Off Topic YOUR VOTE COUNTED...
- Thread starter HugoEkitikeN01
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Who said I'm a Tory? Don't be a cretin. Do you really believe the media bullshit that this is more about the Tories than anything else? Rubbish. The far Left have traditionally been anti-EU. Go educate yourself. Why do you think Corbyn has been keeping his head down? In 32 years the first positive thing he said about the EU (an organisation he has always described as "inherently undemocratic") was guess when? 2016.
If you think that shackling the UK to the only failing economic bloc in the world without the ability to negotiate trade deals with the fastest growing countries in the wider world is good for the economy then knock yourself out. Yet another remainer who is happy to throw away our democracy for the so-called 'benefits' of staying in. Yet another remainer scared ****less. Thank god people like you were not around in 1939, you'd have pooped your pants. Get it through your head - the Euro will collapse, it's just a question of when. The EU will follow, at least in its current form.
As for the £350M it's entirely accurate. Yes we get a rebate, but said rebate is decided by the Commission annually. The more successful one's economy the more we pay. It will increase dramatically in future if we remain. Do you honestly think it will come down? Come off it. Personally, I would not have chosen to use that figure, because when I saw it I knew that the more hysterical voices on the Remain side would be screeching about it. In fact, it's closer to £10Bn per year net. They should have pointed out that the IFS (part funded by the EU) has said that if we had stopped paying in 2010 we needn't have had a program of austerity and we could have taken a penny off income tax. As most people seem to be interested what's in their pocket than the fact we've thrown away our rights that's what the Brexiteers should be concentrating on.
Then if it's accurate why did Leave row back from £350m a week extra on the NHS a week to £100m (at some stage after 2020)? And now IDS is saying that, well actually, Gove shouldn't even have promised £100m a week on the NHS as we won't be able to afford that. Faisal Islam had him wriggling like an eel on a hook and Gove was shooting promises left right and centre. But my favourite was the economy "We're fed of listening to experts" was his response to the umpteenth warning about the crash that would follow Brexit. Yesterday he was warning that remaining in the EU would be perilous to security because, er... 'experts' had said so.
Last edited:
If they say these blatant lies often enough, some undecideds might believe them. "Surely these people cannot lie about something so serious" I heard a few times. You bet?
Bit like Cameron blabbing on about how Immigration will come down if we stay in or that we'd have had a full blown world war 3 if we go out as well?
Everyone is just telling lies and trying to shout the loudest, no way of actually knowing what is best. I'm doing what I have done for years now and not voting. What's the point? Like I say no way of knowing what is best and no matter what happens they will do whatever they want once they have the power.
I think the biggest single issue is there is not one single person of any standing with any respect on either side.
Milliband rounded and royally messed up the general election. was it is uselessness or was it a genuine desire for tories and this vote that persuaded voted to give the Tories a majority?
The labour party elect a total numpt in Corbyn who is a total joke an unelectable as their leader. He is anti Europe so has basically abdicated any labour party campaign to the Tories and the n late in day gives a weak oh stay if you want speech.... brilliant.
So this is actually down to two sides of the tories telling us what to do.
Cameron who nobody likes or johnson and duncan smith who are racist cretins on the other...
then john major steps in looking like he's not aged since 1990 and savages the exist side.
honestly.... there's not one strong leader anyone could believe in the whole lot.
Milliband rounded and royally messed up the general election. was it is uselessness or was it a genuine desire for tories and this vote that persuaded voted to give the Tories a majority?
The labour party elect a total numpt in Corbyn who is a total joke an unelectable as their leader. He is anti Europe so has basically abdicated any labour party campaign to the Tories and the n late in day gives a weak oh stay if you want speech.... brilliant.
So this is actually down to two sides of the tories telling us what to do.
Cameron who nobody likes or johnson and duncan smith who are racist cretins on the other...
then john major steps in looking like he's not aged since 1990 and savages the exist side.
honestly.... there's not one strong leader anyone could believe in the whole lot.
To the undecideds, I'd ram home the anti-democratic nature of the EU. Do 5 minutes of research and you'll vote out.
I'm not a fan of Gove at all and never have been but his point was valid - so called 'experts' are not always right, and that applies to both sides. As someone who is a retired lawyer I can tell you that an expert's opinion is often disputed directly by other experts. It's actually not a numbers game, it's the quality of the data and the arguments that count. All of these experts have made assumpitions about the economy, such as the Pound falling, interest rates rising and so on, and that leads to a theory based on 'If A happens then B could happen, and if B happens, C could happen. It's complete conjecture.
