moonraker

Oh of course its all part of the conspiracy, what about the 'independent' analysis, as per usual you conveniently choose to ignore that which counters your entrenched views.

Or you could read this, where the raeality is discussed, http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/2016/03/The-challenges-for-Turkey-and-their-application-for-EU-Membership.aspx or this where all me Dave's mate says the opposite http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35797679

Interesting video on the BBC website that may settle the backlash debate; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/features/world-middle-east-36096587/36096587

Off course there will be people from across the political spectrum who believe that the UK should not be part of the EU, however the majority of the most vocal and high profile Brexiters are what can fairly be labelled right wingers. One question I have asked myself is: Who, of the high profile players, is backing what side of the argument and why? I have concluded that Brexit’s team is split and cannot even agree on a single campaign. It is a miscellaneous collection of the ideological, the disenfranchised, chancers, discontents and yesterdays men very few of whom can point to anything on their CV that would lead me to believe they are people I would wish to follow. The remain team is more broad church and whilst politically it has many individuals with whom I would not naturally align myself, on this one issue they have set aside party rivalry and joined together to campaign for a common outcome. The Brexit cry of self-interest and conspiracy is the crude rejoinder of those who cannot refute with any conviction the arguments put to them. Vote Leave’s Dominic Cummings performance in front of the select committee demonstrates only to well his contempt for our democracy and system of Government, and this is the man they appointed as there campaign director.

Wes, we could carry on until after the election, however we both know we will not change each others views. I did read the mini debate but well after it had petered out so I did not comment. My personal view is a close vote to remain would be no bad thing. I believe the UK and other less enthusiastic EU members would feel emboldened to demand changes to the current EU structure and operation, no bad thing. As an aside what did you make of the Arch Eurocrat Jean-Claude Juncker, warning this morning that too much EU "interference" in people's lives is eroding support for the bloc. Is this evidence that the bogey men of Europe are waking up to the fact that the people of Europe don’t like the direction they are taking us in?

I like the Irony that our Antonym, Northampton, may well be the team that consigns them another season in the Real Fans league,and with the Northampton RFU team also called The Saints there really would be some karma if it happens.

You seem to be painting the Brexit leadership as nights in shinning armour riding to save the UK with no self interest, whilst the Remain leadership are only in it for their vested interests, a rather unsophisticated and utterly unfounded assertion. The irony of your words that the predicted outcomes made by remain are pure speculation is comical. On the balance of probability the remain predictions carry far less risk and any divergence from the predictions would be far easier to mitigate by being in the EU. Just to counter some of your assumptions; what guarantee can you give that any future trade deal with the EU will not require freedom of movement as a condition aka Norway and Switzerland? The fact that the UK is bigger than either Norway and Switzerland, is not a guarantee of anything, and nowhere have I claimed that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us, what I would contend is that in any trade agreement negotiations the EU would be in a far stronger position than the UK, and whilst the negotiators would certainly take EU business lobby into account the political lobby will also demand some pay back that is unlikely to be in our favour. As to Michael Gove’s new trade area, he was not referring to the rest of the world (I do listen and read what Brexiters are saying unlike you it seems) but to a European free trade area that extends from Iceland to the Russian Border, the reference he cited, giving apparent credibility to this mystical creature was a colour map of Europe showing EU trading partners. Amazingly his own reference makes no reference to a European free trade zone. It simply does not exist. As to call me David being able to get all eight ex Republican and Democrat US Treasury Secretaries to do his bidding this is just fantasy. Please could you point me to the evidence of Cameron’s pleading with Obama on the subject, or is this just another myth. The Brexit’s ability to see conspiracies around every corner is just another feature of the campaign that convinces me to vote remain. Finally whether it be politician, business leader, celebrity, or any over high profile individual commenting on the debate, on either side, I do listen and I read their comments. I then try to put them in context and weigh the arguments, and 90% of the time I come down in favour of remain. You on the other hand seem to be dismissing anything and everything said or written in favour of remain as conspiracy and lies.

