I'm just able to see past all the psuedo-nationalist posturing about how Great a nation we are and how the world will fall over itself to do deals with us and how the EU is stealing our identity yadda yadda yadda.

We ARE a great nation and we WILL be able to trade with which ever country we want. We are the 5th largest economy, so I can't see anyone refusing to do business with us. And, yes, the EU does want to get rid of nation states in favour of a single superstate. Please forgive me for wanting to remain British and for my children to grow up British.

yadda yadda yadda

Nice.

By the way, there is no apostrophe in "20s" and "30s" 

[Viral_Jim]

The key question is surely do you want your own democracy or do you want someone else in Brussels to do it for you?

This is a great point, and I suspect cuts to the heart of the issue for most people - everyone exists somewhere on a spectrum between Nationalist Xenophobe and United States of Euro-phile. Personally I don't dislike the balance we have now, I don't like the idea of the benefits tourism to the UK, however studies have shown that on balance immigrants from the EU contribute more than they take out (in contrast to immigrants from outside the EU, who do not). So ironically, reducing the number of immigrants as a result of suspending free movement of people from europe could end up costing us money.

Yes, there will always be an element of scroungers, but I don't hold those born in the UK in any higher regard than those from Europe, just because they're home grown. And before anyone bothers to comment, I am not saying that anyone in receipt of benefits is a scrounger.

I find it peculiar that we are a union of 4 countries, built from a number of little kingdoms before that, yet we get all exercised about ceding a portion of our legislative control to the EU. Surely the logical conclusion to that argument is the complete devolution of the United Kingdom and building a wall along the banks of the Tamar?  I'm currently working in Poland and seeing the advancement that the EU has brought to this country after the mess the Russians left behind, I genuinely could not begrudge it my tax pounds. In comparison to some of the BS we find money for in the UK (benefits payments to millionaires, Homeopathing hospitals (x4) etc etc), I think the EU represents a worthwhile investment in our future.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

The fact that we have enjoyed relative prosperity over most of the last 30 years has nothing to do with the EU. It is due to the fact that pre Thatcher the country had been wrecked by militant unions and their puppets in Westminster.
Thatcherism abolished that (at least in the private sector) and the UK economy recovered and flourished very quickly.
I believe it would have been much stronger still if it weren't hamstrung by the morons in Brussels.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Speaking personally I believe that all voters are between a rock and a hard place.

The EU is terminally flawed. It is like a ruptured duck that that is slowly collapsing before it finally sinks without trace.

However, some people who want to leave seem to think that two suns will rise the  morning after we leave.....and as a consequence England will become Utopia. It won't.

Trade deals will be difficult and unwanted immigration will persist.

As Frazer from Dad's Army would have said.......we're all doomed......doomed I tell you.

Can we survive outside?........yes, of course we can.

Should we?
 

[Viral_Jim]

By the way, there is no apostrophe in "20s" and "30s"

You really should be careful about passing off opinion as fact. Check the link below, the first answer references several style manuals for written English, all of which take slightly differing views on the presence, absence position and frequency of apostrophes in numerical dates. Besides, if grammar gets your goat, my posts provide much more fertile ground than that.

Linky

I believe it would have been much stronger still if it weren't hamstrung by the morons in Brussels.

And therein lies the heart of the issue; its all a matter of belief, you can't put a numerical value on the road not travelled. The problem is we're having this referendum for all the wrong reasons and arguing it based conjecture and spun numbers. Finally,  those who have the biggest say in it will be affected least by it.

I'm in no way saying we won't be able to do business with the EU, but what I'm saying is we put ourselves in a very poor negotiating position. As the good Doctor pointed out, the EU's very survival is in jeopardy, and do you not think other nations, such as Denmark who "pay in more than they get back" will look at how we are treated as a model for their own "Dexit"? The EU knows they will, and they know they'll need to hang us out to dry to discourage anyone else from leaving.

No need to get all huffy about my "ageism" and "whing[ing]" by the way; its not personal against any individual, its simply that we as a nation are at the end of decades in which we have prioritised care for the retiring generation(s) above any concept of how that should be funded. I mean, could you imagine paying non-working millionaires in their 20's and 30's (oops, there I go again, naughty naughty!  ) state benefits, plus a top up allowance to heat their homes in winter? Of course not, but so long as that millionaire is over the age of 65-68 (whatever the current state pension age is now), it would seem preposterous that we should take it away from them.

