An0n0m0us

I think my dog would have sicked it up if she had ingested that much cr4p in one go

andy97

iTrader: (1)

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/93a979e7-4c8a-4d3f-89b1-529df4b4cad4

This is the debate about the it. Very long but eye opening how little our own sovereign government has control.

Our government wants us to remain in the EU, but wants to opt out of

Having the Euro
Joining Schengen
Debt relief to failing EU cointries(pigs)

So why would you want to stay if your not going to join in fully.

We the UK has no control over

Immigration(3 million extra NI numbers un-accounted for)

Tax and Vat

Laws

Ever increasing membership payments on something we don't want to join fully.

One of the MPs likened being in the EU for the Uk is like to wanting to join a football club,
who doesn't play football,
complains about the increasing membership,
and ever increasing membership fees


Crazy

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

*cough*

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Ta wrong link

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

No, your link was fine.

Was just pointing out that I'd already posted the same link, back in post #88, that's all.

God I'm boring myself.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

I think a more accurate analogy would be something like "wanting to join a football club, but will only play on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and weekends, wants to reduce the standard match duration from 90 minutes to 70, and refuses to pay for their own team kit", but the overall point is a good one. The question is though, if the country chooses to leave and switch to golf/snooker/whatever instead, will it put full commitment into that, or just sit back and be as reluctant to join in club activities as with the footie?

Mick

iTrader: (1)

I think a more accurate analogy would be - we came to join a football club... but the big bully girl who put herself in charge insisted everyone who wants to play has to live in a commune and do everything by her rules and pay 1/2 their wages into a communal fund - administered by her!

ScoobyWon't

More Government lies, uncovered.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uth-is-as-wid/

warrenm2

Anyone would think they have something to hide and are trying to deceive people in a major decision....

c_maguire

As it stands right now, both sides are hardly convincing.
If the 'outs' don't start convincing the 'ins' will likely win because the deck is stacked in their favour.
I wanted to have something to get my teeth into, and feel there was genuinely something to consider. As it is, I'm near enough bored of it now.

Geezer

Yes, both sides haven't really offered anything to convince people to switch, you either want it or you don't.

warrenm2

errr. brexit the movie?
dodgy back room deals not in consumer interest? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05..._tpd2_tobacco/

being lied to about the true number of immigrants http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-figures-ahea/

EU naval operation actual bringing MORE immigrants to the EU http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...ries-migrants/

What does it take for you to wake up?

Geezer

Not, not even slightly. People who want to leave, like yourself, see that as a convincing argument because it fits in with your ideas anyway. Likewise, all of the stuff put out by remain would be the same for me. If you can't see that, well.......

What people need is impartial advice, not videos made by raving anti EU people, or for Europhiles, for that matter.

There have been independent views, in favour of both camps, to a greater or lesser degree, but then either camp just shouts them down, or touts them. It's very difficult for the undecided to, well, decide.

warrenm2

ok I see that. So ask yourself the (IMHO) most important question...

Who do you want to be ruled by, and can you remove them if you don't like them? This last bit is important BTW

a) The EU
b) Westminster

Simples

neil-h

I would highly recommend anyone trying to answer this question has a serious think about what's being asked and does some proper research before reaching an answer.

c_maguire

Exactly. Apart from the fact I'm almost as unimpressed by the 'Remain' cr@p as well.
Ifs, buts and maybes just ain't going to cut it for me.
If neither side can do better than this, and no third parties that don't make me suspicious come up with a plausible summation then I'll vote 'remain' as the low-risk option.

warrenm2

The trouble with Remain is that people make the mistake that it is the "no change/business as usual" option. That is mistaken.

A vote to Remain will mean MORE EU laws (the ban on "inefficient" kettles/toasters has been delayed so as not to "interfere" with the referendum for example, road pricing is an EU thing and will be implemented), it will mean MORE immigration as we get drawn into the Common EU asylum policy, MORE powers to Brussels, MORE integration, MORE cost as the EU is about to take tax raising powers and MORE loss of sovereignty, MORE eradication of the old UK. "This is a mandate for MORE EU and we will deliver!" will be the line.

If that's what you want, then go for it, but be aware that things will not be the same whatever the referendum outcome, "stay as things are" is NOT an option

JGlanzaV

iTrader: (3)

Status Quo wil be maintained in the event of no one offering cast iron solutions, much the same as the Scots, no one could sell it either way and status quo is maintained.

so all in all we will end up staying.

warrenm2

I think actually people are very fed up with the status quo and will vote for change. People have a sense of things being broken. Have a look at the comments section in these articles (sort by highest rated) and you get a flavour of what people are thinking.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36243296
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36252295
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36295208

ScoobyWon't

If Cameron's negotiations were so successful, why does he not refer to them, instead of resorting to scaremongering?

