The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

First topic message reminder :

Now it is official (and some guy with a green admin name has ruined the other thread) I shall put this here for you to discuss the referendum.

Duty281 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

I've seen this posted a few times on other forums, though no one explains why, other than 'the British don't like being told what to do by foreigners'.

Facts? Well the USA/UK have the world's largest direct foreign investment partnership; In 2005, American direct investment in the United Kingdom totaled $324 billion, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $282 billion - I'm sure that won't be jeopardised if our nation leaves some decaying political union.

Contradictions abound there.

FDI would fall by around 20% according to the LSE in the event of EU exit, which amounts to around £2000 per household per year. There is little analysis of what would happen if the financial sector simply went "had enough of tarriffs, we're moving our operations elsewhere". Or the tech sector boom that has had massive injections of cash from foreigns VC's?

If businesses were to fold or move as a result of being uncompetitive due to being tarriffed up the arse who in their right mind would want to invest? It's such scenarios that leave numpties like you simply can't respond to as it's all make believe that we would somehow gain access to the single market whilst not paying to use it or accept freedom of movement. It kinda goes like this:

Boris: "Here's our free trade agreement proposal".
France:"Nope not accepting it"
Boris: "Why"
France:"We'd prefer to tarriff your manufacturing exports and wait for them to come running to us with open arms after we promise them some lovely jubblies. Why would we let you be prosperous with your manufacturing exports when we can just tempt them here for our own economic gains?"
Boris:"Oh. Sh*t"

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

I've seen this posted a few times on other forums, though no one explains why, other than 'the British don't like being told what to do by foreigners'.

Facts? Well the USA/UK have the world's largest direct foreign investment partnership; In 2005, American direct investment in the United Kingdom totaled $324 billion, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $282 billion - I'm sure that won't be jeopardised if our nation leaves some decaying political union.

Contradictions abound there.

FDI would fall by around 20% according to the LSE in the event of EU exit, which amounts to around £2000 per household per year. There is little analysis of what would happen if the financial sector simply went "had enough of tarriffs, we're moving our operations elsewhere". Or the tech sector boom that has had massive injections of cash from foreigns VC's?

If businesses were to fold or move as a result of being uncompetitive due to being tarriffed up the arse who in their right mind would want to invest? It's such scenarios that leave numpties like you simply can't respond to as it's all make believe that we would somehow gain access to the single market whilst not paying to use it or accept freedom of movement. It kinda goes like this:

Boris: "Here's our free trade agreement proposal".
France:"Nope not accepting it"
Boris: "Why"
France:"We'd prefer to tarriff your manufacturing exports and wait for them to come running to us with open arms after we promise them some lovely jubblies. Why would we let you be prosperous with your manufacturing exports when we can just tempt them here for our own economic gains?"
Boris:"Oh. Sh*t"

I don't think you understand how world trade agreements work.

If the UK left the EU, then the UK and the EU as a whole (not individual member states of the EU) would attempt to negotiate a free trade deal. If no satisfactory deal can be reached, then trade will take place under the rules of the World Trade Organisation, which specifically states that no unfair discrimination can take place - i.e. the EU would not be allowed to 'punish us' for leaving their political union.

Furthermore, the EU customs union is quite specific that tariffs applied on goods from outside the European Union are the same the world over. So any such tariffs that the UK would face, in the event of not reaching a free trade agreement, would be the same as the USA currently have.

So your little scenario has no prospect of happening, should the UK leave.

https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/
http://europa.eu/pol/pdf/flipbook/en/customs_en.pdf#page=3

As for the FDI forecast, it is downright impossible to accurately predict what will actually happen if the UK leaves the EU, because there are so many interwoven and overlapping factors.

Duty281 wrote:What's relevant is now,

Always, or just when it suits your argument?  

Duty281 wrote:
Facts? Well the USA/UK have the world's largest direct foreign investment partnership; In 2005, American direct investment in the United Kingdom totaled $324 billion, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $282 billion - I'm sure that won't be jeopardised if our nation leaves some decaying political union.

The EU - and champions thereof - must continue to promote the idea that if the UK leaves the EU, their sky will fall in.  There is no alternative to the grim-reaper stories.  It must be a tough message that promises plague and pestilence and hunger and poverty.  It must be an incessant message and it absolutely Must succeed.
Therefore, the closer the vote gets, the more Dante-esque the warnings will be.

And why?  

Is it because the rest of Europe - ie France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain etc - are emotionally and gravely concerned about the poor Brits being left on the outside to fend for their little selves?  

I doubt it strongly.