[05omegav6]

And what happens to all the expats if we leave?

Who pays for them to be repatriated and subsequently rehoused when Spain and France etc withdraw residency status?

How much would a Visa for a two week holiday for a family of four to Portugal cost?

What happens to all the EU workers currently in the UK?

Who takes over from the army of european labourers that do all the shitty jobs that we feel are beneath us... the cleaners, the farm workers, the nurses that work their arses off whilst the british staff bitch about the prospect of a seven day roster?

Those are questions I want to see asked, and answered, not the headline grabbing bullshit currently being pedalled both in the media and here.

I am no europhile, far from it... WTD alone is enough to make me scream, but I will be voting In because I sincerely believe we would be more bollaxed on our own than not. It's about forty years too late for all this nonsense about pseudosovereignty. Accept that and move forward.

[Migalot]

By the way, there is no apostrophe in "20s" and "30s"

You really should be careful about passing off opinion as fact. Check the link below, the first answer references several style manuals for written English, all of which take slightly differing views on the presence, absence position and frequency of apostrophes in numerical dates. Besides, if grammar gets your goat, my posts provide much more fertile ground than that.

As a published author, editor of several books for McGraw-Hill and a professional typesetter, I can assure you that it is not an opinion. I refer you to the standard reference for the trade, Hart's Rules, The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors, Oxford University Press.

Page 66
Plurals
Do not use the so-called 'grocer's apostrophe', for example lettuce's for 'lettuces' or video's for 'videos': this is incorrect. The apostrophe is not necessary in forming the plurals of names, abbreviations, numbers and words not usually used as nouns:

...CDs...the three Rs...the 1990s

 

[Migalot]

How much would a Visa for a two week holiday for a family of four to Portugal cost?

Funnily enough, I travelled extensively in Europe without a visa on my GB passport — before the EU. 

[05omegav6]

How much would a Visa for a two week holiday for a family of four to Portugal cost?

Funnily enough, I travelled extensively in Europe without a visa on my GB passport — before the EU. 

That's right, pick holes in the easy question, because you have no answer for the rest of them

[Viral_Jim]

As a published author, editor of several books for McGraw-Hill and a professional typesetter, I can assure you that it is not an opinion. I refer you to the standard reference for the trade, Hart's Rules, The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors, Oxford University Press.

Last printed in 2000, my my how thoroughly modern of you . Updated as The Oxford Guide to Style, referenced in my link? Once again, picking one source that suits your view and touting it as fact *sigh*. However, Harris has hit the nail on the head. Far easier to attack the minutiae than actually address points which run counter to your views. Such as decrying as ageism my (well documented) points about intergenerational unfairness in the UK.

[Sir Tigger KC]

How much would a Visa for a two week holiday for a family of four to Portugal cost?

Funnily enough, I travelled extensively in Europe without a visa on my GB passport — before the EU. 

That's right, pick holes in the easy question, because you have no answer for the rest of them

To a certain extent expats chose to leave this country for sunnier climes, so if circumstances change for them as a result of BREXIT then they should deal with things themselves.  However, I can't see the likes of Spain and Portugal who are still struggling to recover from the financial crisis, precipitating a property crash by expelling all their British expats, most of whom are relatively wealthy and a benefit to their local economies.   

There are thousands of British expats living in non EU countries like Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, the UAE and The US.  They seem to be OK? 

As to EU nationals already here, I really havn't seen anyone advocating some sort of mass expulsion, like Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Uganda in the 1970's.    What I could see happening however, would be further restrictions on EU nationals claiming benefits, but again much in line with what happens in other countries.  For Example, my mate lives and works in Texas.  Him and his family have US residency, however if he loses his job the residency gets revoked after 6 weeks and they have to leave, unless he can find another job in line with US immigration regulations. 

If Britain does vote to leave the EU, I think a great deal of pragmatism will have to be employed all round to keep not just Europe, but the wider world on an even keel. 

[tigers_gonads]

And what happens to all the expats if we leave?

Who pays for them to be repatriated and subsequently rehoused when Spain and France etc withdraw residency status?