Is it because his negotiations amounted to nothing and that there will be no reform of the EU, if the UK is duped in to remaining?

warrenm2

I think you might be on to something there.....

hodgy0_2

Lol, if we leave we are free to make **** inefficient toasters and hovers, whilst Europe march forward

That's a relief!!!!!

But the wider point is that the drive to make products more efficient has done wonders for the Eurpoean car industry and every industry - it's called progress

I mean the U.S. Have no such constraints and they make unremittingly cr4p cars - 20 years behind Europe's

Sometime I honestly think the Brexiters want to take us back to the 1950's - just look at Wurzels video he posted

Geezer

It is a question, for sure, but is it the most important question? You could also phrase it "Do you think it's more important to be governed solely by Westminster, even if that means economic isolation and recession?"

Now I don't necessarily believe that would happen if we exit, I believe we are better off remaining, but it does highlight the complexities of the argument and why your question, as it stands, is a bit like the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" one

As for the question itself, it doesn't address certain points. We live in a democracy to a point, yes, compared to Russia, or North Korea , but we already know that our own elected politicians have behaved diabolically, again and again. Being elected does not guarantee integrity.

Indeed, we have seen disgraced politicians being brought back in to positions of power after the furore has died down. Call that democratic?

You can vote that lot out every five years, but each and every government has a scandal, or some sort of corruption. People often talk about how the MEPs are on the gravy train, conveniently forgetting that our own politicians worked the rules so badly on expenses that some of the even got prosecuted.

The myth of unelected and unaccountable EU bureaucrats continues, despite the fact that MEPs are elected by us, and the Commissioners are appointed by the same elected governments you hold so dear. But, we have covered that ground before.

I hope that answers your question, and in return, I would like to ask a similarly over simplified question back.

If it was proven that the UK economy would grow by 5% more than leaving, year on year by remaining in the EU, would you rather have

a) An independent Westminster
b) The EU with more involvement from Brussels.

warrenm2

A theoretical question, but I believe that freedom has no price. As per this quote

john banks

That would be really difficult to prove in advance when we all have to vote. Analysis either way depends on assumptions that result in a biased conclusion.


I personally struggle to see how with all the difficulties of the EU that membership of it is worth 5% cumulative growth difference. I could imagine the 95% confidence interval being +-2% related to remain or leave, but I cannot find unbiased data to do much more than imagine. Do you have anything?

Geezer

No, but that was not the point of the question, it was to illustrate that the question asked to me was over simplistic.

Geezer

Oh come on, that is ridiculous. Are you Boris Johnson?

hodgy0_2

Ahh the invocation of Sparticus

ScoobyWon't

Over the last week we've had the following scaremongering from remain:

June 24th, 2016 according to Herr Cameron:


It’s not war we should fear, but what the Germans do in peace.

George Osborne: Those daring to vote to leave the EU will inflict on Britain collapsing house prices. (Surely this will benefit savers and those wishing to get on to the housing market). Osborne also claims he can accurately forecast up to 2030, while he cannot even get the forecasts between November 2015 and March 2016 to be accurate.

Mark Carney - the Irish-Canadian BoE Governer with a history of error, claiming we'll suffer a "Technical Recession".

Christine Legarde of the IMF - yes, the same Christine Lagarde who is under investigation for fraud - says Brexit will lead to would lead to a stock market crash and a steep fall in house prices. This is the IMF who are crushing Greece and should be more worried about the ~50% youth unemployment across Europe. Olivier Blanchard, Lagarde's mentor - states the opposite of what she claims.

The IMF, as a whole, completely missed the onset of the global financial crisis, and was blindsided when the US fell into recession in November 2007. The Fund’s staff were still predicting sunlit uplands as far as the eye could see, even when the blackest of black storms was upon them.

The IMF misjudged the fiscal multiplier horribly in Greece. Its forecasts for Greece were wrong every single year following the rescue of the euro and the North European banking system in 2010, otherwise known by some cruel twist of language as the Greek bail-out.

They originally said the Greek economy would contract by 2.6pc in 2010 and then recover briskly. What actually happened – as predicted at the time by the Indian member of the IMF board – was the most spectacular collapse of a developed economy in the post-war era. Output ultimately fell by 26pc from peak to trough.

I expect they'll be wheeling out the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse next week.

warrenm2

Why is it ridiculous?