Even if they are right about the trade deal with Australia, the power balance is rather different. When negotiating with Australia we are in a far more powerful position than we are when negotiating with the USA. Besides, how did we do a deal with Australia? The Leave campaigners keep telling us we can't make our own trade deals.

 

Meanwhile, some Leave campaigners are claiming that there are plans within the EU to create some sort of superstate. As ever, the argument has serious flaws. Even if such a document exists, it is irrelevant. The creation of a superstate would need to be agreed by all member states. The chances of that happening are precisely zero. Even if governments agreed, some countries would require a referendum. One of those countries is the UK. The No vote in such a referendum would probably be so high that there would be no point in making a few tweaks and asking voters to have another go.

Think they are referring to the US-Aus Free Trade Agreement. Which was knocked up fairly quickly but I would imagine that it's rather heavily swayed in Americas favour. Which any agreement we had with them would be.

 

 

That's the thing that really grits my shit about the leave crew. They actually think an economy so vastly greater than ours will seriously treat us as an equal. We're nothing to them. Being part of the EU sways things in our favour. The free market is so absolutely vast and powerful that it's the only market that's bigger than the US and China. That's why staying in makes so much sense. We may be subject to some insane laws and the parliament may need a bit of a trim when it comes to red tape. However, that single market is just so incredible. Easily the best thing the EU has ever done along with free movement.

Sir John Major has weighted in on the issue, telling Brexiters that if they want undiluted sovereignty in the modern world, they can go to North Korea because that's where they'll get it. :D

 

Maybe if the referendum turns out to be "Remain" Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage will do just that (in my wildest dreams).

Boris Johnson falling into the Brexit camp was a huge coup for him but it has def meant his chances of becoming Tory leader could be over IMO.

I have been turned off by the government's negative propaganda for IN. I've listened to/read all that kind of junk during the Scottish referendum.

 

At the moment it's like a tussle between ambitious Tories.

 

Maybe after the Holyrood elections, if Scottish politicians keep their word and run positive EU referendum campaigns, for and against, I may become more enthusiastic.

 

I think the media in the UK fails in its first duty - to inform the public and be objective. There are far too many subjective puff pieces cluttering up those politics and current affairs pages, which haven't been elbowed out by celebrity 'news' garnered from twitter.

 

I hope the EU referendum will do for the rest of the UK what the Scottish one did for Scotland - here politics is as much an everyday topic of conversation as the weather.

Edited May 4, 20169 yr by Baytree

People don't have to pay any attention to anything any politician says if they think they are biased - there are plenty of opinions and facts from other organisations, other nations, the BBC is doing one each day, today it was fishermen (largely OUT inclined, of course, because they imagine they would be free to fish whenever, whatever and wherever they want - those of us that can recall the Cod Wars and have concerns about overfishing may hold a very different point of view, as we suddenly have to get warships patrolling to stop foreign fishermen who would be bound by no rules unless the EU can come to an agreement with the UK).

 

The Property Industry is overwhelmingly in favour of IN, on the other hand (like 95%) because they anticipate falling house prices, foreign investors Eu and non-EU both, not buying up assets to the extremes they have been, especially if there is a falling pound.

 

To those of us unable to afford our own house, that sounds like a good thing. To those with a mortgage it means negative equity for another long period of time. With no cheap labour being allowed in the country (eg for farming crops) that would mean either farmers increase wages (and therefore pass on costs to consumers) in order to convince the British unemployed to toil in fields on backbreaking physical jobs rather than claim benefits. Employers hoping to lower wages with no EU legislation (such as holiday, hours, basic pay) might suddenly find a labour shortage, just as there already is for nursing, ambulance response, some teaching subjects, and actually having to pay more, increasing prices, inflation, less competitive to exporters.

 

Now you can say this is all "might be" propaganda, but the OUT brigade just whine about propaganda and don't answer these sorts of questions. The IN brigade at least address them, even if they get accused of scaremongering and bias if they do. The reason neither side can provide facts is because there aren't any that can answer these sorts of concerns - it's a leap of faith from increasingly rabid supporters, one side worrying that we will as a nation be much worse off afterwards in our glorious world isolation, the other saying that we will be living in some rose-tinted heyday that never existed (except for the rich) and that everything will be fluffy kittens afterwards. They have no proof that things will be better at all, they only have faith, misguided or otherwise.