Is it because the rest of Europe want to ram it home that they are not a forgiving lot - and that if they perceive wrong being done to them, they'll deliver it back tenfold; just to prove a vengeful point?  

I doubt that schmaltz too.

Is it because the rest of Europe - the ultra comfortable bureaucratic bit - have invested so much in there slow-boil United States of Europe project that they are now terrified the Brits will prove how facile and unnecessary that dream is?  Ouch!  I think that's the bit that stings.

The UK leaving the EU would simply prove to an ever increasingly doubtful EU 'citizenry' that the Grand Project is not escape-proof.  They don't fear for the UK not being able to survive in the big bad world alone, they fear that other Nations might decide to follow the Brits right on out the door.

SecretFly wrote:The EU - and champions thereof - must continue to promote the idea that if the UK leaves the EU, their sky will fall in.  There is no alternative to the grim-reaper stories.  It must be a tough message that promises plague and pestilence and hunger and poverty.  It must be an incessant message and it absolutely Must succeed.
Therefore, the closer the vote gets, the more Dante-esque the warnings will be.

And why?  

Is it because the rest of Europe - ie France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain etc - are emotionally and gravely concerned about the poor Brits being left on the outside to fend for their little selves?  

I doubt it strongly.

Is it because the rest of Europe want to ram it home that they are not a forgiving lot - and that if they perceive wrong being done to them, they'll deliver it back tenfold; just to prove a vengeful point?  

I doubt that schmaltz too.

Is it because the rest of Europe - the ultra comfortable bureaucratic bit - have invested so much in there slow-boil United States of Europe project that they are now terrified the Brits will prove how facile and unnecessary that dream is?  Ouch!  I think that's the bit that stings.

The UK leaving the EU would simply prove to an ever increasingly doubtful EU 'citizenry' that the Grand Project is not escape-proof.  They don't fear for the UK not being able to survive in the big bad world alone, they fear that other Nations might decide to follow the Brits right on out the door.

Oh well, there goes the free trade hope

Let's all kill off this EU Brussels Beast. Take back our own borders.... (and fishing grounds) and become.........................................friends again, like in the old days

Friendships before Fiefdoms!!!! Tally Ho!

Hoonercat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What's relevant is now,

Always, or just when it suits your argument?  

Duty281 wrote:
Facts? Well the USA/UK have the world's largest direct foreign investment partnership; In 2005, American direct investment in the United Kingdom totaled $324 billion, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $282 billion - I'm sure that won't be jeopardised if our nation leaves some decaying political union.

'What's relevant is now' - referring specifically to polling data, not to anything else.

Duty281 wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What's relevant is now,

Always, or just when it suits your argument?  

Duty281 wrote:
Facts? Well the USA/UK have the world's largest direct foreign investment partnership; In 2005, American direct investment in the United Kingdom totaled $324 billion, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $282 billion - I'm sure that won't be jeopardised if our nation leaves some decaying political union.

'What's relevant is now' - referring specifically to polling data, not to anything else.

Just when it suits your argument then You suggest that polls from a few months ago aren't relevant, but post FDI figures from 11 years ago The EU is responsible for far more FDI projects in the UK than the US (2015 figures). But I'm reassured to see that you are 'sure' our FDI interests with the US won't be jeopardised, even though it goes against everything I've read from economic experts and many US firms in the UK. From the FT

More than seven out of ten US businesses in Britain that responded to a survey have said a British exit from the EU would have a “negative or a strongly negative impact” on future investments.
The findings come as President Barack Obama visits the UK to urge Britain to remain a member of the EU.

The 127 companies that responded to the survey, published this week by British American Business, employ 327,000 people in Britain.

Duty281 wrote:Barack Obama's visit has done Leave the world of good.

Mind you, the Vote Leave campaign has been (thus far, and entirely as expected) quite poor. If it has to be frontlined by Tories, I would much rather Daniel Hannan take centre stage, rather than the bumbling, transparent oaf that is Boris Johnson.

Then again, if there is one thing worse than Vote Leave, it is the absolutely woeful Britain Stronger in Europe group. Horrendous.

Average of the last six polls taken shows a 50-50 split, which just goes to prove how different this referendum is to the Scottish one taken nearly two years ago.

You mean the 'leave or stay' poll where leave revolved around heavy nationalist backing and limited substance where the polls in the last few weeks had it neck and neck also (leave actually taking a lead at one point)?

Yeh, totally different.

Only difference is the EU vote has become closer quicker.

Boris Johnson is a remarkable person. He tells us he chose to campaign for Leave only with the greatest reluctance, stating how difficult a decision it was for him, but since coming off the fence apparently has seen the light, nothing good has ever come out of the EU.

