Brexit: the referendum

[theprestige]

That presupposes we could trust any UK government to continue with the the subsidies to farms that constitute the bulk of the money that comes back from the EU. The EU bureaucracy will be working out the administration of the farming subsidies for all 28 countries, so there is an obvious economy of scale there. It would no doubt cost the UK government more to bring that responsibility back in-house, and there would always be a temptation to them to deviate from EU levels of payments for their own advantage.

No, it presupposes that the EU government is no more trustworthy than the UK government, and is probably less well qualified to understand and address UK issues in a meaningful way than the UK government would be.

It also presupposes that, governments being generally untrustworthy, it's generally better when democratic control is more local to the issues it intends to address, rather than more remote.

Anyway, all I'm getting at is that I think that money that goes from the UK to the EU and then comes back again is not a break-even outcome; there's bound to be some extra wastage in the extra hops and administrative handoffs.

So would you prefer a system in which the UK contributed to the EU but didn't get anything back? I think the exiters would have an even bigger field day with that, don't you?

I think I would prefer a system where the UK didn't contribute to the EU at all, and istead kept its money at home to fund UK problems according to UK interests and values.

It could be a duplication of bureaucracy or it could be a massive saving of 27 different bureaucracies replaced by 1. Devil is in the detail really.

Does the UK administrative bureaucracy go away just because the EU bureaucracy is added on top?

Aside from that, ceding administrative oversight to a more remote entity also strikes me as problematic. For sure it would save a lot of effort if I let you make all my decisions for me. Assuming you only had to make one decision and both of us would go along with it. Or better yet: How about I make all our decisions, and you just go along with it. Massive savings yes?

 

[theprestige]

Why when they are true? It's like saying that Trump has run a more dishonest campaign than, say Kasich.

It's like Kasich saying that he's running an honest campaign, and Trump is lying to you. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. But Kasich saying it doesn't make it true. Indeed, Kasich saying it is such a self-serving thing as to be essentially worthless.

If you're telling the truth, don't say it, prove it. If the other guy is lying, don't say it, prove it.

 

[gypsyjackson]

I don't know if that's feasible but severe sanctions for continued repeated dishonesty surely need to be considered if we are to preserve any faith in the press.

On another note I read also that the guy in charge of the Mail received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the EU to look after his country estate while actively campaigning against it. Did someone say dishonesty?

True.

http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Search.aspx

Langwell estate. 60k in 2014.
His garden (Wadhurst). 29k in 2014

Will have added up over the years.

I feel bound to point out that if he complied with the rules and kept the land in good condition then he is entitled to the money. Not dishonesty as much as hypocrisy perhaps.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well we need to call them something - cis-EU and trans-EU?

Whigs (free trade, Concert of Europe) and Tories (Queen and country).

 

[jimbob]

It's like Kasich saying that he's running an honest campaign, and Trump is lying to you. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. But Kasich saying it doesn't make it true. Indeed, Kasich saying it is such a self-serving thing as to be essentially worthless.

If you're telling the truth, don't say it, prove it. If the other guy is lying, don't say it, prove it.

I have:

The key claim from the Leave campaign is that EU membership costs the UK £350-million a week - this is simply untrue.

My understanding is as follows:

There is an agreed formula for funding the EU, which is where that £350-million a week comes from. However the UK has a long-standing rebate that means that the amount it owes is reduced - money doesn't flow out and then back, it never flows out. This is like a discount on a club membership that would only end if you renounced it (highly unlikely to put it mildly). That alone is sufficient to say that the £350-million figure is untrue.

There are funds that go to specific areas of hardship, and for specifically agreed-on projects (my MSc fees were paid for by the EU in the 1990s) and these go back from the EU to the country but the government doesn't control that money.

Also there are EU grants for specific activities for private individuals. Again this is money that the government can't spend, but it would probably have had to find similar funds elsewhere if the EU didn't spend it.

I don't know where farm subsidies sit in this breakdown, but as the Leave campaign have already said that they'd support farmers to a similar amount, they have already committed to spending that part of the money, so the Leave campaign would be dishonest to not remove farm subsidies from the cost as they are the EU paying for what the Leave campaign would otherwise pay for, if you believe their claims.
​

There are plenty of more minor lies which also set the tone, and which are also simply untrue.

Johnson said that you can't buy bunches of bananas in more than threes.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think I would prefer a system where the UK didn't contribute to the EU at all, and istead kept its money at home to fund UK problems according to UK interests and values.

Even if the money was due for being part of a group that made you better off overall and gave you more money in the UK to fund UK problems?

Does the UK administrative bureaucracy go away just because the EU bureaucracy is added on top?