How much would a Visa for a two week holiday for a family of four to Portugal cost?

What happens to all the EU workers currently in the UK?

Who takes over from the army of european labourers that do all the shitty jobs that we feel are beneath us... the cleaners, the farm workers, the nurses that work their arses off whilst the british staff bitch about the prospect of a seven day roster?

Those are questions I want to see asked, and answered, not the headline grabbing bullshit currently being pedalled both in the media and here.

I am no europhile, far from it... WTD alone is enough to make me scream, but I will be voting In because I sincerely believe we would be more bollaxed on our own than not. It's about forty years too late for all this nonsense about pseudosovereignty. Accept that and move forward.

The beauty of brexit Al is WE choose who comes and stays here.
If these people are of benefit to Britain then we encourage them stay and work.
If they ain't and are dead weight then we kick them out 

As for the sovereignty question, successive governments have been for 30 or 40 years been brainwashing the patriotic thoughts and spirits out of us because it makes us easier to manipulate and control 
How many English citizens even remembered what day it was when they opened the curtains on Saturday morning ?   
Yet how many English run off down the pub on St Patricks Day, wear a stupid hat, sing songs about the revolution and generally get pissed ?
Friggin ell, we are that shallow nowdays that we even care more what some gobshite elected president from the good old US of A thinks then our own history
Can you imagine what would happen if one of our elected muppets went over to the USA and told them that we wouldn't talk to them unless they stayed in and was controlled by a regional dictatorship full of unelected and unaccountable gravy train muppets like Europe ?   
You would be lynched and would deserve it.

Also please don't tell me that Europe would refuse to trade with us because that's 'dangle berries'.
Industry is governed by markets, not treaties.
If we have the skills (which I believe we might have a few left somewhere), the products and the price is right then countries will buy 

I highly suspect that any treaties with Europe would be sorted out in weeks rather then years because Europe needs us just like we need Europe.

I just want us to run our own country and be able to trade with who WE WANT, not who some un elected cockwomble in Brussels 

[Migalot]

As a published author, editor of several books for McGraw-Hill and a professional typesetter, I can assure you that it is not an opinion. I refer you to the standard reference for the trade, Hart's Rules, The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors, Oxford University Press.

Last printed in 2000, my my how thoroughly modern of you . Updated as The Oxford Guide to Style, referenced in my link? Once again, picking one source that suits your view and touting it as fact *sigh*. However, Harris has hit the nail on the head. Far easier to attack the minutiae than actually address points which run counter to your views. Such as decrying as ageism my (well documented) points about intergenerational unfairness in the UK.

I quoted the New Hart's Rules (2005).

I only pointed it out after you needlessly mentioned your about public school, red brick uni, blue chip company background. Thought I'd have a bit of a poke and see how you reacted. You did nicely. 

My bad for baiting you, I suppose.   

[Migalot]

How much would a Visa for a two week holiday for a family of four to Portugal cost?

Funnily enough, I travelled extensively in Europe without a visa on my GB passport — before the EU. 

That's right, pick holes in the easy question, because you have no answer for the rest of them

OK, here goes:

Who pays for them to be repatriated and subsequently rehoused when Spain and France etc withdraw residency status?

They won't withdraw residency status. There were expats before the EU and they make too much of a contribution to their respective local economies for France/Spain to throw them out.

What happens to all the EU workers currently in the UK?

They'll stay. No-one has suggested they would be repatriated. It'll take a few years to get everything sorted, anyway.


Who takes over from the army of european labourers that do all the shitty jobs that we feel are beneath us... the cleaners, the farm workers, the nurses that work their arses off whilst the british staff bitch about the prospect of a seven day roster?

See above.

 

[Migalot]

Economists backing Brexit!

http://news.sky.com/story/1686730/uk-better-off-outside-eu-economists-say

 

[Viral_Jim]

Nah, I'm a big boy, I wasn't even aware that counted as baiting. Also, in a discussion about pedantry, wouldn't citing the correct publication be an adroit first move? 

Also, mentioning my background in detail wasn't needless at all, I was demonstrating how laughably wrong your assumptions about me were. My point still stands by the way; you picked a point of view, cited a source that backs it, and ignored the others. Analogous to the Brexit discussion? - I think probably (<- a few free grammar points for you to score in there one would imagine!)