Peace in Europe? All down to NATO isn't it. OK, in 2014 he may have said that the EU together with NATO had helped "deliver a period of peace and prosperity", but clearly he didn't understand the world properly then...
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/729656372917358592/photo/1

Russian invasion of Ukraine? All because of the EU innit. Not exactly what he was saying back in 2014 either, but hey...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10979460/This-is-Putins-war-and-this-disaster-is-his-responsibility.html

Also back in 2013 he was completely pro-immigration, now he blames immigration for all the countrie's ills...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10404421/Boris-I-am-the-only-British-politician-who-will-admit-to-being-pro-immigration.html

You know what's great about the internet? Makes it so easy to show up career politicians like Boris for their blatant hypocrisy

Yep, Boris Johnson is a transparent oaf, like Cameron/Blair/Johnson/Clegg, as I said previously.

Far better for the Leave campaign to be led by a life-long opponent of the EU - someone like Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage or Jeremy Corbyn ahem...Frank Field.

Problem is you're choosing between liked and respected but transparent and false and disliked and distrusted but at least clear and unequivocal in intention.

Yep. So long as we are honest, we need not be ashamed.

Though I would argue that Farage is seen as a more trustworthy figure on the EU than Cameron (according to polling), and that Hannan is hardly in the public eye enough to be seen as disliked.

Dave Cameron went into Europe to try to get a "deal"  on four matters he claimed to be significant, whereas others said were minor.  He said if there was no agreement he would be recommending a EU exit.

So one now has to ask why would he have recommended a EU exit over those four minor matters when he and his remainers are now claiming a EU exit will lead to:
1) Economic catastrophe.
2) Likelihood that Germany and France will declare war on Britain.
3) A surge in immigration.
4) More Terrorism.
5) Collapse of the NHS.
6) Massive unemployment.
7) A banking collapse.
8) ...

Nore Staat wrote:Dave Cameron went into Europe to try to get a "deal"  on four matters he claimed to be significant, whereas others said were minor.  He said if there was no agreement he would be recommending a EU exit.

So one now has to ask why would he have recommended a EU exit over those four minor matters when he and his remainers are now claiming a EU exit will lead to:
1) Economic catastrophe.
2) Likelihood that Germany and France will declare war on Britain.
3) A surge in immigration.
4) More Terrorism.
5) Collapse of the NHS.
6) Massive unemployment.
7) A banking collapse.
8) ...

He could just as easily say... "well I wasn't going to go into negotiation with the EU with the position that we won't be leaving under any circumstances but can you please grant these concessions anyway? Pretty please with a cherry on top?"

It's a valid point and one that can't be argued against.

Duty281 wrote:Yep. So long as we are honest, we need not be ashamed.

Though I would argue that Farage is seen as a more trustworthy figure on the EU than Cameron (according to polling), and that Hannan is hardly in the public eye enough to be seen as disliked.

An honest racist is as bad as a dishonest one. Just as shameful.

Tell me this...if there is no longer a God (and most westerners seem to be pretty certain they know that there isn't one).... then where do we go for our definition of 'shame'?

One person's 'shame' is another person's 'pride'. And given that humanism rules, who is to say one definition beats the other?

SecretFly wrote:Tell me this...if there is no longer a God (and most westerners seem to be pretty certain they know that there isn't one).... then where do we go for our definition of 'shame'?

One person's 'shame' is another person's 'pride'.  And given that humanism rules, who is to say one definition beats the other?

What's shame got to do with God?

Read an interesting article once, talking about how guilt is a judeo-christian concept, whilst the chinese have the confuscian concept of shame.

Guilt and shame being two different things and that being an explanation for certain aspects of chinese culture & attitude that conflict with those of the judeo-christian West.

Who defines 'shame' TopHat.... in a Godless (ie, non-spiritual) world???
Do we have a Committee of Better Beings that issue out our Morals to us now?

The New New Testament according to Saint Jeremy of Kyle:

Thou shalt not finger thy sister.

SecretFly wrote:Who defines 'shame' TopHat.... in a Godless (ie, non-spiritual) world???
Do we have a Committee of Better Beings that issue out our Morals to us now?

Unless you are making a joke I'm missing, what has shame got to do with God??

Modern morality doesn't need to be based on a religious code. I wouldn't p!ss out of the office window, not because of any God, but because I would consider it unacceptable and would be ashamed to my boss if seen/found out.

If we'd all listen to the point being made we'd realise quite quickly what the concept of Shame has to do with God.    

