EU Referendum Vote - Poll

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

So.. I listened to what he said, he's a great admirer of the EU Law making machine

I would assume that's why he was given a professorship paid for by the EU, to be an official expert on EU law

So when he then says he supports "remain", you want me to assume he's a disinterested impartial expert?

His whole career and current job is based on his enthusiasm for the EU

Do you think this level of partiality would go unchallenged in a court of law or a select committee?

You can assume whatever you like. I prefer something with a bit of evidence. 

ToneControl said:

almost no journalists are impartial

that's why you have to use your own brain

thanks for being patronising by the way

This video explains how journalists are also filtered from childhood to follow the wishes of their bosses. Tell me if you need any of it explaining ;-)

All I saw was a video from 1996 featuring Chomsky coming out with some ramblings about the media which seem wonderfully old-fashioned in the days of Buzzfeed and Twitter. Filtered from childhood, my arse. 

TheBigDipper

ToneControl said: Hmmm... 
So you can't be impartial if one of the sides in a debate is funding you. 
Where does that leave journalists and columnists being funded by their newspaper proprietors, I wonder? Or did you not mean it as a general principle, just when informed opinions by subject matter experts make statements that are inconvenient?  almost no journalists are impartialthat's why you have to use your own brain
thanks for being patronising by the way
This video explains how journalists are also filtered from childhood to follow the wishes of their bosses. Tell me if you need any of it explaining ;-)
Sorry you felt patronised. I was going for sardonic humour. (Now, if I explained what 'sardonic' meant, implying you didn't know, then I would be being patronising). Still, as someone with a bigger brain than me once said "Perception is everything".

I'm curious as to where you get the information you can trust so you're able to use your brain when you cast your vote. Do you trust any of the information put out by the "Leave" side, for example? Unless you actually work within the EU machine or with it, I don't know what else you can use. Help me with some specific sources you use and trust. I might change my mind...

Regarding Osborne - I'm sure you're right. The person I expect to gain most from all of this when the dust settles is Theresa May. I'm not hearing much from her. 

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

The more I consider it, I reckon Osborne has committed political suicide

if leave wins, he will either have to try to enforce his punishment budget, and he will fail, and be fired

If remain win, he will have lost the trust of too many voters to be able to stand as a candidate for PM, and might end up with a vote of no confidence anyway

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/15/eu-facts-how-credible-is-george-osbornes-threat-of-30-billion-of/

The suicide started months before the referendum push. The punishment budget was one last desperate attempt, a banzai move, and it won't work. Even if Remain were to win, I don't believe he would get enough backing from current party members and that his nomination might actually spark a rise in people joining the party purely to vote for someone who wasn't him. 

Eventually I see him replacing Portillo on the Daily Politics. I'd prefer if he were caught in a mild sex scandal though, one where he has to admit to paying women and men to use his mouth as a human urinal. 

Chalky

Cameron to be 'grilled' on Question Time? Hmmmm....

BBC News: David Cameron to face EU referendum Question Time grilling
David Cameron to face EU referendum Question Time grilling - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36570766

chillidoggy

47 pages in, and I haven't changed my mind.

Flink_Poyd

chillidoggy said:

47 pages in, and I haven't changed my mind.

47 pages in and Im no closer to making a decision

Chalky

chillidoggy;1117181" said:

47 pages in, and I haven't changed my mind.

I think that is a fine testament to your sanity and discernment.

octatonic

This made me laugh.

Fortheloveofguitar

Cameron on QT spouting the same old bollocks

Had him on the ropes a few times which surprised me considering it was the BBC with their carefully selected unbiased audience

octatonic

Fortheloveofguitar said:

Cameron on QT spouting the same old bollocks

Had him on the ropes a few times which surprised me considering it was the BBC with their carefully selected unbiased audience

I thought he did better than I was expecting him to.

As far as the same old arguments- that isn't a surprise.

Because otherwise it would mean he has wasted the previous months establishing his argument.

There will be no new information 3 days away from a referendum- why would you leave it until the last minute to 'bring out the good stuff'?

John_P

I dislike the both but I thought Gove did a more convincing performance. Cameron looked quoted riled up responding to a few questions and just changed the subject without answering the question. It thought he appeared more flustered than normal but perhaps he was trying to look passionate and show he cares.