I do not excuse George at all. My position is clear, Brexit need to make the argument for leaving and to date In my opinion they have totally failed. The claims they make are false: Control of our borders, we have control of our borders; Sovereignty, even outside of the EU we will not control 100% of our laws, currently 27% of Norway’s Laws emanate from the EU, in addition we enact Laws emanating from a range of international organisations, e.g. the WTO and IMO. Trade; Brexit have no idea what will happen in negotiations, they make hopeful claims that German car manufacturers will force a deal at the least acceptable to the UK with the EU, and yesterday Michael Gove invented a whole new trade area that doesn’t exist. Defence; Brexit predict of European Super Army, they seem to base this on interoperability, asset sharing, joint training and joint operations, all things we have done since WWII. What is your take on the Eight former US Treasury Secretaries who have unanimously stated leaving the EU will be bad for the UK. Why should I listen to The Ideologue (Farage) The Chancer (Boris) The Story Teller (Gove), The Spurned (L Fox), and The Absurd (Galloway), as opposed to the vast majority of major world leaders, 80% of studies and analysis (admittedly some dodgy), major business leaders, influential and respected foreign politicians and businessmen. I realise and respect that millions of my fellow citizens believe we should leave the EU but I really struggle to see any up side to leaving, and nothing posted on this thread or countless articles, reports and comments I have read have changed that.

Sorry for the delay in responding, I think it has been amply demonstrated that most Brexit claims on the key issues are either false or exaggerated. What an individual politician says or does is irrelevant the issues are far bigger than petty party politics.

An I am flattered you have plagerised my argument, as usual you are not very original. Mixing domestic politics and the referendum doesn’t quite answer the question. Its the oppositions job to challenge the Government. As to the vison for Europe do you honestly believe that if a USE were to be proposed that we would not get another referendum, indeed it would require all member states to ratify such a move and no country would do so without the backing of their electorates. So just like Turkey will be joining soon this is more scaremongering that has little substance other than a few eurocrats claiming it is their personal vision.

Well little will change in the short term, the current policies, arrangements, agreements and relationships will endure. It is not for the remain campaign to offer alternatives to what they are campaigning for, we know what that is. It is for Brexit to provide a clear and coherent alternative, something they have continually failed to do, they cant even agree on a single campaign, if heaven forbid we vote to leave the infighting will be torturous . Change is only worth doing if you have real evidence that things will improve, Brexit has none and I for one do not believe the risk of leaving is acceptable. You are a prime example of one who continually points us to this problem or that issue with the EU or something you often incorrectly associate with the EU. Not once have you provided any real alternative as to how in the 2016 world we would be better off out than in.

Agree but please as an obvious Brexiter what are the policies, where is the evidence that we will be better off out than in. To date all I have read ( and thats quite a lot) is a series of hopeful assertions that all favour the UK and assume the rest of Europe indeed the World will deal with us in the kindest and most welcoming way. I dont buy it.

How is that relevent?

The EU referendum is one prompted by the anti EU lobby. It is therefore beholden on the leave campaign to make a case for leaving. The remain campaign have 2 roles, to present the case for staying in and to respond to the leave campaigns claims. The leave campaign have, in my view, utterly failed to make a any coherent argument for leaving the EU. There strategy has one line, tap into peoples emotions. They make claims on sovereignty, immigration, trade, defence and anything else one can think of, that are if I am generous, based on misunderstanding, but more likely I suspect are actually devious misrepresentations to support their ideological myopia. I have heard and seen written by convicted Brexiters that they would be happy to be worse off provided they are out of the EU, this for me is tantamount to admitting that exit will indeed have a negative impact, that they know it, and that they don’t care. The flip side is the remain campaign have also been creative with some of their claims, however what cannot be denied is that remaining will ensure that all of our current international agreements remain in tact, our relationships with our nearest neighbours don’t sour, we have an ongoing say and in some areas a veto on EU policy and directives, and leaders around the world (those that matter to us) will breath a huge sigh of relief. The Brexit portrayal of remain as project fear is part of their emotional campaign, it not fear its called debating, you say something I respond, I say something you respond. They cannot produce any real evidence and are incapable of delivering any clear policies so instead they attempt to rubbish not just the leave campaign but any organisation however highly respected, successful and credible that dares to present the case for remain. It is a parallel to our fishy friends blaming the FA and everyone else but themselves for their failures, but now they are fan owned everything is fine and dandy. Well I do not want my country to end up in the 2nd division of nations without a pot to **** whilst goading my neighbours about our ancient history.