[Viral_Jim]

Economists backing Brexit!

http://news.sky.com/story/1686730/uk-better-off-outside-eu-economists-say

 

And in shock news, the 8-member group "Economists for Brexit" chose to back (drum roll please) BREXIT. Also -20pts for posting anything that appears on Sky News.

Weighed against these 8 chaps/ladies you have the IMF, OECD, oh and the last FT survey showed 76 economists surveyed thought Brexit would harm the uk with only 8 thinking Brexit would be good. I wonder who the 8 were...

[korum]

At the end of the day you can ridicule any of the reports posted because they are guess work no one knows what will happen if we stay or go.

The biggest problem is with the way the EU is run, the fat cats running it are not interested in the average joe in the street and only want to line there pockets with more €€€ and they cannot be shifted as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy 

So the way I see it is this,

Leave and continue to get shafted by some muppets that can be changed for more muppets every 5 years
or
Stay and get shafted by some muppets that cannot be changed.

[Rods2]

At the end of the day you can ridicule any of the reports posted because they are guess work no one knows what will happen if we stay or go.

The biggest problem is with the way the EU is run, the fat cats running it are not interested in the average joe in the street and only want to line there pockets with more €€€ and they cannot be shifted as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy 

So the way I see it is this,

Leave and continue to get shafted by some muppets that can be changed for more muppets every 5 years
or
Stay and get shafted by some muppets that cannot be changed.

By leaving we can stop paying the Brussels bureaucrats and subsidising most of the EU countries with our excessive membership fees.

[STEMO]

At the end of the day you can ridicule any of the reports posted because they are guess work no one knows what will happen if we stay or go.

The biggest problem is with the way the EU is run, the fat cats running it are not interested in the average joe in the street and only want to line there pockets with more €€€ and they cannot be shifted as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy 

So the way I see it is this,

Leave and continue to get shafted by some muppets that can be changed for more muppets every 5 years
or
Stay and get shafted by some muppets that cannot be changed.

Or....move to France and get given all the money donated by Britain.

[korum]

At the end of the day you can ridicule any of the reports posted because they are guess work no one knows what will happen if we stay or go.

The biggest problem is with the way the EU is run, the fat cats running it are not interested in the average joe in the street and only want to line there pockets with more €€€ and they cannot be shifted as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy 

So the way I see it is this,

Leave and continue to get shafted by some muppets that can be changed for more muppets every 5 years
or
Stay and get shafted by some muppets that cannot be changed.

By leaving we can stop paying the Brussels bureaucrats and subsidising most of the EU countries with our excessive membership fees.

True but it would just get wasted in some other area and we would still get shafted

At the end of the day you can ridicule any of the reports posted because they are guess work no one knows what will happen if we stay or go.

The biggest problem is with the way the EU is run, the fat cats running it are not interested in the average joe in the street and only want to line there pockets with more €€€ and they cannot be shifted as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy 

So the way I see it is this,

Leave and continue to get shafted by some muppets that can be changed for more muppets every 5 years
or
Stay and get shafted by some muppets that cannot be changed.

Or....move to France and get given all the money donated by Britain.

But then you would have to live with the french 

[Viral_Jim]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

By leaving we can stop paying the Brussels bureaucrats and subsidising most of the EU countries with our excessive membership fees.

Rods2: 2 of the 3 main credit rating agencies have said that a Brexit would likely mean that the UK's credit rating would be downgraded. The 3rd has said it would be a negative outlook for the UK, but has stopped short of mentioning a downgrade.  This would push up the cost of borrowing on our £1.55 Trillion debt and wipe out any "saving" we could expect from leaving the EU.  The "we leave and save ourself £Xbn per year" argument is a hugely over-simplified picture of what would happen.

[05omegav6]

That was St Georges Day but we haven't been allowed to celebrate it since the early '00s lest we should offend the Irish, Scots, or God forbid, the Welsh

The EU may well be on borrowed time, but I am not convinced that our leaving would be enough of a catalyst to bring it to an end

Any other countries having a similar referendum on the same day?

[korum]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

But that is not the same as the democracy of the people voting in politicians. That is fat cats scratching each other on the back so that it is their mates getting the job.