Then you have vested interests that cannot be ignored - the IFS having a chunk of their funding from the EU - they may lose staff if we Brexit. Mark Carney made his name at Goldman Sachs and still has high profile friends there. They are one of the biggest contributors to the In campaign. It stinks to high heaven. This is why he intervened to such an extent that he has breached his contract of employment and should be sacked.
Remember, these are the same experts that have failed on many occasions to predict anything. I remind you that the Treasury 'experts' were trusted so much by Osborne that he created the ONS because they "could not be trusted and allow Chancellor's to fiddle the figures". Now they are put forward as the height of economic acumen.
As for Faisal Islam, I thought he was equally obnoxious to both Cameron and Gove. It wasn't 'robust' a la Paxman, it was downright rude. In both interviews he didn't wait for an answer and the viewer simply couldn't hear the response at all. That's not interviewing. He was clearly out to make a name for himself rather than get answers and he's done that. Cameron came off worse and was unable to do what Gove did brilliantly, and as a former advocate I can tell you this takes skill:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/676719/Sky-News-debate-Michael-Gove-Faisal-Islam
I'm not a fan of Gove at all and never have been but his point was valid - so called 'experts' are not always right, and that applies to both sides. As someone who is a retired lawyer I can tell you that an expert's opinion is often disputed directly by other experts. It's actually not a numbers game, it's the quality of the data and the arguments that count. All of these experts have made assumpitions about the economy, such as the Pound falling, interest rates rising and so on, and that leads to a theory based on 'If A happens then B could happen, and if B happens, C could happen. It's complete conjecture.
Then you have vested interests that cannot be ignored - the IFS having a chunk of their funding from the EU - they may lose staff if we Brexit. Mark Carney made his name at Goldman Sachs and still has high profile friends there. They are one of the biggest contributors to the In campaign. It stinks to high heaven. This is why he intervened to such an extent that he has breached his contract of employment and should be sacked.
Remember, these are the same experts that have failed on many occasions to predict anything. I remind you that the Treasury 'experts' were trusted so much by Osborne that he created the ONS because they "could not be trusted and allow Chancellor's to fiddle the figures". Now they are put forward as the height of economic acumen.
As for Faisal Islam, I thought he was equally obnoxious to both Cameron and Gove. It wasn't 'robust' a la Paxman, it was downright rude. In both interviews he didn't wait for an answer and the viewer simply couldn't hear the response at all. That's not interviewing. He was clearly out to make a name for himself rather than get answers and he's done that. Cameron came off worse and was unable to do what Gove did brilliantly, and as a former advocate I can tell you this takes skill:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/676719/Sky-News-debate-Michael-Gove-Faisal-Islam
People lie all the time to achieve their aims....these are people without conscience
To the undecideds, I'd ram home the anti-democratic nature of the EU. Do 5 minutes of research and you'll vote out.
I'm not a fan of Gove at all and never have been but his point was valid - so called 'experts' are not always right, and that applies to both sides. As someone who is a retired lawyer I can tell you that an expert's opinion is often disputed directly by other experts. It's actually not a numbers game, it's the quality of the data and the arguments that count. All of these experts have made assumpitions about the economy, such as the Pound falling, interest rates rising and so on, and that leads to a theory based on 'If A happens then B could happen, and if B happens, C could happen. It's complete conjecture.
Then you have vested interests that cannot be ignored - the IFS having a chunk of their funding from the EU - they may lose staff if we Brexit. Mark Carney made his name at Goldman Sachs and still has high profile friends there. They are one of the biggest contributors to the In campaign. It stinks to high heaven. This is why he intervened to such an extent that he has breached his contract of employment and should be sacked.
Remember, these are the same experts that have failed on many occasions to predict anything. I remind you that the Treasury 'experts' were trusted so much by Osborne that he created the ONS because they "could not be trusted and allow Chancellor's to fiddle the figures". Now they are put forward as the height of economic acumen.
As for Faisal Islam, I thought he was equally obnoxious to both Cameron and Gove. It wasn't 'robust' a la Paxman, it was downright rude. In both interviews he didn't wait for an answer and the viewer simply couldn't hear the response at all. That's not interviewing. He was clearly out to make a name for himself rather than get answers and he's done that. Cameron came off worse and was unable to do what Gove did brilliantly, and as a former advocate I can tell you this takes skill:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/676719/Sky-News-debate-Michael-Gove-Faisal-Islam
Seeing the wood for the trees.
