[Politics] Brexit

[Chief Wiggum]

We need a controlled immigration policy in this country. Remain can talk about Reform all the like, but the EU doesn't reform on things like free movement. The sooner people wake up to this fact the better. We need one policy for all.

I read in the press this morning that in just two days this week around six thousand illegal economic migrants and refugees have been rescued from the Med crossing from Libya. Merkel and the EU have royally ****ed up on this whole issue and Cameron knows it is politically toxic. Summer's coming. No wonder he's called an early referendum.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

One thing is for certain from this whole debate and i hate to admit it.
I was very much a tory stalwart and didnt buy much into the whole the lies are deep deep deep ingrained into the establishment nonsense,even though i always knew politicians told porkies.

its clear beyond all doubt now all these frackers on all sides lie like its no tomorrow. Even as a tory i love some labour politicians like the beast for example but i dont think i could trust either of these two parties or their individuals again.They are really going to have to go full pelt to persuade me to vote(tory) or trust any of them again. I may calm down when i remind myself that traitor **** cameron is no longer in the picture.

Anyone want to form a NSC political party? no bullshit,no lies,craft beer for everyone and guppy does the economic forecasts.........bloody vote winner that is

Can I be Minister for Craft Beer?

 

[jgmcdee]

Do you mean the ONS predictions? We get regular checks on how accurate immigration figures are (see today) we also have factual (ish) data on what has happened in the past. Whereas economists are making predictions about Brexit with no past similar examples to base their opinions on and have to factor in many more assumptions on the performance of the global economy. Apples and Oranges.

Shall we try for an "economy free" week next week? Might be interesting to let the other arguments have some air.

 

[pastafarian]

I see your point. But it's a very theoretical point. Trust me there are heaps of brilliant programmers out there. You don't need to waste time and energy trawling the earth to find the very best as brilliant will often do. And small start ups don't have the resources to do this anyway.

The wife...she'd eat you alive.

but its not just programmers is it,thats prob a bad example,the world may possibly be awash with programmers,there are skilled jobs in the UK that time from time we lack.Now i know you are not one of those people that believe brexit means shut the borders but if opportunities were open to all equally across the globe and we are short of a skill why cant we bring in the best midwives(as an example) from sri lanka or ghana or chile......why does the average midwife from romania get recruited over a better candidate from elsewhere outside the EU.......if the country really wants the best we need to recruit globally and treat all those wanting to come here to live and work equally......you are not better because you are european.

should be noted,we should never steal all the qualified midwives from anywhere that leaves them with a staffing problem

does she taste of goulash?

 

[5ways]

No. Don't think so - Anglo-Indian ties are tight - I spite of some trying to say that the British rule in India was totally evil. Some of it was bad, but was in line with the times, and some of the results are still treasured in India now.

Railways:
Legal system:
Democracy. -

- to name but a few. We'll do fine with them.

They are tight, but my feeling is that the world is a little more cutthroat than that. Yes we get on with India, but how useful are we to India? We are markedly less useful to India outside the EU, India will shift focus as a result. There is very little room for sentimentality, they want to sell to Europe.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Shall we try for an "economy free" week next week? Might be interesting to let the other arguments have some air.

It would be interesting although unlikely to happen, some remain campaigners continually drag it back to that topic hoping to deflect from other pressing concerns.

Net migration to UK rises to 333,000 - second highest on record

Net migration to the UK rose to 333,000 in 2015, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The ONS figures estimate that net migration for EU citizens was 184,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I read in the press this morning that in just two days this week around six thousand illegal economic migrants and refugees have been rescued from the Med crossing from Libya. Merkel and the EU have royally ****ed up on this whole issue and Cameron knows it is politically toxic. Summer's coming. No wonder he's called an early referendum.

They should be turning the boats back, everyone can see it. The remain camp are silent on these issues. Immigration is the biggest thorn in their side.

