EU Referendum Vote - Poll

Cirrus

Clarky said:

littlegreenman said:

Quite liked this analysis. Might have just swayed me.

this was an interesting perspective that I'd not seen before

It's good because it's actually based on an understanding of the subject. This guy's also written a couple of articles on the matter Here and Here.

ToneControl

Cirrus said:

Clarky said:

littlegreenman said:

Quite liked this analysis. Might have just swayed me.

this was an interesting perspective that I'd not seen before

It's good because it's actually based on an understanding of the subject. This guy's also written a couple of articles on the matter Here and Here.

He holds a professorship paid for by the EU

Fretwired

Cirrus said:

Clarky said:

littlegreenman said:

Quite liked this analysis. Might have just swayed me.

this was an interesting perspective that I'd not seen before

It's good because it's actually based on an understanding of the subject. This guy's also written a couple of articles on the matter Here and Here.

He doesn't mention that he's funded by the EU or how the ECJ overrules UK courts in tax disputes with large corporations. HMRC has lost around £14 billion thus far with cases worth another £34 billion currently going through the courts - he doesn't mention that either. I wonder what else he's left out?

quarky

Mr Shprygin had previously been expelled on Saturday, a week after fan violence marred Russia's Euro 2016 match with England.

But he returned overland via Spain, and was arrested at the Russia-Wales match in Toulouse on Monday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36593431

EU Security is so good, they can't even stop the Russian re-entering France.

Cirrus

So, leaving out what he didn't say (of which there is a lot, because it's a 25 minute talk on a massively complicated topic), what *did* he say that's untrue? Surely that's the only way to properly discredit him, because his talk seems to be based on the overarching theory of EU legislation in general, I don't see why he would suddenly have veered into ECJ/HMRC court cases?

For what it's worth Fret, I've seen you posting for over 50 pages of debate. I don't think I've seen you concede a point yet - and you've made a lot of them. So I wonder if you're THE major authority on the whole issue and you're speaking from a position of total knowledge and understanding about trade laws, world politics etc, or you're just a dog with a bone, the same as all the rest of us.

quarky

quarky said:

One thing that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is delayed gratification. Vote leave will be that. Maybe a bit of pain in the short-term, but a much better environment for the next generations.

I guess the same applies to the EU in terms of cost rises.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brussels-hides-cost-rise-until-after-referendum-8dg0pcj96

Another thing on-hold until after the referendum, or just coincidence?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682306/EU-referendum-Brexit-Turkey-membership-talks-European-Union

Skipped

The guy that has been charged with the murder of Joe Cox is in court tomorrow for a preliminary hearing.
As the media will not be allowed to discuss the referendum......I assume that this court appearance will dominate 24 hour news and every news bulletin.....while people are voting.
What do you think?

Sporky

ToneControl said:

He holds a professorship paid for by the EU

Is any of what he says wrong though?

Same question to Fret - is he demonstrably wrong in anything he said?

I'm always suspicious when criticism is of the person, not the content.

holnrew

Am I the only one who doesn't give two figs about "sovereignty"?

Sporky

holnrew said:

Am I the only one who doesn't give two figs about "sovereignty"?

Nope.

Cirrus

holnrew said:

Am I the only one who doesn't give two figs about "sovereignty"?

No, I don't care either. It's just a notion to be bent around whatever argument someone wants to make.

Fretwired

Cirrus said:

So, leaving out what he didn't say (of which there is a lot, because it's a 25 minute talk on a massively complicated topic), what *did* he say that's untrue? Surely that's the only way to properly discredit him, because his talk seems to be based on the overarching theory of EU legislation in general, I don't see why he would suddenly have veered into ECJ/HMRC court cases?

For what it's worth Fret, I've seen you posting for over 50 pages of debate. I don't think I've seen you concede a point yet - and you've made a lot of them. So I wonder if you're THE major authority on the whole issue and you're speaking from a position of total knowledge and understanding about trade laws, world politics etc, or you're just a dog with a bone, the same as all the rest of us.

I have conceded a few points - the problem is staying or going is a leap in the dark. There are not a lot of facts and both sides obviously stick to what they think will win them the vote. I can say we can get new trade deals and a remain supporter can say no you won't. We'd never know unless we left - that's the problem. I'm not a traditional Tory or a fan of Boris or Cameron (I absolutely loathe the bloke). Cameron has balls this up big time.