[05omegav6]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

But that is not the same as the democracy of the people voting in politicians. That is fat cats scratching each other on the back so that it is their mates getting the job.

Who do you think puts our politicians forward for election? Not you or I

[korum]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

But that is not the same as the democracy of the people voting in politicians. That is fat cats scratching each other on the back so that it is their mates getting the job.

Who do you think puts our politicians forward for election? Not you or I

No but at least we get the choice of which numpty gets to shaft us

[Sir Tigger KC]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

Democracy for me is where the leaders are directly elected by the people and where elections are held regularly so the people can get rid of leaders who are no good. 

The EU Commission which is an appointed body is not democratic as the people have no say in who is appointed. The European Parliament is democratic as MEP's are directly elected by the people, however the European Parliament is the only legislature in the world that dosn't actually legislate!    Go figure!! 

I take your point about the Queen and House of Lords, but in practice the Queen holds next to no power, and it is very rare for the House of Lords to send legislation back to the Commons.  They did recently, but I forget what it was about now.  Benefit cuts I think... 

New Labour had the opportunity to properly reform the House of Lords when they kicked out the Hereditary Peers, but like everything else they tinkered with, they did a half arsed job, so now we have a fully appointed Upper House! 

[05omegav6]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

But that is not the same as the democracy of the people voting in politicians. That is fat cats scratching each other on the back so that it is their mates getting the job.

Who do you think puts our politicians forward for election? Not you or I

No but at least we get the choice of which numpty gets to shaft us

If that helps you through the day, you carry on

[05omegav6]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

Democracy for me is where the leaders are directly elected by the people and where elections are held regularly so the people can get rid of leaders who are no good. 

The EU Commission which is an appointed body is not democratic as the people have no say in who is appointed. The European Parliament is democratic as MEP's are directly elected by the people, however the European Parliament is the only legislature in the world that dosn't actually legislate!    Go figure!! 

I take your point about the Queen and House of Lords, but in practice the Queen holds next to no power, and it is very rare for the House of Lords to send legislation back to the Commons.  They did recently, but I forget what it was about now.  Benefit cuts I think... 

New Labour had the opportunity to properly reform the House of Lords when they kicked out the Hereditary Peers, but like everything else they tinkered with, they did a half arsed job, so now we have a fully appointed Upper House! 

Is the EU really any different in any other Union... namely the US, Canada or Australia?

[korum]

as there is no election process it's a dictatorship controlling a democracy

Korum, this is one point I have genuinely never understood, it seems to be so often repeated that people assume it to be true. When you look at the three main bodies involved in EU law making, they are all either directly elected by the member states, or nominated by the (democratically elected) heads of member states. In this sense, EU law making is more "democratic" than UK law, where technically the Queen & House of Lords (both definitely not democratically chosen) have the final say.

Democracy for me is where the leaders are directly elected by the people and where elections are held regularly so the people can get rid of leaders who are no good. 

The EU Commission which is an appointed body is not democratic as the people have no say in who is appointed. The European Parliament is democratic as MEP's are directly elected by the people, however the European Parliament is the only legislature in the world that dosn't actually legislate!    Go figure!! 

I take your point about the Queen and House of Lords, but in practice the Queen holds next to no power, and it is very rare for the House of Lords to send legislation back to the Commons.  They did recently, but I forget what it was about now.  Benefit cuts I think... 

New Labour had the opportunity to properly reform the House of Lords when they kicked out the Hereditary Peers, but like everything else they tinkered with, they did a half arsed job, so now we have a fully appointed Upper House! 

Is the EU really any different in any other Union... namely the US, Canada or Australia?

Not really only in terms of how their leaders are chosen which I thinks is one of the points of this discussion.

But speaking of USA if we stay in will we end up with some strange law situation like where Colorado has legalised weed yet it's still against federal law? I always thought federal trumped state yet they are selling weed out in the open now without anything being done.

[Viral_Jim]

But that is not the same as the democracy of the people voting in politicians.

#

Why not? Not everyone in the UK government is elected? The house of Lords is full of people who were (a) made lords by some politician deciding they were lords (Blair "made"  16 new lords while he was in - for example) or (b) are Lords because their parents were Lords. Civil servants are not voted in, but they still draft legislation.