Let's start at the beginning.... again.  
What you regard as shameful means nothing to me.  In saying that, I'm not trying to be smart or offensive.  I'm calling the facts as they are.  What I regard as shameful means nothing to you.  You are one human being, I'm another.  We choose our own morality and therefore we choose our own concepts of Shame.  

My point about religion was that when it was active and powerful (through most of the age of considered 'civilisation') IT defined morality and therefore shame.  It didn't matter whether you believed in religion or not - you were constrained by the laws of God, which in turn fed their way into the laws of State  - ie you pretty much died in a fire, or by hanging, or having you head cut off or you went to prison if you decided to use your own personal morals and therefore constructed your own 'SHAME' values.  

What you regard as shameful in this new post-Religious age (at least in the West) is your business.  So if you think it shameful to p!ss out a window so be it.  The guy sitting across from you might think such an act perfectly acceptable.  You can't project your idea of what is shameful upon him - or else you have to tell me who decides what is shameful now in the absence of a belief in some God dictating what is Good and what is Bad?  Which humanbeings have taken over the role of God?

Everyone just smile and nod.

It's pretty interesting Prawn, but perhaps not suited to this thread. Secretfly does love to watch himself type but it isn't always rubbish.

Don't think it's interesting at all. Verging on pathetic really. Just tedious bating really.

Religion may be the origin of shame (Book of Genesis, for example, Adam & Eve nibbling the apple and suddenly being conscious of their nudity) but society more generally now governs and dictates the concept.

Some people will also let their religious beliefs drive it. But that has little to do with what secret is prattling on to himself about.

Did anyone hear Boris on Today this morning? What an @rse.

He made little to no sense at all and just lied and obfuscated his way through.

Also, why the hell is it on a EU referendum thread???????

Pr4wn wrote:Did anyone hear Boris on Today this morning? What an @rse.

He made little to no sense at all and just lied and obfuscated his way through.

Beautiful.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Did anyone hear Boris on Today this morning? What an @rse.

He made little to no sense at all and just lied and obfuscated his way through.

Beautiful.

?

Just a lovely word and use of it.

Oh, thanks.

In any case, his Vote Leave stance is so clearly self-serving. He's written articles supporting the UK's position in the EU, articles against the UK's position in the EU and lots in between.

Yep, he's taken a massive political punt on this one.

Relying on the strength of his personal brand to keep his career going should it all go wrong.

Can I add my congratulations to Toppy's for the magnificent use of that wonderful word "obfuscate"?

Agree that Johnson has made a purely political decision that backing Leave will give him the best chance of gaining Conservative leadership and thus (maybe) becoming PM. Seems a bit contemptible to me, but there you go.

Anyone what Brown's pitch. Just going on the reporting there seem like some strong bits (nice bit about Johnson's contradictory views from a couple of years ago, about his work in the EU on exchange of information re taxes), some interesting bits (about how the EU has evolved, and the reasons for wanting to remain being different from what they were for wanting to join, and thus why it was to an extent right to be having the conversation), though he was weak on TTIP IMO. Quite interesting, more so than Boris raging about the size of bananas...

Brown is an intelligent man. Poor PM but v good chancellor - he & Blair steered UK well until they got over-excited and ditched their Golden rule economic policy, failed to fix the roof whilst the sun was shining and then spanked the family savings on an ill-advised war or two.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/david-cameron-and-nigel-farage-to-take-part-in-live-eu-referendum-event-on-itv/

How did this once-great land produce a Prime Minister as pathetic as Cameron?

Too scared to debate Farage head-to-head, though happy enough to mock his name when he's far out of reach.

Why would he debate a politician as irrelevant as Farage?

Yes, so irrelevant he single-handedly delivered us a referendum!

And the reason why he should debate Farage is because he refuses to do any 'blue-on-blue' debates.

Except Farage is fronting a different Leave campaign, which wasn't selected, (something which you celebrated) so, again, why should DC debate someone as irrelevant as Farage??

TopHat24/7 wrote:Except Farage is fronting a different Leave campaign, which wasn't selected, (something which you celebrated) so, again, why should DC debate someone as irrelevant as Farage??

Eh? Farage is one of the main folk in the Grassroots Out campaign, which didn't get the designation over Vote Leave (something which I was heavily disappointed over, not celebrated).

Why should Cameron debate Farage - because Farage is the leader of the 3rd largest party in the UK; because Farage leads the only major party dedicated to leaving the EU; because Farage is the most prominent opponent of the EU in UK politics, whereas Cameron is one of the main defenders; because Cameron refuses to debate any of his fellow Tories, which rules out Gove/Boris/Hannan etc.; and because doing a question-and-answer session in the vicinity of Farage clearly indicates that Cameron feels a need to take on the UKIP leader, but he is only willing to take a half-measure, not a full one (presumably because he knows he would be decimated, just like Clegg x4).