Fortheloveofguitar

octatonic;1117272" said:

Fortheloveofguitar said:

Cameron on QT spouting the same old bollocks



Had him on the ropes a few times which surprised me considering it was the BBC with their carefully selected unbiased audience





I thought he did better than I was expecting him to.

As far as the same old arguments- that isn't a surprise.Because otherwise it would mean he has wasted the previous months establishing his argument.There will be no new information 3 days away from a referendum- why would you leave it until the last minute to 'bring out the good stuff'?

Only new info from Cameron was him backing up Osbornes claims about taxes going up etc but didn't go as far as to mention the emergency budget directly

Which is bollocks anyway as Osborne is fucked on that count already

chillidoggy

Myranda said:

On an emotional level I feel I cannot agree with the Brexit brigade - led by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage ... how can I possibly agree with them, on anything.

If the three of them collectively said the sky is blue and rain is wet I'd feel compelled to check... 

When they're caught in a mistake (if we're being generous, it's likely just an outright lie) they stamp their little feet and yell "it's troo, you're wrong" even when confronted by evidence... 

The remain camp aren't exactly saints or paragons of believability but... surely the Brexit campaigns could have picked anyone to be their spokespeople ... 

Yes, but Remain have Sir Bob.

Doug

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-facts-not-fear/

Drew_TNBD

Drew_TNBD

ToneControl

TheBigDipper said:

ToneControl said:

Hmmm... 

So you can't be impartial if one of the sides in a debate is funding you. 

Where does that leave journalists and columnists being funded by their newspaper proprietors, I wonder? Or did you not mean it as a general principle, just when informed opinions by subject matter experts make statements that are inconvenient? 

almost no journalists are impartial

that's why you have to use your own brain

thanks for being patronising by the way

This video explains how journalists are also filtered from childhood to follow the wishes of their bosses. Tell me if you need any of it explaining ;-)

Sorry you felt patronised. I was going for sardonic humour. (Now, if I explained what 'sardonic' meant, implying you didn't know, then I would be being patronising). Still, as someone with a bigger brain than me once said "Perception is everything".

I'm curious as to where you get the information you can trust so you're able to use your brain when you cast your vote. Do you trust any of the information put out by the "Leave" side, for example? Unless you actually work within the EU machine or with it, I don't know what else you can use. Help me with some specific sources you use and trust. I might change my mind...

Regarding Osborne - I'm sure you're right. The person I expect to gain most from all of this when the dust settles is Theresa May. I'm not hearing much from her. 

no probs

I think you have to make adjustments to each source of information, based on your perception of its source

There are very few politicians I'd trust, the nature of the game favours deceit

I'd say for something as complex as this, no one source is adequate

There are lots of senior politicians from the old days ready to appear in the various "leave"-oriented videos, I can't see what they could gain from it. Gisella Stuart seems more knowledgeable on the EU than any other politician and seems honest

I don't trust any of the main team for either side. Citizen Smith is interesting though, although I think he is deceitful in a more honest way (he lies less when flaws in remain are pointed out to him)

When each politician makes an assertion, like the £4300 or the £360m, I am able to use my maths skills to do reality checks on it, which is really the core of my analysis on remain/leave. I already had my own intention to leave, based on the simple democratic principle and the state of the EU, but it's been quite easy to see through the flawed economic predictions both ways, and then to seek experts who have published more detailed analyses than I can undertake.

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said: I think you have to make adjustments to each source of information, based on your perception of its source

At what point do you recommend dropping a heroic dose of LSD to adjust the source? 

Limehouse_Blues

I disagree with some of ToneControl's "proven facts" on p.45 of this thread.

14. Re no trade deals with 'major' countries. I'm starting with this one because it's the most egregious. What’s a ‘major country’ by your reckoning? Half of the G8 are EU member states (Italy, France, Germany, UK). The US has free trade agreements with four other G20 countries (Mexico, Canada (both NAFTA anyway) Australia and South Korea. The EU has four member states that sit in the G20 and the EU itself has FTAs with five other non-EU G20 members (Canada, Turkey, South Africa, Mexico and South Korea). So almost half the G20 is either in the EU or has a free trade agreement with it. Your “proven fact” is a demonstrable falsehood. And if you meant China or the other BRICs, the US hasn't an FTA with any of them either.