In the EU there are 3 bodies which have an input into law:

The Comission
These people draft the laws, write reports etc (same role as civil servants in the UK), they are nominated from a shortlist provided by their respective heads of state (1 commissioner per country). Pretty much exactly how civil servants are chosen, only somewhat more transparent as we can see who was on the shortlist - if you're sad enough to look.

The Parliament
These are directly elected by member states. For example we elected Farage (for me a prime example of the failure of the democratic process  ). This body must sign-off on any law drafted by the commission before it can be adopted into law in the member states. Like the House of Commons does for the UK.

The Council
This is made up of the head of state of each EU country, or a cabinet minister depending on the area being discussed. They must also sign-off on all EU law before it is adopted - similar to the House of Lords but elected - ie we voted for ours.

I fail to see any meaningful difference between the way we (in the UK) make law and the way the EU does.

EDIT: Sir Tig, I'm not sure what you mean about the EU parliament not legislating? The House of Commons doesn't either? Laws are drafted by somebody's civil servant and then voted on???

[05omegav6]

The weed debate is an interesting one... there seems to be a growing political movement to legalise the stuff with a view to control supply, distribution and, critically, tax revenue. Ottowa have just voted along these lines... iirc Oregon was the first state to take this approach

[Viral_Jim]

Off topic, but I 100% agree with de-criminalising the possession of drugs - all drugs. Users are more likely to seek help to get clean or in the event of an overdose, diseases from dirty needles are reduced and countries save money, which they can plough into going after the dealers and smugglers. It also frees up prison space to give meaningful sentences for other crimes.

Places that have tried it have also found it does not increase usage in the popluation - which would be the natural assumption.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

'Happy to reamain' certainly seems to have broad support.

'Tory Toff Prime Minister' holding hands with a former union boss.

Cameron and Barber sitting in a tree.......K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

[Varche]

Bookies are strong on Remain too. Vested interests, inertia etc etc.

[korum]

The weed debate is an interesting one... there seems to be a growing political movement to legalise the stuff with a view to control supply, distribution and, critically, tax revenue. Ottowa have just voted along these lines... iirc Oregon was the first state to take this approach

I think it all started out with the medical weed arguments who have managed to win some ground and the powers that be have basically said F it we may as well get some tax money from it.

Oh and Jimmy there isn't much difference it's just as you have 28 member state representatives all arguing their own corner for their country  to get the best deal for them that it basically ends up being a compromise and no one being happy.

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

[05omegav6]

The weed debate is an interesting one... there seems to be a growing political movement to legalise the stuff with a view to control supply, distribution and, critically, tax revenue. Ottowa have just voted along these lines... iirc Oregon was the first state to take this approach

I think it all started out with the medical weed arguments who have managed to win some ground and the powers that be have basically said F it we may as well get some tax money from it.

Oh and Jimmy there isn't much difference it's just as you have 28 member state representatives all arguing their own corner for their country  to get the best deal for them that it basically ends up being a compromise and no one being happy.

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

Democracy IS civilised compromise.

Suspect fees are means tested ie if you're doing well you can afford to put more in, but if you're not, then you might need supporting... there's presumably a predetermined per capita base line applied across the board.

[Sir Tigger KC]

EDIT: Sir Tig, I'm not sure what you mean about the EU parliament not legislating? The House of Commons doesn't either? Laws are drafted by somebody's civil servant and then voted on???

Of course the House of Commons legislates! 

It is the elected government that decides what laws will be proposed, drawn up, debated and voted on in The House of Commons, not the civil service.

There are also Private Member's Bills where individual MP's can draw up legislation and have it debated and voted on in the House of Commons. 

Very different to the structure of the EU where the real power lies with the appointed Commission and the Commissioners are often politicians who have been rejected by their own electorate.  As is the case with the current President of the EU Commission Jean Claude Junker. 

The European Parliament often referred to as the ' Rubber Stamp Parliament ' by comparison to The House of Commons, reviews and votes on laws drawn up by the EU Commission. To be honest,  I doubt they send legislation back to the Commission for amendment very often. 

It seems to me that most of the European Parliament's energy is used up moving between Brussels and Strasbourg every month! 

[Lagondanet]

Those happy to remain or abstain presumably will be happy for the EU to expand East and where next?

[05omegav6]

Those happy to remain or abstain presumably will be happy for the EU to expand East and where next?