But Farage is not the leader of the out campaign. He's not even close. He's the leader of a campaign that's been shown to have plenty of racism at its core.

So no, Cameron shouldn't debate him.

Pr4wn wrote:But Farage is not the leader of the out campaign. He's not even close. He's the leader of a campaign that's been shown to have plenty of racism at its core.

So no, Cameron shouldn't debate him.

Who would that be?

Cameron must debate someone as he is one of the leading defenders of Remain. He's refused to debate Boris (I can kind of see his reasoning) or any other Tory, so the next man on the hierarchy would be Farage.

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Except Farage is fronting a different Leave campaign, which wasn't selected, (something which you celebrated) so, again, why should DC debate someone as irrelevant as Farage??

Eh? Farage is one of the main folk in the Grassroots Out campaign, which didn't get the designation over Vote Leave (something which I was heavily disappointed over, not celebrated).

Bullsh*t.

If I'm bored enough later I'll dig through your old posts and find the one you celebrated 'Leave' being selected as Farage's mob were so shambolic (your words, from memory).

Put a cool rag over the lob you've clearly got for Farage and except his relevance is severly waning.

Scratch that. Found the posts and (unsurprisningly) you were indeed crying in your cornflakes over Farage.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Except Farage is fronting a different Leave campaign, which wasn't selected, (something which you celebrated) so, again, why should DC debate someone as irrelevant as Farage??

Eh? Farage is one of the main folk in the Grassroots Out campaign, which didn't get the designation over Vote Leave (something which I was heavily disappointed over, not celebrated).

Bullsh*t.

If I'm bored enough later I'll dig through your old posts and find the one you celebrated 'Leave' being selected as Farage's mob were so shambolic (your words, from memory).

Put a cool rag over the lob you've clearly got for Farage and except his relevance is severly waning.

Scratch that.  Found the posts and (unsurprisningly) you were indeed crying in your cornflakes over Farage.

Yes, I thought you were confusing me with someone else.

I care not about Farage's relevance, whatever it may be, but I do care about his great ability to decimate the arguments of Remain and recognise said ability to be a great asset.

He should be the best at it - he's a one trick pony that's been practicing for 20 odd years.

And we can be enormously grateful to him for that.

Indeed.

Lovely nuggets such as "bringing smoking back in pubs" and "raising the drink driving limit" make me chuckle.

BUT WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAPE OF BANANAS????????

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Except Farage is fronting a different Leave campaign, which wasn't selected, (something which you celebrated) so, again, why should DC debate someone as irrelevant as Farage??

Eh? Farage is one of the main folk in the Grassroots Out campaign, which didn't get the designation over Vote Leave (something which I was heavily disappointed over, not celebrated).

Why should Cameron debate Farage - because Farage is the leader of the 3rd largest party in the UK; because Farage leads the only major party dedicated to leaving the EU; because Farage is the most prominent opponent of the EU in UK politics, whereas Cameron is one of the main defenders; because Cameron refuses to debate any of his fellow Tories, which rules out Gove/Boris/Hannan etc.; and because doing a question-and-answer session in the vicinity of Farage clearly indicates that Cameron feels a need to take on the UKIP leader, but he is only willing to take a half-measure, not a full one (presumably because he knows he would be decimated, just like Clegg x4).

DC debating Farge on ITV apparently. Quashes your argument if so.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Except Farage is fronting a different Leave campaign, which wasn't selected, (something which you celebrated) so, again, why should DC debate someone as irrelevant as Farage??

Eh? Farage is one of the main folk in the Grassroots Out campaign, which didn't get the designation over Vote Leave (something which I was heavily disappointed over, not celebrated).

Why should Cameron debate Farage - because Farage is the leader of the 3rd largest party in the UK; because Farage leads the only major party dedicated to leaving the EU; because Farage is the most prominent opponent of the EU in UK politics, whereas Cameron is one of the main defenders; because Cameron refuses to debate any of his fellow Tories, which rules out Gove/Boris/Hannan etc.; and because doing a question-and-answer session in the vicinity of Farage clearly indicates that Cameron feels a need to take on the UKIP leader, but he is only willing to take a half-measure, not a full one (presumably because he knows he would be decimated, just like Clegg x4).

DC debating Farge on ITV apparently. Quashes your argument if so.

He isn't, which was my exact original point.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:BUT WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE SHAPE OF BANANAS????????

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INEVITABLE THIRD WORLD WAR IF WE LEAVE????????????????