CHAPEL END CHARLIE

No. It is YOU who is busy forging a reputation for themselves on here for swivel-eyed loonery methinks.

So today we learn that our Wes feels that (what ammounts to) expert testimony is not evidence as far as he is concerned. And to be fair there are two 'schools of thought' in regard to this matter - I.e. his opinion and everyone else's. For the record: if I'm not feeling very well then I might consult a doctor. If some bugger is suing me then a visit to my solicitor would be in order. And if I want to know what impact leaving the EU might have on British business (and hence my livelihood) then the opinions of business leaders are worth listening to methinks. Indeed, who is better qualified to comment on the implacations here for the big financial institutions in the City of London than the Govenor of the Bank of England is? Boris Johnson perhaps I have to ask if all the evidence we see before us here is not good enough for him then what would be? Perhaps if Doctor Who came back in the Tardis from 2026 with a copy of the Financial Times stuck in his back pocket that would do - but something tells me he would then only puff himself up again into full little englander pomposity mode and exclaim that foreigners should mind there own "damn business" once more... He then (despite clearly knowing the square root of bugger-all about defence issues) repeats his opinion that moving our nuclear deterant out of Scotland would not be such a difficult and expensive business. In reply I can only repeat that the best estimates we have state the polar opposit of that. Furthermore, the MOD's record of successfully estimating costs of this nature is in fact an appalling one - so the numbers provided are highly likley to underestimate the true cost. For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8800733/Submarine-jetty-project-is-slammed-for-running-92-million-over-budget.html Yes Devonport already accomdates some RN nuclear submarines. However, I can only assume that he doesn't comprehend the key difference between what is a a nuclear PROPELLED submarine (SSN) and one that is also nuclear ARMED (SSBN). Surely only someone with a passport issued in 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' would think that many English people would welcome a huge new nuclear weapon facility being constructed in their neighbourhood. In wider implacations for our armed forces should Scotland achieve the independance he seeks to encourage, the fact is that the last remaining UK shipyard currently capable of constructing sophisticated frigate or destroyer sized warships is the BAE facility located on the Clyde. Restablishing that capability 'south of the border' would clearly add more yet expense. We might also consider the importance Scottish air bases play in vital RAF 'air policing' taskings and the significant role Scottish battalions have long played in the Army. Naturally the problems here are by no means restricted to defence alone - for example without North Sea oil and gas our balance of payments problems can only worsen (because they become imports) and how are we to divide the UK's national debt between Scotland and what then remains of the UK ..etc ..etc. So all a bit of a unholy mess really. I also see that he chooses to raise the immigration issue again - this despite the fact that I have already informed him (twice I believe) that other comparable nations seeking to gain full access to the EU Single Market have to accept the 'free movement' principle as this is a intrinsic part of the EU Single Market concept. That is what the Single Market is in effect - a place where goods, services, money, and people are free to move according to market demands. We could I suppose reject tariff-free access to what are easily our most important export markets - but only at a cost to our economy and long term national prosperity that is obvious. Naturaly I awaite your reply with interest ... if not much expectation of any originality or indeed reasonable argument.