Well I am oldish educated and working class and I am for staying. I take no offence from Buctootim's post, because their is no offence in what he said only a resonable deduction from the article he referenced.

West Spam are very poor,

#213, at last a balanced non partisan post.

He dosn't or cant't answer open questions, you will have to play 20 questions to find out what he is really thinking.

As stated before it is not rant as it is not verbal. My post has no reference to any links previously posted. To accuse me of abuse is a bit strong, what you object to are my personal conclusions, based on your posts that I personally find distasteful from there explicit and implicit message. I am sure I am not alone in drawing these or similar conclusions based your persistent and repetitive arguments . As to my numerous apologies , so what, admitting I made a mistake and correcting it does not weaken my position. And for clarity because we know you love clarity I apologised on two occasions, so hardly numerous.

Why do you continually make up ridiculous scenarios. The posters who are challenging you neither want or have said they would be happy with any of the things your self-indulgent imagination keeps generating. You answered my earlier questions in the affirmative, they were deliberately closed questions to make it simple for you. Your answer to the first confirmed, in my opinion, you are a racist. Your obvious limited understanding of English etymology and usage is supporting evidence of a myopic mind-set, further exhibited in your simplistic and ill considered view of Muslims. I can not decide whether you are actually just standard UKIPER, an EDL acolyte, or a very persistent and slightly sad WUM. Off course you may be none of these things, but whatever you are you are not very bright.

No no no they have no positive benefit on our society they cant possibly be credited with improving our schools, especially from the bottom up. This is obviously evidence of the onward march of Muslim culture, in cahoots with the Chinese. We need to dumb these people down, we must stop providing them with these opportunities, we need more bigots, not educated foreigners!

To me there is only one confused poster in this debate and it is not CEC. Lets try a very easy question albeit 2 part question, the answer requires no references to news stories, learned papers, political propaganda or any of the other sources referenced during the course of this thread. Part 1: Do you, Sour Mash, truly believe that people of Islamic Faith have provided no positive benefit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Part 2 Do you believe that the vast majority of UK Muslims are peaceful law abiding citizens. There is no right and wrong , the answers require no particular knowledge, special understanding, so even you should be able to come up with something more informative and imaginative than you hitherto have.

Hardly a surprise that the rich people's bank are implicated, I am not detective but would have thought it was a good place to start.

To clarify the magnitude of a counter reaction to an event that is unquestionably an attack on society the following Counter Reaction Scale is to be used. It must be noted that assigning a level of reaction force can be subjective and therefore the interpretation of the level of force understood by the majority should be accepted – forthwith the Scale shall to be known as the Societal Overview of Unilateral Reactions Scale Reaction Force 1: Polite Counter Response - > 20000 people Reaction Force 2: Polite Counter Response - > 50,000 people Reaction Force 3: Mockery Reaction Force 4: Disapproval Reaction Force 5: Ridicule Reaction Force 6: Contempt Reaction Force 7: Condemnation Reaction Force 8: Mild Criticism Reaction Force 9: Severe Criticism Reaction Force 10: Retaliation Reaction Force 11: Counterattack Reaction Force 12: Backlash Counter reactions of less than 10,000 people cannot be measured except where the counter reaction is by a smaller group of people or single person in a leading position of power and influence; In these cases the Mathematical Analysis Selection Hypothesis may be used. NB The Backlash level of Reaction Force must be used with extreme care due to risk of a counter backlash.

I cant disagree with your points, perhaps its the seemingly hopelessness of change you convey and the ''I've come to the conclusion that most people are corruptible on some level" that elicited the various responses and the fact you single out 2 areas of public spending that in an ideal world not be needed, but as we do not live in an ideal world we have to deal with crime and social welfare issues. I also think your negative blanket labeling of benefit claimants and every prisoner in custody might have added to the need for people to respond.