Yes, not all experts are right. And even those who are good and non- biased get it wrong sometimes. But when you have 90%+ of experts and organisations saying one thing, we dismiss ALL of them? How is getting out of the EU AND the single market not a leap in the unknown?
So if we do not believe the experts, who do we believe? the lay person. On what basis? Their political views are closest to yours? his accent? his face fits? you like his hair?
To the undecideds, I'd ram home the anti-democratic nature of the EU. Do 5 minutes of research and you'll vote out.
I'm not a fan of Gove at all and never have been but his point was valid - so called 'experts' are not always right, and that applies to both sides. As someone who is a retired lawyer I can tell you that an expert's opinion is often disputed directly by other experts. It's actually not a numbers game, it's the quality of the data and the arguments that count. All of these experts have made assumpitions about the economy, such as the Pound falling, interest rates rising and so on, and that leads to a theory based on 'If A happens then B could happen, and if B happens, C could happen. It's complete conjecture.
Then you have vested interests that cannot be ignored - the IFS having a chunk of their funding from the EU - they may lose staff if we Brexit. Mark Carney made his name at Goldman Sachs and still has high profile friends there. They are one of the biggest contributors to the In campaign. It stinks to high heaven. This is why he intervened to such an extent that he has breached his contract of employment and should be sacked.
Remember, these are the same experts that have failed on many occasions to predict anything. I remind you that the Treasury 'experts' were trusted so much by Osborne that he created the ONS because they "could not be trusted and allow Chancellor's to fiddle the figures". Now they are put forward as the height of economic acumen.
As for Faisal Islam, I thought he was equally obnoxious to both Cameron and Gove. It wasn't 'robust' a la Paxman, it was downright rude. In both interviews he didn't wait for an answer and the viewer simply couldn't hear the response at all. That's not interviewing. He was clearly out to make a name for himself rather than get answers and he's done that. Cameron came off worse and was unable to do what Gove did brilliantly, and as a former advocate I can tell you this takes skill:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/676719/Sky-News-debate-Michael-Gove-Faisal-Islam
I repeat two things:
1) if experts are so iffy, why then does Gove-adder cite them to back up his claims about security concerns.
2) What are your views on Vince cable, an economist who predicted the '08 crash and supports remain (passionately)?
No you simply look at the stark reality of corporate world.
There will be a flood of jobs out of britain as supporting an EU market out of a non EU country and paying tax twice makes no sense... simple... We will see jobs in Uk supporting UK business and there will be a strong push to move jobs supporting an entire EU market move.
In case anyone missed this the stock market bods in Paris and frnakfurt will be out to cut londons throat and this is a perfect excuse to do it then there's the english speaking country next door with the low tax and eu currency... anyone else will simply go.. hmmm... lets go there.
then theres the skin cancer crusties all over in spain riddled with gonorrhea who'll fill u pthe NHS once they can no longer get psanish health care as they are not spanish citizens nor entitled to EU laws.
....
can i make up any more to balance the leave camp total bullshit?
There will be a flood of jobs out of britain as supporting an EU market out of a non EU country and paying tax twice makes no sense... simple... We will see jobs in Uk supporting UK business and there will be a strong push to move jobs supporting an entire EU market move.
In case anyone missed this the stock market bods in Paris and frnakfurt will be out to cut londons throat and this is a perfect excuse to do it then there's the english speaking country next door with the low tax and eu currency... anyone else will simply go.. hmmm... lets go there.
then theres the skin cancer crusties all over in spain riddled with gonorrhea who'll fill u pthe NHS once they can no longer get psanish health care as they are not spanish citizens nor entitled to EU laws.
....
can i make up any more to balance the leave camp total bullshit?
Glibness isn't getting to the core issue - back in the 40's 'experts' promoted smoking as being good for you. My Gran smoked menthol cigarettes until she died as she was convinced it helped with her asthma. I'm not joking. Experts have for years told us to eat low-fat food, now we know that it's better to have amounts of the right kinds of fat in our diet and that 'low-fat' equals 'processed' which is a bad thing. This is recent stuff, too.Seeing the wood for the trees.