I see that in the latest thrilling instalment of 'Wes Tender: His Battle With The Truth' everyones favorite PM hating tory voter opines that moving the UK's nuclear deterrent out of Scotland might take as little as 12 months and presumably would not be a very expensive business. Proof I think (if anymore were needed) that he is incapable of grasping the significance and problems associated with defence issues. For his information, this problem is not just a simple matter of sailing four submarines out of Faslane and securing them alongside somewhere at Devonport. All experience shows that constructing new nuclear facilities is in fact an enormously difficult, time consuming, and expensive problem - indeed every government project with the word 'nuclear' attached to somewhere is problematic. Those who understand the issue will already know that it is not even a matter restricted to the Faslane submarine base alone - the extensive Trident D5 SLBM handling depot (google 'RNAD Coulport') would have to be replicated in England too. To compound this display of rank ignorance he then tells me that the people of Plymouth would welcome with open arms the prospect of having enough thermonuclear warheads to devastate half the planet placed on their doorstep! Moving on, he returns to his theme that all the evidence in this debate that does not happen to support his point of view is somehow (surprise, surprise) not evidence at all. So then, when the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufactors and Traders) report that 77% of their members support our remaining in the EU that is - according to him - not evidence of opinion within our (resurgent in the EU) motor industry. In the same manner, when expert testimony from Mark Carney (the current Governor of the Bank of England) warning of the potential dangers here to the huge financial services sector of our economy should we leave the EU then this too is not proper evidence and effectively meaningless chat! His arguments are often confused and not thought through, but I think this blanket rejection of the evidence even goes so far as to dismiss research from the highly respected OECD. So when this international organisation suggests leaving the EU would result in our suffering a 3% lower economic growth (than would otherwise be the case) by 2020, then that too can be safely ignored for some reason. How convenient. It seems to me that what he really seeks to "free" us from is not your sterotypical Daily Mail speak "Brussels Straight Jacket", but rather our prosperity. And if Captain Obvious thinks that droning on repetitively about how uncertain the future is represents some kind of new and worthwhile revelation then he is mistaken. Any Human Being with a functioning cerebral cortex knows that the future is difficult to predict. However, where does that banal observation get us when we have to make a VERY important decision in a few weeks time and the British people need some authorative guidance right now? Again, the responsible voter will (I hope) act on the evidence and very nearly all that evidence shows that voting to leave now would endanger the future prosperity of our grand old nation ... oh and likley break it up too. Not that he is very "bothered" about that of course.

Well your verbiage is very nearly impressive. What also leaves a strong impression is the fact that you are incapable of recognising the MASSIVE CONTRADICTION that exists between your virulent hatred of our nation's relationship with the EU, and then your utter indifference towards the fate of our ancient nation state. You will agree I take it that 'indifference' is a pretty fair and accurate way to describe someone who claims that they are quote/unquote "not bothered" if the UK even exists in the foreseeable future. I think many will join with me and conclude that your utter lack of self-awareness here is epic. You (simplisticaly) place all the blame for this grave threat to the existance of the United Kingdom on the the Scots when clearly this situation is rather more complicated than that. But there again, your contributions to this thread shows that you really don't do nuance do you? I must also inform you - as you seem to have forgotten - that a clear majority of the Scottish people voted to remain within the Union not all that long ago. However, it would seem that some 2/3 of the Scots favour our remaining in the EU and simple maths should tell even you that a majority of that scale must preforce include voters from either side of the Scottish independence question. Pandering to the petty obsessions of your type I fear gives the Scottish Nationalists all the excuse they need to call for a second independance referendum - which they may well win. I see that you have attempted to dismiss the nuclear deterrent matter in a single sentence, a sentence whatismore that makes no sense at all in English - indeed where is this "irony" you seem to have detected? It truth this matter is a serious issue with potentially grave financial and security implacations for all of us on these islands - but anothet subject you seeming are "not bothered" about perhaps. Analysis shows that moving UK nuclear facilities out of the newly independent Scotland (that you seem happy to encourage) would cost £20bn and take a decade or more to achieve. So that "price" you so casually seem willing to pay will be a high one. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/costs-moving-trident-analysis So if the Scots are not prepared to give your 'little england' ten years to get itself sorted out then what is your plan here? You did object did you not to President Obama saying that the UK's influence in the world would be reduced if we left the EU? For some reason you keep repeating that there is "no evidence" that leaving the EU would endanger our future prosperity - almost as if endlessly repeating a lie somehow makes it more believable! It is not "speculation" that the large majority of our business leaders want the UK to remain in the EU - this is a known fact based on a CBI data. It is not speculation that the Governor of the Bank of England warns of the risks here because his statements too are on the record for anyone to see. Whatever you say I doubt somehow that the OECD base their conclusions on mere guesswork - some people very much brighter than you are calculated it. But if you really are so concerned with evidence then I might wonder where is the evidence supporting your claim that we can somehow do better on our own? The truth is there is not a shred of factual evidence for this claim. The future is not our to see of course, but INFORMED opinion is surely a better guide than your peculiar set of prejudices. Finally, I see you have climbed back on your 'high horse' again and objected to my opinon that the attitudes you express on here are fundamentaly irresponsible ones. I note your objection of course, but nevetheless can only conclude that you don't really care very much about the fate of our children and grandchildren, or at least their prospects take a (distant) second place in your mind to your irrational 'little englander' hatred of the EU and all that it stands for. Indeed, this too is surely in the evidence now however hard to attempt to deny it.