I'm not an expert, but I do think the UK won't survive outside the EU is just nonsense. We have the fifth biggest economy in the world. Junker's sabre rattling - out is out. He doesn't call the shots. The Germans do. All the banks would move to Germany. Of course they would. And pay all the extra taxes and be constrained by EU red tape.

And I'd have thought the the ECJ rulings are quite important. If HMRC lose the next batch of cases that's £34 billion in lost tax revenue - that's half the deficit. No British government will be able to say with any certainty that it can tax large corporations. So the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google can benefit from the UK's infrastructure, educated population and public services and yet contribute nothing. If Corbyn's Labour get elected and he wants to raise taxes to fund the NHS what will happen? More court cases? I really don't know - HMRC are worried though. I seem to be the only one on here who is bothered. There seems to be one rule for the wealthy and big business and another for people like me.

The EU is all about corporatism. TTIP hasn't gone away and will be signed and the EU has admitted that there will be talks with Turkey on joining the EU starting on 30 June so Cameron's lying again, or they just don't bother consulting him.

And our membership of the EU won't go away .. more members, bigger Eurozone so no seat at the top table for the UK - we'll be back round this loop again if Remain win on Thursday.

I'll be glad when it's all over and we can go back to talking bollocks.

Sporky

Fretwired said:

No British government will be able to say with any certainty that it can tax large corporations.

Wasn't the problem, in at least one case, that the UK government was trying to take VAT twice on the same goods?

In which case it's a damned good thing that they were stopped.

But back to the video - what did he say that's demonstrably wrong? I know it's easier to attack his character, with the insinuation that his funding dictates his thinking, but that just makes me suspicious.

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Fretwired said:

No British government will be able to say with any certainty that it can tax large corporations.

But back to the video - what did he say that's demonstrably wrong? I know it's easier to attack his character, with the insinuation that his funding dictates his thinking, but that just makes me suspicious.

I didn't say he said anything wrong. I don't know enough to comment. However he didn't say that he holds a Jean Monnet Chair - the Jean Monnet Programme, also known as the Jean Monnet Project, is a European Union initiative to encourage teaching, research and reflection in the field of European integration studies in higher education institutions.The Commission funds Jean Monnet Chairs and Jean Monnet teaching modules. If he were truly impartial he should have made that clear.

As I mentioned before the issues of supremacy between the UKs courts and the ECJ - he didn't go into that - my suspicious mind wonders what else has been left out. The problem is I don't know enough about what he's saying so you either take it at face value or you take the time to check it which I can't be arsed to do.

I've been to the EU parliament a few times and had plenty of presentations - they're slick and focus on the good the EU does. Little mention of Greece, or high youth unemployment and economic stagnation in places like Spain and Portugal.

ToneControl

Sporky said:

ToneControl said:

He holds a professorship paid for by the EU

Is any of what he says wrong though?

Same question to Fret - is he demonstrably wrong in anything he said?

I'm always suspicious when criticism is of the person, not the content.

he's definitely missed out extremely important stuff

None of us can say they are knowledgeable enough to consider all of his points, I assume they'd all be correct, given his profile and the reputation he needs to maintain

I'm just saying he's not an independent witness

Also he seems enamored with the complexity of EU law, rather than appalled by it

Sporky

So the comments on his funding are just a go at poisoning the well?

Fretwired

holnrew said:

Am I the only one who doesn't give two figs about "sovereignty"?

No problem. Wind up parliament and get ruled from Brussels. Our civil service can run the country day to day.

This is where I stand .. filmed a few years ago ..

Emp_Fab

So, apart from free trade, EU-wide safety regulations, the right to live, work or retire anywhere in Europe, farming subsidies, the right to free emergency healthcare and the sharing of resources to fight crime and terrorism.... What has the EU ever done for us?

Cirrus

Fretwired;1120967" said:

I have conceded a few points - the problem is staying or going is a leap in the dark.

Sure, and actually I apologise for that - it wasn't exactly a personal attack but it wasn't fair to single you out. I suppose if I could make a more level headed criticism, I think your reply to my re-quoting that video was indicative of an argument strategy which I find a bit unhelpful, where the subject is changed to something else; the video was on one thing, you said "yeah but he didn't mention something totally different that I think I can successfully win an argue about. It's a common tactic, but I don't really want a rambling argument that goes from subject to subject with no resolutions - I'm curious to know what this professor said that's actually not true; that would be helpful to me.

