I don't believe the answer to your questions will be in the public domain (yet). It's quite possible that the Treasury report was redacted by Osbourne to fit his arguments. Treasury Chiefs signed off on it, but then, their jobs might well have been at stake if they hadn't. This is why it stinks, and to be fair to the media (BBC and Sky today) they're onto the chicanery
of course you are, we 're bankrolling you. But what an awful cost to your country. Parts more like Lagos and you suggest I'd move there
ha ha ha your ignorance is truly starting to shine through. For your information, Frankfurt and Washington are bankrolling us. So as well as belonging to UKIP, do you also belong to the BNP and EDL? Serious question.
The Brexit campaign have quoted the EU cost to the UK as 57 million per day but the reality is less than half that (as eventually admitted by Brexiter Farage). That would suggest that the misrepresentation of numbers / part truths / dishonesty at least runs both ways.
But this issue is above domestic politics it is an issue of national importance we need to suspend our habitual support -Tory, Labour etc in favour of what is best for our nation. i trust no one do my own research on this .You cant wait to be told- it is undoubtedly a vested interest with control being exerted from on high by an elitist group.
It does, but by far the greater part of the dishonesty, fear and misrepresentation is coming from Governmental machinery imo - and Government is ramping it up. Even Remainians are realising that the desperation tactics from Dave and George are turning the public off.
Absolutely. We can debate where the vested interest sits elsewhere. It does seem to me that the only voices we hear are Tory ones with a bit of Farage though. I don't blame them for this, the Lib Dems are irrelevant, SNP not reported on much down here and Labour's leadership are very reluctant Remain supporters and would be with the Brexiters if they weren't trying to keep some semblance of togetherness going. Corbyn would be delighted if the Brexiters carry the day. Apologies to all. The quality of the national debate is so depressingly dire that I am being silly on here. But I'm enjoying it, so why stop. Anyway, to cheer us all up, here's Boris Johnson talking about Turkey joining the EU and the ideal of European unity.
Anyone see the Leave political broadcast earlier? Vote Leave, and Gove and IDS will spend the billions "saved" from leaving, on the NHS. Plus of course Turkey, Albania and Narnia joining the EU next year. Even leave campaigners don't believe this pish.
**** me, the remainers on here are going to be unbearable after the vote. Project fear seems to be winning the day, but I predict that many people will regret not taking this opportunity to break free and be independent. Why is it that so many in the remain camp seem to be sneering down their noses at those of us who dare to wish for independence? Cameron and Osborne make me want to puke!
With a name like Norbert, he wasn't gonna make many friends. Still, if it makes the fat Brussels bureacrats sit up, it was all worth it
If you promise not to moan about a remain vote I promise not to crow. And vice versa, I hope. As I was discussing with Goldie above a close vote either way could be a very bad thing, this **** could go on forever. I'd genuinely prefer a 55-45 Brexit vote to a 51-49 remain one. Even if it isn't close the divisions will last a long time. Just on the news that there are 10 million 'enthusiastic' Brexiters and only 5 millions Remainers who describe themselves as having enthusiasm. If those figures are remotely accurate Project Fear does actually make sense, to convince the basically uninterested 'we fear change' tendency. You still have a big chance Col, especially if it rains on 23 June. Plus the young aren't voting by the look of it. Most alarmingly just seen Jeremy Bowen on the news. Jeremy is a rare thing, a journalist I have 100% respect for. His Middle East reporting is always intelligent, balanced and sometimes provocative. Plus he is often seems to be reporting at considerable personal risk. But no longer I fear. His gut now resembles a barrel, they'll never get a flak jacket on him again.