So we have moved on from the remarkable "not bothered" attitude to the equally obtuse "price worth paying" - and this the forum will note not in regard to some relativly trivial matter, but the very future existance of the United Kingdom as we now know it. It seems to me that this old union of ours - one that has existed in the world since the 1707 'Acts of Union' were ratified both north and south of the border, is not a worthless thing we should throw away as casually as we would a old crisp packet just so that your type can satisfy their latent xenophobia and 'little england' obsessions. I wonder have you even begune to contemplate the implications of your "not bothered" attitude towards the UK's future? The price you so glibly want to pay here will be a truely enormous one - for instance the costs incured in moving the UK's entire nuclear weapon infrastructure south of this new international border you seek to create alone would run into the hundreds of £billions. You can rest assured that is just one example of the problem here. Beyond the monety and legal implications of destroying a long established nation, would it not be a bit of shame (to put it mildly) that the history of all we together in these small islands have achieved in the world - from the wonders of the Industrial Revolution and forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen, to playing a crucial role in saving the world from the unspeakable evils of fascism - all came to such a such a sorry little end? And for what .... What a strange creature you are. A person who willfully ignores the evidence he purports to understand. A tory voter who can't even bring himself to write down the name of the Prime Minister he choose to elect. A grown man who STILL doesn't understand what the word 'risk' even means in the financial sense. Someone who appears to care 'not a jot' that the multiple gambles he so readily contemplates may well endanger the prosperity of future generations as yet unborn. Shakespere once asked "what a piece of work is man" ... you're not even a work in progress.

The Europa League is not worth bothering with.

But the phrase sums up the mindset very nicely and is therefore useful.

I see yet another long reply from our Wes, another post full of playground insults, avoidance and (as predicted) the tiresome repetition we have come to expect from this member. As a rather famous Britain once said: "much ado about nothing" really. However, what I don't see - apart from a deeply stupid "not bothered" comment your average teenager would hesitate to utter - is a meaningful attempt to address the Scottish issue as requested. A serious matter this forum will note that he has been studiously avoiding for some time now - almost as if (atypicaly) he didn't have a answer. So then Wes - do try to stir up the old 'grey matter' just a little and kindly tell us why on Earth would any little englander who calls themselves a Conservative vote for a option in this coming referendum that very well might lead to the dismemberment of this great nation? What is it about the European Union that you find so very hateful that you would risk such a disasterious outcome for the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Over to you shipmate ...

> You claim to be properly listening to the argument - but the evidence shows otherwise. > You say that you understand and have somehow addressed the key issue of risk - but I doubt that you have even begun to really comprehend what is at stake here. > You delight in continuly critising members of the 'Remain' campaign - but when it is shown to you that a leading figure of the 'Leave' camp is nothing more than a unprincipled charlatan you are mysteriously struck dumb. > You alledge that evidence highlighting the dangers we face can be ignored because (you say) some sinister conspiracy is at work attempting to put down the 'Leave' side of the argument. The forum will note that not a shred of evidence to support this unlikley contention yours has been produced. > You opine, without any evidentaial basis, that our trade might increase should we leave - and yet ignore that the established fact that almost HALF of our international trade is still with the EU Single Market area. > You argue that it is somehow in our national interest to retreat from the EU - but refuse to contemplate that doing so may well lead to the dismemberment of this great nation. Why is that? > You go so far as to dare to employ the term 'objectivity' when it is quite clear that you are anything but objective in your approach to the evidence. It seems to me that your (seemingly endless) denials don't ammount to much of a argument when you start to think about it. Furthermore, try as I might I'm struggeling to see any remotely original contribution in the above post - and this despite its considerable length. I'm quite prepared to 'go around the houses' with you as long as you like, but surely the process would be rather more entertaining if you could summon up something new to say. In the final analysis your petty "little englander" prejudices displayed on here are a matter of minor importance when pitted against he bigger picture that has become quite apparent - i.e. with weeks of arguing still to come the 'Leave' campaign has already comprehensively lost the argument. All those who really care about this nation and its future should hope that they are also about to lose the vote too.