 

[daveinprague]

Czech Republic is in the EU.
What was all that bollocks about 'loss of sovereignty' in the EU?



http://www.expats.cz/prague/article...t&utm_content=czech-smoking-ban-fails-to-pass

 

[narly101]

A rather foolish advert rising out of the EU debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36379934

 

[pastafarian]

Czech Republic is in the EU.
What was all that bollocks about 'loss of sovereignty' in the EU?

http://www.expats.cz/prague/article...t&utm_content=czech-smoking-ban-fails-to-pass

Never realised the EU were forcing non smoking onto the Czech republic, thanks for the heads up
we had our own gov doing it

good for the Czechs though in sticking two fingers to the EU and protecting their sovereign rights and making their own decision contrary to EU demands

 

[daveinprague]

Never realised the EU were forcing non smoking onto the Czech republic, thanks for the heads up
we had our own gov doing it

good for the Czechs though in sticking two fingers to the EU and protecting their sovereign rights and making their own decision contrary to EU demands

It does however show, that the Brexits posse's 'loss of sovereignty' line is.. well...just a line really.
Which is my point.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

I noticed this first pie chart (below) tweeted by someone last week and was surprised at how little the government spends on the EU when you look at what its spends and borrows every day, week and year.

It made me look for the source as I imagined to may have been altered by one side or the other to suit their own argument/needs, however I soon found the same figures banded about by the Torygraph (see second pie chart below) and any other piece I found, they all came direct from the governments accounts.

It was then backed up by this good piece made by the BBC (see youtube video), breaking down the EU payments we make, I see we are one of the 10 wealthiest countries out of the 28 that put in more than we get back, and that we still spend nearly twice as much on foreign aid, much more on culture and sport and heaps more on the Commonwealth (but all a fraction of government/tax spend).

On an economic front projects like Trident take much more and High Speed two as much. Personally when I see war in Syria and families in need of help fleeing too Europe as a very wealthy nation I think we should spend more on helping the less fortunate. When people are saying they need facts I thought these three bits of information were very good, and put the spend in perspective.

https://youtu.be/Dokwnx4U1aA

 

[pastafarian]

It does however show, that the Brexits posse's 'loss of sovereignty' line is.. well...just a line really.
Which is my point.

Not really
how did the czechs rebel against the EU and endorse their own sovereignty against this smoking ban exactly?

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Not really
how did the czechs rebel against the EU and endorse their own sovereignty against this smoking ban exactly?

I don't know without looking but may have just been a directive rather than a binding regulation. So its down to the government to follow but it doesnt have to enforce it or make it law,

Still on the bigger picture governments should want to reduce things that harm their own and cost the state money, such as smoking.

 

[pastafarian]

[I don't know without looking [/B]but may have just been a directive rather than a binding regulation. So its down to the government to follow but it doesnt have to enforce it or make it law,

Still on the bigger picture governments should want to reduce things that harm their own and cost the state money, such as smoking.

this is a really good advert for looking first before pontificating

 

[Jim in the West]

An interesting editorial in today's FT (although I'm sure the Brexit camp will somehow make out that the Financial Times is in the pay of the EU......)

The campaign being waged by Vote Leave ahead of the EU referendum is unlike any that has been seen in British politics. One distinguishing feature is the zeal with which it launches personalised attacks on any institution or public figure that points out the risks the UK would face if it left the bloc. A degree of hyperbole is an allowable feature of modern political campaigning. But the Brexiters’ insouciant demolition of any authority that questions their vision is increasingly disturbing. The debate on the economic consequences of Brexit is where its irreverence has been most evident. The Bank of England and the Treasury have provided detailed analyses of the dangers and, given the significance of the referendum decision, both would be legitimately criticised if they failed to do so. Even so, Mark Carney has been lambasted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative MP, who has accused the governor of taking sides and acting “beneath the dignity of the Bank of England”. The Treasury has been accused by the Leave camp of being pro-European, with Iain Duncan Smith, the leading Brexiter, saying the institution is “the worst thing we have in Britain” and should be broken up.

Such assaults have been extended to other parts of the debate. Simon Stevens, the respected chief executive of the National Health Service, warned on Sunday that Brexit would damage the institution he leads, only to be accused of having made “a very considerable mess” of the NHS. When two former heads of the security services declared that Brexit would undermine the fight against terrorism, they were accused of being nobbled by Downing Street. The Leave campaign is quick to attack the messenger when it is unwilling or unable to address the message. The tendency is most pronounced in the debate on the economy, where it has offered no serious prospectus to counter the arguments made by the Remain camp. Nor are most of its attacks based on fact. It is mistaken, for example, to accuse the Treasury of being pro-European when it designed the five economic tests that ensured Britain stayed out of the euro.