1. Re laws. The EU comprises its member states of which the UK is among the more important. Almost 9 times out of 10 in Council, decisions go the UK’s way. In some areas (particularly in important aspects of banking and financial services regulation) other supra-national bodies (notably the G20 and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) set the agenda - not the EU.

It is true that in recent years EU legislation increasingly takes the form of Regulations (having direct effect in Member States) rather than Directives (which require to be transposed into national law). But whether adopted as Regulations or Directives, the substance of much EU legislation comprises technical rules that facilitate the functioning of the single market. The bedrock of law relating to property, contract and insolvency as well as the judicial machinery for resolving disputes remains distinct in the various member states.     

2. Re democracy. You assert it is a “proven fact” that the EU is "less democratic" whereas that's clearly a matter of opinion. As I’ve observed previously on this thread, our directly elected representatives in the European Parliament arguably have greater scope to change legislation during its genesis than lawmakers at Westminster. Also, in the EU law making process, the democratically elected governments of the member states in Council arguably play the most important role.

Anyone who looks closely enough at the passage of both UK and EU legislation from early proposals / consultations through to made law can see how the Commons is something of a rubber stamping chamber for a government put in place by FPTP voting. FPTP can produce a legislative tyranny that is far from “democratic”. The EU law making machine and the Westminster legislature are different beasts and neither system is perfect. Yet to openly assert without any sort of qualification whatsoever that one is “less democratic” than the other is a massive over-simplification that suggests you know how to objectively “measure” or quantify democracy as if it was liquid in a measuring vase. This is politics, not science, and the world is not black and white.

3. Re closer union. Again, the EU comprises its member states. The UK does not seek closer political integration at the EU level (quite the contrary). Nor do some other member states, particularly the non-eurozone Nordics. Some politicians in some member states may favour more fiscal integration but to suggest this is even a “plan” is disingenuous. Yes, the eurozone member states are, in some areas, looking for tighter integration but nobody is trying to build a superstate. Even tentative steps towards any sort of fiscal pooling or burden sharing run into road blocks at every turn (witness the arguments over common deposit insurance in the context of the much vaunted eurozone ‘banking union’). Even if there was a "plan" it wouldn't, I would guess, have much chance of success because that would require a degree of unanimity among the member states that simply isn't there. The implication of any "superstate" plan would be to emasculate (with the consent of all the relevant member states) the national ministries of finance in eurozone countries as fully as the national central banks were upon the creation of the ECB. You may think that is likely. I don't.

8. Re 'control'. You make a reasonable point about the impact of migration on demand for essential services but ignore the fact that EU migrants are almost invariably UK taxpayers and your starting premise as to a lack of "control" is simply untrue. A substantial proportion of immigration to the UK is from outside the EU. The UK could cut that element virtually to zero tomorrow if it was minded to. As far as intra-EU movement goes, freedom of movement has strings attached. An EU citizen that exercises freedom of movement needs to be able to support himself or herself in the member state they move to. If they can’t, then they can be kicked out by the host member state. Admittedly, the generosity of universal in-work benefits in the UK makes it easier to jump that hurdle here but the UK could change that (by shifting away from universal benefits to a contributions based system).

10. Re benefits. A Pole or a German living and working in the UK is a UK resident but not a UK national. That you confuse nationality and residence speaks volumes. I think you mean that EU rules prevent discrimination among EU citizens on grounds of nationality which is quite right. When it comes to benefits, the reason this anti-discrimination rule proves such a headache for the UK is largely because of the universal benefits model that the UK favours. See above. If the UK would only shift to a contributions based system (as prevails in many other countries) then there would be far less furore over this.

13. Re lowest growth rate. Against which other political unions of sovereign nation states are you comparing the EU? There aren’t any that I can think of. To say that the EU (and in particular the eurozone) has its problems would be an understatement. But where is your shining beacon in this post-crisis world? The USA? Japan? The boom that bust in 2008 has negatively affected all heavily indebted ‘developed nations’ and the policy response has been broadly similar everywhere (variations on a QE theme). The inflation in financial and real assets that the post-crisis policy response has produced does not represent real ‘growth’.

octatonic

Friday cannot come soon enough.