Yes, I think that we have now established that in a referendum it is the electorate that decides the issue - I must say that your utter mastery of the 'bleedin obvious' on here is a wonder to behold! But as the electorate are (by and large) not constitional, economic, or financial experts, then many REASONABLE voters may well require some assistance from leaders in those fields who do comprehend the (complex) issues here better in order to make a informed choice. It looks like you made up your mind on the EU decades ago for all I know, but I don't mind admitting that at the start of this process I certainly did require some guidance. With that requirment for reasoned and informed opinion in mind, it seems to me that any fair-minded appreciation of the argument - as it has so far devloped - will show that the evidence presented can only lead the responsible voter to believe that leaving the EU at this time would represent a high risk activity - you do understand I hope that 'risk' (in the specific economic/financial sense of the word) is a highly undesirable outcome. I can only judge you on how you post on here. Based on that impression, you come across as being unprepared to listen to what our leading political, financial, and business opinion says in this regard. Furthermore, you appear to be taking a type of perverse pride in ignoring the evidence here - as if acting like a overgrown pub bore had somehow become a virtue. When the error of your ways is pointed out to you the only response to be seen are yet another accusations of arrogance etc. Like the proverbial horse, you can be led to the water ... but you just don't want a drink do you? .

I don't so much "pour scorn" on your intelligence, but rather await some evidence of its discovery. According to you then the President of the United States should not dare to express his opinion on European affairs because it is quote "none of his damn business". This despite the fact that US intervention in "our business" during the 20th century was - three times - instramental in our having the freedom the decide our future international relationships in the first place! As President Obama so succinctly explained, it is very much in the US interest that one of its closet and most reliable allies should maintain the maximum possible influence in the world. Furthermore, I think you will find that it is in the job description of the US President that he/she does their utmost to promote US foreign policy. This point seems so eminently reasonable and straighforward that I would expect any moderately bright school boy to be able to comprehend it. You however still seem to be struggleing for some reason .. but if the point still passes 'over your head' then I'm more happy to persevere as long as you like. As for your apparent enthusiasm for Ted Cruz ... well this is quite telling. You then go on to make some argument about David Cameron and how you think that I have somehow mysteriously shot myself in the foot that is well nigh incomprehensible in the English language - perhaps you would make more sense writing in Double Dutch. I might ask that if you dislike the Prime Minister so for daring to argue for what he sees as the national interest, then why did you vote for the Conservative party then? Afterall, you do keep telling anyone on here who will listen that you're a tory rather than a real kipper don't you? But If David Cameron is too "shallow and unprincipled" for your likes (for a politican!) then prey tell what does this article make your 'man of the people' hero Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson MP look like? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457684/How-Boris-Johnson-s-views-Brexit-past-two-decades-veered-like-shopping-trolley.html There are some REALLY good quotes from your man here are there not Wes As for your pig-headed determination to ignore all (or at least most) of the leading economic, financial, political and business opinion that has so far arisen in regard to the EU question this too is telling and I suppose will come as little of a surprise to anyone reading this. Indeed, it is quite apparent that in reality you are not really listening to the emerging argument in a meaningful way and there is no ammount of evidence that you will not attempt to find some (bogus) way to discredit or overlook. Indeed, it seems to me that you (and your narrow-minded type) represent the very definition of a 'closed mind'... or put another way, the lights are on but there is nobody home. .