I doubt it goes away 100% but certainly some of it should go away. It's not an all or nothing exercise. And you also only have to pay for 1/27th of the pooled resource (OK its probably more than that but it's still a proportional share)

Aside from that, ceding administrative oversight to a more remote entity also strikes me as problematic. For sure it would save a lot of effort if I let you make all my decisions for me. Assuming you only had to make one decision and both of us would go along with it. Or better yet: How about I make all our decisions, and you just go along with it. Massive savings yes?

I'm glad you support Scottish and Welsh independence then. Would you also support Northumberland ceding from Westminster and an independent London city state? How far do we take it before it becomes ridiculous? Why pay tax at all, I can look after my own money.

Or do you accept that pooling admin and decision making has some advantages at least sometimes?

You do realise that the UK is represented in EU decision making though, so 'ceding' is the wrong word. Unless you would consider deciding with your wife where to go on holiday this summer as 'ceding decision making' to her?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's like Kasich saying that he's running an honest campaign, and Trump is lying to you. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. But Kasich saying it doesn't make it true. Indeed, Kasich saying it is such a self-serving thing as to be essentially worthless.

If you're telling the truth, don't say it, prove it. If the other guy is lying, don't say it, prove it.

But we've shown on multiple occasions that Leave is lying. Objectively. The things they say are demonstrably not true. That's a statement of fact.

It's rebutted by Leave by saying 'but you do it too' but without the evidence of false claims made to back it up.

'No, YOU'RE a liar!' is a playground comeback. Perhaps is Leave would actually engage with the arguments we might discover than Remain is dishonest but they have to do the work first before they get to make that claim. Instead they just go back to bleating on about immigrants.

 

[jimbob]

But we've shown on multiple occasions that Leave is lying. Objectively. The things they say are demonstrably not true. That's a statement of fact.

It's rebutted by Leave by saying 'but you do it too' but without the evidence of false claims made to back it up.

'No, YOU'RE a liar!' is a playground comeback. Perhaps is Leave would actually engage with the arguments we might discover than Remain is dishonest but they have to do the work first before they get to make that claim. Instead they just go back to bleating on about immigrants.

Indeed, and below is a fine example of this with the beautiful phrase "I will not go into details , save to say , selective cherry picking ."

Is that a rough script outline for a late Channel 4 attempted comedy programme ?
I will not go into details , save to say , selective cherry picking .
Why not simply say that you are predisposed to voting one given way , and that you recognise that neither side can make any believable future predictions and from default have separately resorted to extravagance and drama ? Let alone the promotion of Fear .

My highlighting for irony: as they have said in another thread

Zika ?
Where is it ?
And don't tell me that people have been bitten in 49 countries and felt itchy for half an hour .
Zika was dead the moment regime change was achieved in Brazil .Now the pesticide inclusion in water supplies can be covered and we can all wait for the next engineered incident .Your comment about NASA is just babyish . Everything was taken from NASA material --- either their site or photo evidence from their feeds .
Back to sleep for you .

Apart from the second person ( Fox Breaking News live feed broken the moment it was mentioned by a witness ) , we now have the research results produced by Cryptogon and used as the basis of a report by Jon Rappoport -- see nomorefakenews.com.
Deep shooter links to the FBI are evidenced and should be noted .
It stinks of the same old FBI format
Whoever is pulling the strings just loves the format -- find gullible , immature youngsters who have been radicalised . Then groom and honey trap them and finally push them over the edge when a proxy incident is needed .
Expect you consensus people don't believe in probabilities and what you love to label as coincidences .

Somehow I doubt that Archie and I are going to find any evidence that would convince Malbec of anything.

Rational supporters of Brexit should wonder why so many CT theorists support it, Malbec is far from the only one - Maybe it is a false flag to discredit the Leave campaign, a bit like the deliberate echoing of Nazi propaganda in the latest Leave poster by a Remain mole inside the Leave media campaign*



*No, I don't believe that, but thought that Malbec might buy it, and I am waiting for some Leave CTer to use that excuse, when the reality is simply that both are pandering to xenophobia and bigotry.

 

[Information Analyst]

No, it presupposes that the EU government is no more trustworthy than the UK government, and is probably less well qualified to understand and address UK issues in a meaningful way than the UK government would be.

What are these UK issues that are uniquely fundamental different from in any other European country? What makes you assume that general policies aren't tweaked for local circumstances?

It also presupposes that, governments being generally untrustworthy, it's generally better when democratic control is more local to the issues it intends to address, rather than more remote.

Why is it "remote"? It's only over the Channel, and being run by Europeans, not Martians, or even Australians.

Anyway, all I'm getting at is that I think that money that goes from the UK to the EU and then comes back again is not a break-even outcome; there's bound to be some extra wastage in the extra hops and administrative handoffs.

