The ultimate REFERENDUM thread

[Soulman]

He wasn't suspended because he is a Brexiter. He was suspended because he went against the organisation's agreed stance of neutrality. In other words, exactly the same would have happened if he had expressed pro-Europe views.

I think it was clearly stated that "He was suspended because he went against the organisation's agreed stance of neutrality" and of course it would be the same " if he had expressed pro-Europe views", i think the point with most is that he feels that Out is the better option and this from a senior figure, not whether he would get fired whether he supported In or Out.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

"Long term prospects Could be brighter outside the EU"

That states his opinion and view me thinks

Yes, that does state his opinion or view.

But the point is that he could just have easily been suspended for saying "I think the European Union is a jolly good thing and I think it would be madness to vote to come out."

He has not been suspended for expressing his view. He has been suspended for going against the organisation's stated intention and policy to be neutral at this point in the debate.

If you can't understand that, you need to do a course in logical thinking or something similar.

 

[Soulman]

Yes, that does state his opinion or view.

But the point is that he could just have easily been suspended for saying "I think the European Union is a jolly good thing and I think it would be madness to vote to come out."

He has not been suspended for expressing his view. He has been suspended for going against the organisation's stated intention and policy to be neutral at this point in the debate.

If you can't understand that, you need to do a course in logical thinking or something similar.

Yes we know, it was on the news, we get it, he would have been sacked whether wanting In or Out, we realise that he should have stayed NEUTRAL.......he did not and he expressed his opinion favouring OUT......and so he got kicked out.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I think it was clearly stated that "He was suspended because he went against the organisation's agreed stance of neutrality" and of course it would be the same " if he had expressed pro-Europe views", i think the point with most is that he feels that Out is the better option and this from a senior figure, not whether he would get fired whether he supported In or Out.

Agreed. I just have the feeling that some people will not see it like that. Maybe I over-reacted to Sir Albion above!

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Yes we know, it was on the news, we get it, he would have been sacked whether wanting In or Out, we realise that he should have stayed NEUTRAL.......he did not and he expressed his opinion favouring OUT......and so he got kicked out.

Agreed and point taken, as per above post. has he actually been sacked? or just suspended?

 

[Soulman]

Agreed and point taken, as per above post. has he actually been sacked? or just suspended?

TBH i am not really bothered whether he has been sacked or suspended, the whole point of this occurrence being put up was surely to point out that a senior figure has the opinion that we would be better off Out of the EU......seems some want to deflect from the real point.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

This was my first contribution to this thread. Elsewhere I've commented when someone said something that interested for me enough to find the numbers, and asked questions when the position put forward by people flew in the face of the facts as I understood them. I haven't found any useful information on the contribution that EU membership either adds to or removes from the UK economy, so don't have anything to say on that point. If it turns out that the questionable points and outright misinformation comes from one side rather than they other then that's hardly my fault.

My reasons for voting to stay in the EU are a mix of social, economic and personal views but there is little hard fact involved in most areas. We can't definitively say if we would have been better off in or out of the EU, in the same way we can't definitively say if we will be better off in or out of the EU. If there was an obvious choice to make then it wouldn't require a referendum.

Thanks for that. If you can't find questionable points/outright misinformation in the many posts made by those favouring staying in then you haven't been looking hard enough. For instance, some contributions to these EU Referendum threads have claimed we definitely have been and will be more prosperous in the EU which appears a little contradictory to your “We can't definitively say if we would have been better off in or out of the EU” view. From my pro Brexit perspective most of the 'staying in' campaign is based on questionable points/outright misinformation.

I'm all for interrogating facts and arguments though and now you have finally nailed your EU flag to the mast I better understand where you are coming from.