It is understandable that Vote Leave wants to tap into the weariness of voters with the establishment, a widespread consequence of the financial crisis. But the vilification of elites and institutions, if pressed too far, can push public sentiment to extremes. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the US. In recent years, the obstructionism of the Republican party has signalled to voters that institutions and traditions are things to be ignored and insulted. After such irreverence, the demagoguery — and appeal — of Donald Trump should come as no surprise.

A fundamental contradiction at the heart of Vote Leave is becoming harder to ignore. The Brexiters demand that Britain should leave the EU so that sovereignty is returned to the British people. Yet they lose no opportunity to attack the credibility of the very public institutions which would exercise that sovereignty should the UK depart. Even their insistence this week that Britain must be allowed a referendum on any future enlargement of the EU is perplexing. It implies that parliament itself cannot be trusted to act in the people’s interests. Four weeks before referendum day, there are signs that wavering voters are starting to recognise that the Leave side cannot mount a sustained case for the UK’s departure from the EU. Even if the Brexiters fail on June 23, however, their irresponsible campaign may leave a mark. Their tactics risk inflicting lasting damage on Britain’s democratic culture.

 

[pastafarian]

An interesting editorial in today's FT (although I'm sure the Brexit camp will somehow make out that the Financial Times is in the pay of the EU......)

The campaign being waged by Vote Leave ahead of the EU referendum is unlike any that has been seen in British politics. One distinguishing feature is the zeal with which it launches personalised attacks on any institution or public figure that points out the risks the UK would face if it left the bloc. A degree of hyperbole is an allowable feature of modern political campaigning. But the Brexiters’ insouciant demolition of any authority that questions their vision is increasingly disturbing. The debate on the economic consequences of Brexit is where its irreverence has been most evident. The Bank of England and the Treasury have provided detailed analyses of the dangers and, given the significance of the referendum decision, both would be legitimately criticised if they failed to do so. Even so, Mark Carney has been lambasted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative MP, who has accused the governor of taking sides and acting “beneath the dignity of the Bank of England”. The Treasury has been accused by the Leave camp of being pro-European, with Iain Duncan Smith, the leading Brexiter, saying the institution is “the worst thing we have in Britain” and should be broken up.

Such assaults have been extended to other parts of the debate. Simon Stevens, the respected chief executive of the National Health Service, warned on Sunday that Brexit would damage the institution he leads, only to be accused of having made “a very considerable mess” of the NHS. When two former heads of the security services declared that Brexit would undermine the fight against terrorism, they were accused of being nobbled by Downing Street. The Leave campaign is quick to attack the messenger when it is unwilling or unable to address the message. The tendency is most pronounced in the debate on the economy, where it has offered no serious prospectus to counter the arguments made by the Remain camp. Nor are most of its attacks based on fact. It is mistaken, for example, to accuse the Treasury of being pro-European when it designed the five economic tests that ensured Britain stayed out of the euro.

It is understandable that Vote Leave wants to tap into the weariness of voters with the establishment, a widespread consequence of the financial crisis. But the vilification of elites and institutions, if pressed too far, can push public sentiment to extremes. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the US. In recent years, the obstructionism of the Republican party has signalled to voters that institutions and traditions are things to be ignored and insulted. After such irreverence, the demagoguery — and appeal — of Donald Trump should come as no surprise.

A fundamental contradiction at the heart of Vote Leave is becoming harder to ignore. The Brexiters demand that Britain should leave the EU so that sovereignty is returned to the British people. Yet they lose no opportunity to attack the credibility of the very public institutions which would exercise that sovereignty should the UK depart. Even their insistence this week that Britain must be allowed a referendum on any future enlargement of the EU is perplexing. It implies that parliament itself cannot be trusted to act in the people’s interests. Four weeks before referendum day, there are signs that wavering voters are starting to recognise that the Leave side cannot mount a sustained case for the UK’s departure from the EU. Even if the Brexiters fail on June 23, however, their irresponsible campaign may leave a mark. Their tactics risk inflicting lasting damage on Britain’s democratic culture.

yeah i got six words in,mentioned FT,my eyes glazed over........not interested

you lot want to debate any of the other issues or are you sticking with the economy?

 

[Trufflehound]

yeah i got six words in,mentioned FT,my eyes glazed over........not interested

you lot want to debate any of the other issues or are you sticking with the economy?

This is a really good advert for looking first before pontificating.