Not sure that it could practicably spread any further east Certainly, if it did, then it would cease to be Europe...  not that you could blame the near neighbours such as Turkey or Ukraine from wanting a slice of the pie...

[Viral_Jim]

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

The answer to this is on two levels. On the most straightforward level, its because the formula that determines a state's contributions is a function of a the state's income; our income is one of the higher ones in the EU so we pay more in, but less than Germany, Italy or France (bearing in mind this is gross, not net contribution). As a percentage of our national income, we pay in the least iirc, due to Maggie's rebate. To set membership at a flat fee would either limit the EU's scope to meet its aims (if set too low) or be prohibitively expensive for some EU economies (if set too high). Put simply, you couldn't set one € value that would work for both Germany and Cyprus.

On a more fundamental level, it goes back to the founding principles of the EU, one of which is "sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and social justice." - I did google it by the way, I'm not that sad! Flowery language admittedly but basically it means we all advance through membership of the EU, but those at the back of the queue (Poland being a good example) will be helped and will benefit more so that they are brought more into line with the rest of the economies of Europe.

[korum]

Also as you seem well informed on EU matters can you explain why there are membership fees that are different for each country and its not just a flat fee that each member has to pay.

The answer to this is on two levels. On the most straightforward level, its because the formula that determines a state's contributions is a function of a the state's income; our income is one of the higher ones in the EU so we pay more in, but less than Germany, Italy or France (bearing in mind this is gross, not net contribution). As a percentage of our national income, we pay in the least iirc, due to Maggie's rebate. To set membership at a flat fee would either limit the EU's scope to meet its aims (if set too low) or be prohibitively expensive for some EU economies (if set too high). Put simply, you couldn't set one € value that would work for both Germany and Cyprus.

On a more fundamental level, it goes back to the founding principles of the EU, one of which is "sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and social justice." - I did google it by the way, I'm not that sad! Flowery language admittedly but basically it means we all advance through membership of the EU, but those at the back of the queue (Poland being a good example) will be helped and will benefit more so that they are brought more into line with the rest of the economies of Europe.

Thanks, but I think this is a point that grinds on people in that we have enough money issues in this country (NHS being the most discussed) that people hate that we have to pay to help out other countries like poland to become better while our services suffer, I know that isn't directly the EU's fault but it's the average joe on the street that will see it this way.

The debate over expansion is related in a way that the eastern countries are not as prosperous as us so when poland has caught up we will also be subsidising the new member states and so it will continue that we will always be paying in more.

[Viral_Jim]

Of course the House of Commons legislates! 

It is the elected government that decides what laws will be proposed, drawn up, debated and voted on in The House of Commons, not the civil service.

Not so, the UK has a system of Draft Bills which are generated by Government departments (civil servants), select committees (MPs) or joint committees (Lords + MP's), once consultation has happened, the commons votes on them. That excludes the few Private Members' bills which you mentioned.

The European Parliament often referred to as the ' Rubber Stamp Parliament ' by comparison to The House of Commons, reviews and votes on laws drawn up by the EU Commission. To be honest,  I doubt they send legislation back to the Commission for amendment very often. 

Amendment I haven't seen any figures on, outright rejection, the only figure I've seen is 7%, but this was in a pro Brexit report, so its safe to say that that figure is either true, or understated. According to the House of Commons website, 46 government bills went before the commons, and 42 were successful in the last session - a rejection rate of  8.7%. Hardly a bastion of watchfulness, our men on the green benches!

Private members bills on the other hand, enjoyed a rejection rate of 97.2%  .

It seems to me that most of the European Parliament's energy is used up moving between Brussels and Strasbourg every month! 

Now THAT is an utterly indefensible practice. For which I will, (as is standard practice when no other argument presents itself,) Blame the French  . But then again, they pay for most of our EU rebate, so probably do it just to spite us!

[Viral_Jim]

Korum, I understand people's frustrations, which will always come Most to the surface during times of financial hardship, but as I mentioned, the finance issue is not so clear cut.

Btw, don't get me started on the NHS. We can talk about hardship when they:

- close the bloody homeopathic hospitals
- stop spending endowment fund money on artwork
- give over with writing prescriptions for pizza, biscuits and cake
- stop writing prescriptions for antibiotics for viral infections just because stupid people pester for them
- abandon the practice of spending hundreds of thousands on barristers and private investigators to defendnegligence cases for which they are clearly culpable.