I thought there were normally two reasons why the unwashed masses are deemed worthy of a referendum 1.) Government split on a difficult major issue 2.) Rubber stamp an existing decision. In both cases the Government usually only allows them if they are pretty certain they will win. Of course in the EU's case they just keep asking the question until they get the 'right' answer.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

He wasn't suspended because he is a Brexiter. He was suspended because he went against the organisation's agreed stance of neutrality. In other words, exactly the same would have happened if he had expressed pro-Europe views.

Yes that's the excuse they gave. How I wonder does an individual expressing his personal view break an organisations supposed neutrality.

The BCC's initial position made this point. No mention of him breaking any supposed impartiality guideline.

The BCC responded at the time by saying it would not be campaigning for either side and that Mr Longworth's comments "reflect his personal assessment, rather than the position of the BCC".


And ..

BCC Statement on EU Referendum

BCC statement on its position during the EU referendum.

“The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) will not be campaigning for either side ahead of the EU referendum. The BCC will survey Chamber member companies across the UK, report their diverse views, and inform the debate.

“The BCC’s Director General has been very clear where his remarks reflect his personal assessment, rather than the position of the BCC.”

http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/bcc-statement-on-eu-referendum.html

Something changed and it is hard not to conclude some people don't like hearing a pro Brexit pov.

I seem to remember some of the Big Business wonks who signed that government pro EU letter the other week did so in a purely personal capacity . . .

 

[sir albion]

I think it is absolutely appalling to talk about this purely in terms of money. It ignores any historical, philosophical or political reasons to stay in.

There was an excellent article in the Observer last week from an interview with David Liddington (?spelling), the Conservative Europe Minister, who has been in post for six years. One of the points that he was making, which many people ignore, is the prevention of war in Europe stuff. he cited the example of a conversation that he had with the Prime Minister of one of the recently incoming Eastern Bloc states - I can't remember which one - where his interlocutor had stressed how important that is.

Anyone who says, like the UKIP MEP on question Time this week, that the prevention of war in Europe for the last 70 years has had nothing to do with the European Union but is down to NATO is talking through their anal orifice.

That's the view it seems from most people....I should of made it clearer as I find it appalling too as money should not come before country regardless.

 

[skipper734]

A few years old, but still relevant. Some things mentioned have already happened.

 

[sir albion]

Yes, that does state his opinion or view.

But the point is that he could just have easily been suspended for saying "I think the European Union is a jolly good thing and I think it would be madness to vote to come out."

He has not been suspended for expressing his view. He has been suspended for going against the organisation's stated intention and policy to be neutral at this point in the debate.

If you can't understand that, you need to do a course in logical thinking or something similar.

Christ he clearly means we are better off out...Take those rose tinted specs off
Madness?
It would be the best thing ever and if you enjoy seeing your country milked and walked over by Germany and France then so be it.
The European Union is rotten to the core and they have no interest in countries well being just the money.

Vile organisation

 

[sir albion]

A few years old, but still relevant. Some things mentioned have already happened.

Fascinating and clearly the agenda is for all too see.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

....and walked over by Germany and France then so be it....

One of the most depressing and shameful aspects of this entire debate has been seeing our PM going to Germany to ask if we are allowed to restrict EU migration and being told no and see him standing next to the French President playing along with the scaremongering of France being mean to us after Brexit. I think DC is on borrowed time no matter the referendum result as a large section of the Tory party will not forgive or forget. Rightly so!

 

[Triggaaar]

It would be better for the future of Britain if we left.

 

[melias shoes]

Christ he clearly means we are better off out...Take those rose tinted specs off
Madness?
It would be the best thing ever and if you enjoy seeing your country milked and walked over by Germany and France then so be it.
The European Union is rotten to the core and they have no interest in countries well being just the money.

Vile organisation

That's how i read it and spot on post.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It would be better for the future of Britain if we left.

Thanks for that

 

[jgmcdee]

Thanks for that. If you can't find questionable points/outright misinformation in the many posts made by those favouring staying in then you haven't been looking hard enough. For instance, some contributions to these EU Referendum threads have claimed we definitely have been and will be more prosperous in the EU which appears a little contradictory to your “We can't definitively say if we would have been better off in or out of the EU” view. From my pro Brexit perspective most of the 'staying in' campaign is based on questionable points/outright misinformation.