Yes, not all experts are right. And even those who are good and non- biased get it wrong sometimes. But when you have 90%+ of experts and organisations saying one thing, we dismiss ALL of them? How is getting out of the EU AND the single market not a leap in the unknown?
So if we do not believe the experts, who do we believe? the lay person. On what basis? Their political views are closest to yours? his accent? his face fits? you like his hair?
Read my post again. It's not a numbers game. When I went to court and had opposing experts the case was never won on "Oh, you've got 9 and I've got 1, lets' not have a trial, you win". In fact, when I worked in Australia I actually successfully defended a guy on an arson charge when we had one expert to the Prosecution's four experts. It's the arguments that count.
I like Vince Cable, and for the record I've voted Labour, Lib Dem and Tory in my lifetime. But he has made exactly the same assumptions about the economy on Brexit. It's join the dots economics and is highly speculative because it's premised upon certain things happening that nobody can predict with any degree of certainty.
I'm also sick to the back teeth of hearing 'leap in the dark'. Yes, there will be some uncertainty but wasn't it a leap in the dark to join in the first place? As a nation we have always been risk-takers and that's why we have record numbers of entrepreneurs. Let's grow a ****ing pair and believe in this country instead of being just another homogenised, faceless Euro region.
To the undecideds, I'd ram home the anti-democratic nature of the EU. Do 5 minutes of research and you'll vote out.
I'm not a fan of Gove at all and never have been but his point was valid - so called 'experts' are not always right, and that applies to both sides. As someone who is a retired lawyer I can tell you that an expert's opinion is often disputed directly by other experts. It's actually not a numbers game, it's the quality of the data and the arguments that count. All of these experts have made assumpitions about the economy, such as the Pound falling, interest rates rising and so on, and that leads to a theory based on 'If A happens then B could happen, and if B happens, C could happen. It's complete conjecture.
Then you have vested interests that cannot be ignored - the IFS having a chunk of their funding from the EU - they may lose staff if we Brexit. Mark Carney made his name at Goldman Sachs and still has high profile friends there. They are one of the biggest contributors to the In campaign. It stinks to high heaven. This is why he intervened to such an extent that he has breached his contract of employment and should be sacked.
Remember, these are the same experts that have failed on many occasions to predict anything. I remind you that the Treasury 'experts' were trusted so much by Osborne that he created the ONS because they "could not be trusted and allow Chancellor's to fiddle the figures". Now they are put forward as the height of economic acumen.
As for Faisal Islam, I thought he was equally obnoxious to both Cameron and Gove. It wasn't 'robust' a la Paxman, it was downright rude. In both interviews he didn't wait for an answer and the viewer simply couldn't hear the response at all. That's not interviewing. He was clearly out to make a name for himself rather than get answers and he's done that. Cameron came off worse and was unable to do what Gove did brilliantly, and as a former advocate I can tell you this takes skill:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/676719/Sky-News-debate-Michael-Gove-Faisal-Islam
I think that's a straw man argument personally. Many of the EU edicts have lead to improvements in various aspects of our day to day life, from our beaches to basic H&S. The fact that we may have opposed many of them, says more about our culture than the democratic process in Brussels.
What you describe as 'assumptions' about the economy are in fact predictions based on previous experience of what happens when the markets jolt, and make no bones about it, the markets will tumble if we vote to exit.
A vote to exit, is a vote for the UK to leap into a position of huge economic risk. There can be no argument of that statement, irrespective of your view on what will happen, the risk factor is a definitive fact - and for what benefit? a less than 0.5% saving of our GDP? pffffttttt.
it wasn't as big a leap no.
It was a small economic market place at the start. Its incrementally grown over time to the bloated sack of poo it is today.. but the only way to fix it is within. the consequences of poking your biggest market in the eye is serious.
Oh so you're a reformer? A remainer who calls this disgusting monolith that we're in a 'sack of poo' but thinks it's better to 'reform from within'.
Like Cameron did in February, right?
He asked for **** all and got a lot less.
Oh dear. You can't grasp the fact that the UK actually supported, and in many cases proposed the EU laws of which you speak. The Equal Pay Act pre-dates our EU entry. The idea that we as a country are incapable of passing good law and have to rely on the EU to do it for us is not only insulting to our own Parliamant it's completely bogus.
As for your assertion regarding our 'culture', I have to say that's a new one on me. There was me thinking we opposed poor laws because they are against the interests of the British people.
so the Uk is good for europe... oh wow... and here i thought all we were good for was arranging a big leaving party...