 

There are always consequences to every action - since they are proposing to change the status quo, it's down to the OUT lot to make convincing cases for every question that is thrown up - at the mo they amount to "we will be free to trade with the rest of the world" with nothing to back up claims that the UK will be able to negotiate advantageous trade deals (for us) with every other country in the world inside 2 years. This would be nothing short of a miracle without an army of bureaucrats and politicians with the power to sign us up without paying much attention to the fine print. Councils cock up big time rushing through tediously small legislation on piffling 25million pound contracts in 18 months that are stuck with huge gaping holes in them, so I have no trust that Boris and Nigel will have any talent for being Super-Negotiator-Man (just that they will blame whoever does rush it through as they demand).

 

 

I have been turned off by the government's negative propaganda for IN. I've listened to/read all that kind of junk during the Scottish referendum.

And given how much of it turned out to be true, what does that say about disliking 'negative' campaigning for the sake of it?

Such as, other than a global drop in the oil price due to SaudI Arabia trying to put pressure on the American shale oil industry?

Seems a fairly big 'such as', given how much of the budget for a fairer Scotland was predicated on that one resource. The No campaign was correct that that wouldn't cover the costs, and correct on the economic havoc that would currently be being wreaked on an independent Scotland.

 

By much the same token, the Remain campaign really aren't scaremongering on how many jobs would be at risk if we left the EU. It just isn't in the interests of companies to keep their European headquarters in a non-EU country - hence, it's not really scaremongering to say those jobs absolutely are at risk. Arguing that the status quo isn't worth losing isn't a negative.

Oil price is more a reflection of slowdown in global demand than OPEC trying to sabotage American shale. Bit of a strange tactic to employ given Saudi Arabia are now in DEFICIT.

Funny how the out brigade havent been slagging off trump for sticking his nose into uk affairs by saying he wants the uk to leave. Apparently it only applies to any politician that doesnt agree with them. Or maybe they didnt want to draw attention to his very detailed and persuasive case ("bloody immigrants" to summarise). Failing to point out of course that the REFUGEES are a direct result of uk and us policy in Iraq and subsequent lack of policy in Syria.

 

So all the EU's fault is that clear enough?

A voice of positive reason enters the debate. Thank you Nicola.

She has a point. If you want to make a case that wins over the public, then state your case positively with hope and sell a vision. The carrot works far better than the stick.

She knows exactly what she's doing. She wants to be seen as critical of the Remain campaign to avoid looking like a hypocrite when she inevitably starts talking up "Project Fear" again as soon as this is over and she can continue to campaign full time for a second referendum.

The SNP have said all along they wouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with the other parties, after spending 18 months killing labour with that line it'd be hypocritical. But yes I agree. She knows exactly what she's doing and i would be inclined to agree that there was one eye on indyref2 just in case Brexit wins and the machine has to start up overnight

OK, the OUTers have demonstrated quite clearly by now that this vote is about one issue only: Immigration. No other topic is pushed any more (as they have no convincing arguments) so this is the one that counts. The Leave papers have daily headlines about it.

 

So, my problem with the simplistic simple-minded Leavers that instantly stopping the flow of immigration will make everything hunky dory:

 

1) More than half of all immigrants are from outside the EU. The Leavers wish to develop stronger ties to the Commonwealth countries. Citizens of these countries, unlike the EU immigrants and the British living abroad, have a vote in the referendum. This is clearly insane, but is not viewed as a problem. There has been no attempt to explain how the 55% of immigrants coming into the country are going to be stopped. We already have the power, and these Tory politicians know perfectly well that they could have campaigned at any stage to bring in legislation to prevent non-EU immigrants entering the country which would have instantly halved the problem. They didn't. That suggests that is not going to change in any way, if anything the closer ties with the Commonwealth (assuming those ties have been turned off, as opposed to transformed into EU trade deals) may even increase immigration from outside the EU - that's what happened in the good old days of the "Great" Britain when the likes of the loathesome racist Tory Enoch Powell was making Rivers Of Blood speeches and lamenting the end of the British Empire and way of life. That didn't happen. Second generation immigrants become British.