That's fair enough, and I do agree that those who come out with definitives for the future on either side are far too aggressive. Although with those I generally ignore them because I'm already aware that they are garbage and don't need to go find out the reality of the situation.

I'm all for interrogating facts and arguments though and now you have finally nailed your EU flag to the mast I better understand where you are coming from.

I thought there were normally two reasons why the unwashed masses are deemed worthy of a referendum 1.) Government split on a difficult major issue 2.) Rubber stamp an existing decision. In both cases the Government usually only allows them if they are pretty certain they will win.

Given that the last referendum was on Scotland and this on Europe, I think "pretty certain" might be pushing it given the polls. I don't think I'm alone in not having a clue which way it will go.

Of course in the EU's case they just keep asking the question until they get the 'right' answer.

I think I said this before somewhere but I'd be very surprised if the UK did anything other than trigger article 50 after an out vote. Although it is uncharted territory there is nothing in article 50 that suggests that once it has been invoked it could be taken back. Of course this is nothing that explicitly says that it couldn't be, but if the vote is for out then Cameron will be gone and I can't see who would campaign (successfully) for the Tory leadership on the basis of going back in to Europe.

 

[beorhthelm]

Anyone who says, like the UKIP MEP on question Time this week, that the prevention of war in Europe for the last 70 years has had nothing to do with the European Union but is down to NATO is talking through their anal orifice.

So despite a dozen nations in the EU having joined in the 00's, having 15 or so years before been the "enemy", we are supposed to credit the EU with peace over 70 years, not NATO? And a hand full of NATO members joining only in the 70's and 80's? And no consistent or cohesive policy on foreign or defense? The same EU that couldn't sort out the Balkan problem, defering to NATO to help, is supposed to have kept the Soviet threat at bay?

 

[pb21]

So despite a dozen nations in the EU having joined in the 00's, having 15 or so years before been the "enemy", we are supposed to credit the EU with peace over 70 years, not NATO? And a hand full of NATO members joining only in the 70's and 80's? And no consistent or cohesive policy on foreign or defense? The same EU that couldn't sort out the Balkan problem, defering to NATO to help, is supposed to have kept the Soviet threat at bay?

This is the problem. People say that the EU has helped keep the EU area peaceful, then someone comes along and says that they haven't because of x. People don't say that the EU has prevented all war and that we all live in a peaceful utopia as a result of the EU!!!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That's fair enough, and I do agree that those who come out with definitives for the future on either side are far too aggressive. Although with those I generally ignore them because I'm already aware that they are garbage and don't need to go find out the reality of the situation.

Given that the last referendum was on Scotland and this on Europe, I think "pretty certain" might be pushing it given the polls. I don't think I'm alone in not having a clue which way it will go.

I think I said this before somewhere but I'd be very surprised if the UK did anything other than trigger article 50 after an out vote. Although it is uncharted territory there is nothing in article 50 that suggests that once it has been invoked it could be taken back. Of course this is nothing that explicitly says that it couldn't be, but if the vote is for out then Cameron will be gone and I can't see who would campaign (successfully) for the Tory leadership on the basis of going back in to Europe.

Pretty certain might be over stating it although pre Scottish Referendum most polls showed a significant better together lead which slowly declined as the campaign progressed.

Not sure how true it is but some people have suggested Cameron only agreed to an EU referendum because he thought it very unlikely the Tories would get an overall majority hoping their new coalition partners would veto it. Surely Cameron and the government must have been confident they would get the result they wanted after a negotiation process ... considering all the doom laden predictions they have made for Brexit.

I would be surprised too but I'm not sure how soon we would trigger article 50 after a Brexit vote. I would also not be surprised if the EU made a last ditch attempt to keep us in before this happened.