Couple of science related stories in the news today. The fracking stuff caught my interest not because of fracking (OK, but not in my back garden was my basic position) but because during the story it was revealed that Denmark expects to get 50% of its energy from renewables permanently, at any time of year, within the next 5 years, Portugal got 100%of its electricity from them for a week recently as did, even more impressively, Germany which was exporting renewable energy. This a country which has closed down its nuclear generation capacity. I thought we were ahead of the rest in 'greening' but clearly not, though even we can manage 25% sometimes which is more than I expected. Seems to me that investing in fracking will simply slow down the inevitable shift to renewables because once you have made the investment you have to exploit it. Then some stuff on genetics. More intense lobbying on the EU to lift its ban on GM crops. Absolutely, I have never understood the opposition to this (well I do, it's from Luddites). Obviously GM needs regulation and great science, but the benefits are obvious. The Royal Society has published a guide to GM crops which I will seek out. At least some of the opposition seems to be about the potential use of GM technology by a few multinationals, which is a problem with capitalism not science. Finally an interview with Richard Dawkins. Though I am in no position to disagree with his theories on genetics so assume they are both correct and brilliant and I totally agree with his opinions on religion, I have never really warmed to him when hearing him speak. But he was excellent today, I learned more about genetics in 3 minutes than I thought possible. He posed the question 'why is it worse to 'create' musical genius though manipulating genes than by forcing a child to practise for 5 hours a day?'. Then he answered the question - because changing genes has an impact which lasts for generations and you don't know the potential repercussions in other areas. He gave a couple of examples, including breeding horses for speed - which if you go to far makes their legs break very easily. Now I need to balance this with the GM food stuff......balls, making me think! Dawkins was very clear that if we can genetically edit out disease, of course we should. Would the Luddites oppose a genetic cure (or more likely prevention) for cancer?
I'm emotionally a European, British, English/Welsh half breed, expat Londoner (in descending order) and I identify with being European, so I want to Remain, but I also hope the result is not a close thing.
Still undecided? Take a test! This is a rather good website, I like the way you can weight the importance of each question. It's run by Steve Hilton, ex advisor to Cameron and a Brexiter, but one who says both campaigns are crap and treating the public as imbeciles. https://www.crowdpac.co.uk/eu-referendum-in-or-out I am 66% In. Very strongly in on identity. Some background. I like this bloke. https://www.crowdpac.co.uk/blog/2/steve-hilton-eu-referendum-bombshell-crowdpac-in-or-out-test
Being genetically predisposed to distrust anything Dawkins utters, and also to play "non-specific potentially-malevolent anti-deity concept's advocate", what if someone who would have succumbed to a childhood disease goes on to be the next Hitler or Pol Pot? My rather clumsily made point is, once you start changing anything by fiddling with people's genetics, it becomes impossible to understand where you will end up, no matter how good or honorable your intentions at the outset. Even if this means getting rid of such a heinous disease as cancer. Which isn't a 'luddite' view, because of course we should be trying to do what we can in that sphere if not in others. But those who start along the genetic modification routes need to at least be aware that they are starting on a road towards an unknown destination. Which hopefully makes them apply the correct checks and balances, and approach their work with enough, well, enough of a moral compass (for want of a better phrase) so that they understand that 'I could do this' does not always equate to 'I should do this'... And that's where I disagree with Dawkins. He's made a call on some stuff we should do and bugger the consequences, and others we shouldn't. I reckon that either we apply the checks and balances to EVERY decision, or we may as well not apply them at all.
Interesting. I got 60% In - I would have expected it to be higher. Economy 71% In Identity 67% In Society 54% In Democracy 50% In
Your first paragraph does you no justice, sir. What if we killed everyone at birth (or even just the first born, I think there is a precedent for that) to prevent the chance of another Hitler or Pol Pot. Not just clumsy, irrelevant. If you are basing your view of what Dawkins was saying (for get religion, let's stick to genetics) on what I wrote, don't, it's just my take, not necessarily accurate. It will be on listen again for the Today programme R4. No one should disagree with your checks and balances argument, and it's what good science does every day. The thing is we engage in unwitting genetic game playing every time we have unprotected sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex. The destination is just as unknown.