The fact that all 28 countries have input on the policies that determine those subsidies kind of rules out a) one country getting a significantly better deal, and b) the EU as some supposed unaccountable external screwing over those 28 countries without them work out what's happened.

I think I would prefer a system where the UK didn't contribute to the EU at all, and istead kept its money at home to fund UK problems according to UK interests and values.

Not being snarky, but why do you care at all? You're also overlooking the fact that what the UK pays into the EU as part of its membership is essentially an investment that produces a much greater return.

Does the UK administrative bureaucracy go away just because the EU bureaucracy is added on top?

I have no idea if the UK government was directly subsidising British farmers prior to joining the EU, but I would expect that if it was, those civil servants involved would have been long since redeployed to other matters. Most are no doubt retired by now.

Aside from that, ceding administrative oversight to a more remote entity also strikes me as problematic. For sure it would save a lot of effort if I let you make all my decisions for me. Assuming you only had to make one decision and both of us would go along with it. Or better yet: How about I make all our decisions, and you just go along with it. Massive savings yes?

Again with the "remote"....

 

[The Atheist]

Complete kiwi question. But wonder what the outcome means for Helen Clarks Head of U.N. bid

Nothing at all. Whatever happens, it will have no bearing on her chances.

Which I rate at close to zero. The Bulgarian chick wins by a mile.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I see Lord Guthrie has switched to the leave camp because he thinks there are plans to create an EU army.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I see Lord Guthrie has switched to the leave camp because he thinks there are plans to create an EU army.

I'm always suspicious of these late defections on either side. I wonder what really prompted them as I find it pretty hard to believe that people genuinely changed their mind or gained new information a few days before an important decision.

Same with the woman who left the Leave campaign. Just seems like political posturing to me and re-emphasises my suspicion that a lot of these guys don't actually believe what they are telling us themselves just maneuvering themselves to whatever best suits their needs at that point in time.

 

[The Don]

I see Lord Guthrie has switched to the leave camp because he thinks there are plans to create an EU army.

Despite assurances to the contrary.

It's almost as if the Leave camp just make **** up and then use it as the cornerstones of their campaign.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>it's generally better when democratic control is more local to the issues it intends to address, rather than more remote.

Why?

 

[CapelDodger]

Why?

If I could venture an answer : because in local issues voters will have some basic understanding of the issue, and while opinions may differ there'll be some agreement on the facts. There's a limit to the flimflam deployed.

When it comes to issues like the EU the constant refrain is "We don't know enough, why doesn't someone just explain it?" after a lifetime of paying no attention and not really needing to. So there's no limit to the flimflam deployed, as we have witnessed.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see Lord Guthrie has switched to the leave camp because he thinks there are plans to create an EU army.

Silly old duffer "hears there are plans" and gets in the news as a Saviour of the Army. Who's going to save the Navy, one wonders?

If we do leave there's the prospect of demographic resentment, on the back of what already exists against us Baby Boomers. Generations which have grown up in the EU entirely unaware of the oppression they were suffering will catch the fall-out in the middle of their careers. Meanwhile I've turned in my last pension plan for cash folding, own my own home, and am hunkering down.

 

[The Atheist]

I see the murderer has identified himself in court when asked his name.

"Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" was his answer, so I'm guessing the question of his motives are fairly clear now.

Inextricably linked to Brexit, who will now lose the vote, with an overwhelming win for the Stay team.

Clear false flag.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Inextricably linked to Brexit, who will now lose the vote, with an overwhelming win for the Stay team.

I do so hope you are right.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I see the murderer has identified himself in court when asked his name.

"Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" was his answer, so I'm guessing the question of his motives are fairly clear now.

Inextricably linked to Brexit, who will now lose the vote, with an overwhelming win for the Stay team.

Clear false flag.

Is this a joke? Because it's not a very good one.

Incidentally I don't think this incident will have a significant impact on the vote one way or another.

If I could venture an answer : because in local issues voters will have some basic understanding of the issue, and while opinions may differ there'll be some agreement on the facts. There's a limit to the flimflam deployed.

When it comes to issues like the EU the constant refrain is "We don't know enough, why doesn't someone just explain it?" after a lifetime of paying no attention and not really needing to. So there's no limit to the flimflam deployed, as we have witnessed.

The ignorance on display from the public has surprised me I must say. More than once I have seen Joe Public demanding an answer from an MP on 'what the facts will be' in the future as if somehow they were equipped with crystal balls. A complete inability to exercise their own critical thinking faculties and simply waiting for someone to tell them what to do. Anything more complex than voting someone out of the jungle is beyond them. Please make this the last referendum on anything.

 

[jimbob]

I wasn't aware that the Mail on Sunday has been in favour of Remain for some time:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...fer-freer-prosperous-yes-GREATER-Britain.html