Fretwired;1120967" said:

There are not a lot of facts and both sides obviously stick to what they think will win them the vote. I can say we can get new trade deals and a remain supporter can say no you won't. We'd never know unless we left - that's the problem.

I think there are facts and very well educated opinions, but those who support "leave" discount them as fear mongering. That's been my experience throughout this campaign, and I don't think I'm biased - at times I've been seriously swaying towards voting leave for a range of reasons. When someone who actually understands the intricacies of trade law (not me or you, I assume?) says we CAN'T get new trade deals in less than about 10 years, I'm more inclined to believe them than when BOJO or Gove says "nah, that's rubbish scaremongering, of course we'll get a trade deal, they'd be mad not to give us one."

Fretwired;1120967" said:

I'm not an expert, but I do think the UK won't survive outside the EU is just nonsense. We have the fifth biggest economy in the world. Junker's sabre rattling - out is out. He doesn't call the shots. The Germans do. All the banks would move to Germany. Of course they would. And pay all the extra taxes and be constrained by EU red tape.

Our current economy is based on a continued evolution to where we are today, and has been shaped by social, economic and political change. It's also at this point been shaped by 40 years of membership with the European Union. I believe that if we had more natural resources, a bigger manufacturing base, an economic might that rivalled the combined economic strength of the EU and a fair wind behind us we absolutely could strike out on our own and prosper. The problem is that the majority of our economy is based on financial services and skilled workers, both of which are footloose (assuming the rest of the world don't spitefully trap us on this island, which nobody wants I think?). If there was a depression post leave, and I believe there would be, it would affect financial institutions heavily. If they couldn't operate from London into the EU without extra regulatory barriers, they would swallow the cost of the move over to the continent... in my opinion.

Fretwired;1120967" said:

And I'd have thought the the ECJ rulings are quite important. If HMRC lose the next batch of cases that's £34 billion in lost tax revenue - that's half the deficit. No British government will be able to say with any certainty that it can tax large corporations. So the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google can benefit from the UK's infrastructure, educated population and public services and yet contribute nothing. If Corbyn's Labour get elected and he wants to raise taxes to fund the NHS what will happen? More court cases? I really don't know - HMRC are worried though. I seem to be the only one on here who is bothered. There seems to be one rule for the wealthy and big business and another for people like me.



The EU is all about corporatism. TTIP hasn't gone away and will be signed and the EU has admitted that there will be talks with Turkey on joining the EU starting on 30 June so Cameron's lying again, or they just don't bother consulting him.

Without knowing the ins and outs of each court case relating to tax I'd be loath to make a judgement, though as @Sporky suggests, they may not be entirely unjustified rulings. However, I do agree that global corporate interests are pandered to by the EU and this can be bad. I don't see how they wouldn't be pandered to equally by a newly free and independent UK however, especially if we were negotiating trade deals with countries like the US with their intense culture of lobbying at all levels of society. As for the TTIP, I have to agree with @ICBM (I think it was him) many, many tens of pages ago who argued that if we left the EU we'd still have to adopt either the same treaty or one just as bad. And if the UK government moves to the right, as it may well do in the event of a brexit vote, they'd have an appetite for one too. 

Turkey doesn't recognise Cyprus, which is an EU member state. Turkey's admittance into the EU requires a unanimous vote and is subject to veto as far as I'm aware. For-bye the number of areas where Turkey doesn't yet qualify to join, and won't qualify for the forseable future even into the long term. However, the Turkey question raises the topic of immigration, and I think this post is long enough now. >:D<

UnclePsychosis

Sporky;1120987" said:

So the comments on his funding are just a go at poisoning the well?

Of course they are. The Leave camp are almost literally incapable of accepting that some people don't agree with them for genuine reasons.

Anyone of any importance or relevance who has come out in favour of the EU gets attacked as "being on the EU gravy train".

They don't seem to appreciate the irony that if massive numbers of scientists, businesses, economists, etc etc etc all do well out of being in the EU then that is in itself a massive indication that being in the EU is a good thing.

I like this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/28/eu-referendum-brexiters-vote-leave