 

2) They ignore the fact that there are more people working, bringing in more taxes to support the increasing older generation needs. Lose those jobs, those taxes, you have a bigger hole in the annual budget, so taxes go up on those still working.

 

3) Housing: Yes there is increased pressure on Housing. Build more houses. Building = more industry, more taxes, more jobs, lower house prices, less using British property as an investment return for wealthy foreigners. All governments in the last 20 years have ignored the problem. Back in the Thatcherite 80's and early 90's there were massive house-building programs. Right To Buy has effectively killed this, people get half-price houses for nothing (the tax payer pays, a Tory Party policy) and then sell-on to the usual suspects who rent out (also paid for by the tax payer). The basic housing policy has politically been f***ING INSANE for 20 years and that has caused the problem. Immigrants have made a bad situation worse, but they aren't the root cause of it. British politicians are.

 

Now answer those issues, Johnson & Gove, and explain how your policy is going to do anything to change that. You have no answers that I have seen.

 

UPDATE: Liam Twatty Fox is sounding all reasonable on Andrew Marr right now, but it's just fluff. He just said, and I paraphrase, that EU migrants are getting an unfair advantage over immigrants from Australia, canada and The USA. This, despite the FACT that MORE immigrants already come from outside the EU, and he reckons that immigration could be cut down to the 10's of thousands. This is utter blatant racist bullshit. The fact that he didn't name non-British white colonies speaks volumes. The fact that he failed to mention they could halve immigration in one fell-swoop with nothing to do with the EU referendum shows how hypocritical they are. It's all about racism.

 

Andrew Marr didn't pull him up on any of the gaping holes in his argument. More of a political broadcast than an actual grilling.

As with every time someone tries to drag the housing crisis into a political argument about another issue, the best solution is just to build more houses. Always.

I rarely bother to listen to broadcast interviews any more. I just get too frustrated when the interviewer seems to be afraid to ask any decent follow-up questions or challenge their interviewees "facts". Why haven't the outers been shamed into dropping their blatant lie about membership costing the UK £350m per week?

...and here I go again. I wish the Leave campaign wouldn't give me so much material to lay into them.

 

Gove, weasel-like, is on TV making outrageous claims about the EU being to blame (essentially) for VAT on fuels and that leaving would give us all £60 a year (using the current EU subsidy).

 

a) he's not in charge of making policy for his party

 

b) His party brought it in, and despite everything he claims, if HIS party wanted to they could give a rebate right now to all VAT payers. They haven't, they won't, it's not a party commitment. It's a brazen lie. If we leave the EU we COULD suddenly invent pink flying elephants to deliver sugar-free candy to all children. That won't happen either.

 

Desperate, much.

 

The newpapers meanwhile are scaremongering about Albanians coming into the country by boat as if this is the end of the world and just the tip of the iceberg surge.

 

a) people have been arriving by boat in this country for thousands of years, it didn't just happen.

 

b) Albania is not in the EU. It is however, a member of NATO and the WTO. Does this mean we can now expect the Leave EU supporters to start campaigning against member states of NATO and the WTO (which I believe they are in favour of) as a means of keeping immigrants out of the country, or can we expect them to confirm that the EU is to blame for legal immigrants into the UK, and also for non-EU illegal immigrants from the countries they wish us to have closer ties with?

 

c) There will never be enough warships and patrolling staff to stop people arriving by boat - there are barely enough staff to keep tabs on official ports and airports customs properly. if you want boats and patrols then it will cost us all as taxpayers. It CAN be done but it will be expensive and the EU will have nothing at all to do with it, leave or remain.

 

Dicks. Twats. Liars. Hypocrites. Rich self-interested bast*rds. Power-hungry Media Barons. So many words I could use....

 

 

It's all part of their thoroughly deceitful campaign. They don't even need to say that leaving the EU will make any difference. Just by highlighting the issue in the middle of the campaign, they give the impression that it is somehow something to do with EU membership. Unfortunately, there seems to be little chance of anybody asking the Leave campaigners to explain how it is relevant to the referendum.

Anyone watch the 1975 EEC ref debates on BBC parliament all day today? The level of debate was much greater then!!