 

[pb21]

you lot want to debate any of the other issues or are you sticking with the economy?

How about environmental issues, how will us leaving the EU benefit the environment?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I only dip in and out of this thread, and miss the majority of posts. It's only if I notice something by chance on my tapatalk feed, that sometimes I bother to look further.

I'm really glad I noticed this fact based breakdown - something worth bookmarking for the future. 0.37% of Govrnment spend is money not worth quibbling about.

I noticed this first pie chart (below) tweeted by someone last week and was surprised at how little the government spends on the EU when you look at what its spends and borrows every day, week and year.

It made me look for the source as I imagined to may have been altered by one side or the other to suit their own argument/needs, however I soon found the same figures banded about by the Torygraph (see second pie chart below) and any other piece I found, they all came direct from the governments accounts.

It was then backed up by this good piece made by the BBC (see youtube video), breaking down the EU payments we make, I see we are one of the 10 wealthiest countries out of the 28 that put in more than we get back, and that we still spend nearly twice as much on foreign aid, much more on culture and sport and heaps more on the Commonwealth (but all a fraction of government/tax spend).

On an economic front projects like Trident take much more and High Speed two as much. Personally when I see war in Syria and families in need of help fleeing too Europe as a very wealthy nation I think we should spend more on helping the less fortunate. When people are saying they need facts I thought these three bits of information were very good, and put the spend in perspective.

https://youtu.be/Dokwnx4U1aA

And this. Something which has become so predictable. Don't like the message, hurl abuse at the messenger...

An interesting editorial in today's FT (although I'm sure the Brexit camp will somehow make out that the Financial Times is in the pay of the EU......)

The campaign being waged by Vote Leave ahead of the EU referendum is unlike any that has been seen in British politics. One distinguishing feature is the zeal with which it launches personalised attacks on any institution or public figure that points out the risks the UK would face if it left the bloc. A degree of hyperbole is an allowable feature of modern political campaigning. But the Brexiters’ insouciant demolition of any authority that questions their vision is increasingly disturbing. The debate on the economic consequences of Brexit is where its irreverence has been most evident. The Bank of England and the Treasury have provided detailed analyses of the dangers and, given the significance of the referendum decision, both would be legitimately criticised if they failed to do so. Even so, Mark Carney has been lambasted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative MP, who has accused the governor of taking sides and acting “beneath the dignity of the Bank of England”. The Treasury has been accused by the Leave camp of being pro-European, with Iain Duncan Smith, the leading Brexiter, saying the institution is “the worst thing we have in Britain” and should be broken up.

Such assaults have been extended to other parts of the debate. Simon Stevens, the respected chief executive of the National Health Service, warned on Sunday that Brexit would damage the institution he leads, only to be accused of having made “a very considerable mess” of the NHS. When two former heads of the security services declared that Brexit would undermine the fight against terrorism, they were accused of being nobbled by Downing Street. The Leave campaign is quick to attack the messenger when it is unwilling or unable to address the message. The tendency is most pronounced in the debate on the economy, where it has offered no serious prospectus to counter the arguments made by the Remain camp. Nor are most of its attacks based on fact. It is mistaken, for example, to accuse the Treasury of being pro-European when it designed the five economic tests that ensured Britain stayed out of the euro.

It is understandable that Vote Leave wants to tap into the weariness of voters with the establishment, a widespread consequence of the financial crisis. But the vilification of elites and institutions, if pressed too far, can push public sentiment to extremes. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the US. In recent years, the obstructionism of the Republican party has signalled to voters that institutions and traditions are things to be ignored and insulted. After such irreverence, the demagoguery — and appeal — of Donald Trump should come as no surprise.

A fundamental contradiction at the heart of Vote Leave is becoming harder to ignore. The Brexiters demand that Britain should leave the EU so that sovereignty is returned to the British people. Yet they lose no opportunity to attack the credibility of the very public institutions which would exercise that sovereignty should the UK depart. Even their insistence this week that Britain must be allowed a referendum on any future enlargement of the EU is perplexing. It implies that parliament itself cannot be trusted to act in the people’s interests. Four weeks before referendum day, there are signs that wavering voters are starting to recognise that the Leave side cannot mount a sustained case for the UK’s departure from the EU. Even if the Brexiters fail on June 23, however, their irresponsible campaign may leave a mark. Their tactics risk inflicting lasting damage on Britain’s democratic culture.