Until then, I don't want to hear about a "funding crisis". As far as I'm concerned, the millions spent on the above items would be better off in the EU. I spent the first 3yrs of my working life auditing "post crash" public sector bodies: health, local gov, education. With the exception of colleges and universities, they didn't "get it" then, and I doubt get it now. 

[Mister Rog]

Korum, I understand people's frustrations, which will always come Most to the surface during times of financial hardship, but as I mentioned, the finance issue is not so clear cut.

Btw, don't get me started on the NHS. We can talk about hardship when they:

- close the bloody homeopathic hospitals
- stop spending endowment fund money on artwork
- give over with writing prescriptions for pizza, biscuits and cake
- stop writing prescriptions for antibiotics for viral infections just because stupid people pester for them
- abandon the practice of spending hundreds of thousands on barristers and private investigators to defendnegligence cases for which they are clearly culpable.

Until then, I don't want to hear about a "funding crisis". As far as I'm concerned, the millions spent on the above items would be better off in the EU. I spent the first 3yrs of my working life auditing "post crash" public sector bodies, health, local gov, education. With the exception of colleges and universities, they didn't "get it" then, and I doubt get it now. 

          

[Sir Tigger KC]

Of course the House of Commons legislates! 

It is the elected government that decides what laws will be proposed, drawn up, debated and voted on in The House of Commons, not the civil service.

Not so, the UK has a system of Draft Bills which are generated by Government departments (civil servants), select committees (MPs) or joint committees (Lords + MP's), once consultation has happened, the commons votes on them. That excludes the few Private Members' bills which you mentioned.

Government Departments which are headed by Secretaries and Ministers of State who are duly elected representatives of the people.   Further more Government Departments follow a legislative program as set out by the Government of the day in the Queens Speech at the opening of Parliament.  It is the elected representatives who decide the legislative program not the Civil Service.  Sure the Civil Service draft the bills and advise the politicians but they don't decide Government policy. Well hopefully not anyway! 

The probable exception is where EU laws and regulations are enacted into UK law.  There is no point in debate or voting on these as we have to comply.      Maybe this is what you are thinking of?   

[korum]

Korum, I understand people's frustrations, which will always come Most to the surface during times of financial hardship, but as I mentioned, the finance issue is not so clear cut.

Btw, don't get me started on the NHS. We can talk about hardship when they:

- close the bloody homeopathic hospitals
- stop spending endowment fund money on artwork
- give over with writing prescriptions for pizza, biscuits and cake
- stop writing prescriptions for antibiotics for viral infections just because stupid people pester for them
- abandon the practice of spending hundreds of thousands on barristers and private investigators to defendnegligence cases for which they are clearly culpable.

Until then, I don't want to hear about a "funding crisis". As far as I'm concerned, the millions spent on the above items would be better off in the EU. I spent the first 3yrs of my working life auditing "post crash" public sector bodies: health, local gov, education. With the exception of colleges and universities, they didn't "get it" then, and I doubt get it now. 

prescriptions for pizza, biscuits and cake dammit i'm off to the docs 

I believe you can add pharmaceutical supply contracts to that list as well but yes the wastage that goes on every second of every day in the NHS is shocking but as you say lets not get started on the NHS it was an example of the financial pressures the populace hear about and therefore use to base their judgement on the EU debate as well as immigrant and terrorists.

Anyway I still stand by my original statement of either in or out we will still get shafted by the powers that be 

[Viral_Jim]

Indeed korum, and I didn't enter into the discussion under the delusion I would change anyone's mind on the issue. As I said before, its all ultimately a matter of belief, not unlike religion in the respect that I can throw evidence at you and you can throw it back at me, but ultimately we will both vote based on our internal compass.

I mean, Sir Tig is flying a Dorset flag FFS, presumably only because we don't know what the Kingdom of Wessex flag looked like  . Its pretty clear where his views lie on the devolution of powers. Me, I'm at the other end of the spectrum, unless it comes to rugby of course. I see first-hand what good the EU does in other countries and think it could benefit us all in the long run. However I understand  that other people believe something different.