People who claim to understand US politics better that a (two time) President of the United States does may not be best qualified to meaningfully comment of British politics either. Furthermore, the leaders of the 'Remain' campaign have little to apologise for I think as our membership of the EU has been a success overall. Enoch Powell (a hero of yours?) once said that "all political careers end in failure". There is perhaps some truth in that and more astute observers of our political scene than you will already understand that it is in the nature of things that (sooner or later) almost every Prime Minister becomes unpopular with the British electorate. The explanation for this is that leaders charged with making the most important and difficult decisions we face in our national life will invariably upset those who are become disadvantaged by that decision making process. David Cameron - like all the other living ex PM's we have - does not argue that we should remain in the EU in order to become popular. No, he does so because he feels that is right for this nation. One of those 'inconvenient truths' that clearly annoy you so is that the leaders of EVERY significant political party in the UK (with the obvious exception of UKIP) support our remaining in the EU along with the ministers currently placed in charge of ALL the great 'Offices of State' in our government. That is the fact of the matter.

You can believe who or what you want to according to your own beliefs/prejudices. But if the NFU are in receipt of EU funding then so too are most induvidual farmers of course. Therefore, basing a opinion on who does or does not receive EU funding seems unlikley to provide you with an especially useful guide. Methinks that this apparent disparity between NFU and Farmer opinion does perhaps illustrate a pattern - i.e. the greater the posistion of responsibility a person (or organisation) finds themselves in the more likley they are to support the 'stay' campaign. For example, while the Mayor of London supports our retreat from the EU, the Prime Minister holds the opposite opinion. The Lord Chancellor advocates our leaving but the Chencellor of the Exchequer wants us to stay.

And yet the NFU has decided that - on balance - the interests of British agriculture would be best served by our remaining members of the EU: http://www.nfuonline.com/news/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-news/nfu-council-agrees-resolution-on-the-eu-referendum/

^ It was certainly 'edge of the seat' stuff at times wasn't it! Much as I enjoyed it you might say that the script risked becoming ever so slightly OTT or "Hollywood" when the egregious "Dot" was reduced to shooting his way out of the Police station when caught out lying. However, my sister told me last week that if Cotton did get away with it again she would never watch this series again on a point of principle ... so she'll be pleased then

Any asinine comparison in regard to the history of the holocaust during WWII and the current (awful) situation that exists between the Palestinians and the State of Isreal is bound to be contraversial - and righly so I think. I doubt somehow that Ken Livingstone is really a terrible old bigot at heart, but his comments were rash and ill-advised to put it mildly. There is clearly a history anti Isreal feeling in left wing thinking that is perhaps as much to do with Isreal's close alliance with the USA as pure antisemitism pe se. As a aside to this important matter, I do note with some interest that reaction to the story does show that it is generally accepted now that antisemitism can be regarded as a form of racism - this notwithstanding the fact that (strictly speaking) Judaism is a religion rather than a "race" as such. So racism then is (in practice) defined as a prejudice against all those from a certain culteral background and/or religion and not just a matter of mere ethnicity. I feel confident that at least one sour person on here will join me in welcoming this development ...

So you accept that leaving the EU would represent a significant risk to our future welfare, but want to run said gamble anyway because you feel that staying in the EU is (for some reason) a risk too. The problem with that line, apart from its inherent stupidity, is that the two options are by no means comparable or remotly analagious. Of course we would continue to trade internationaly whether we form a part of the EU or not - every man and his dog knows that - the real issue at stake here is whether our trade would be damaged or not by our leaving the EU. The risk of leaving the EU now is a huge one because we have absolutly no precedent to base any meaningful set of predictions on. In short - no bugger knows what will happen in our economy as a result of the Bretix gsmble you favour. On the other hand, we do now have years of precendent with our EU membership that does allow at least some reasonable assumptions to be drawn in regard to our future economic performance within the existing single market area and our GUARANTEED access to it. The record shows that this economy has performed relativly well of late - in no small part due to the single market methinks. Therefore, the argument you are seeking to promote on here is a fundamentaly irresponsible one that would - if successful in the coming referendum - lead to potentialy adverse consequences for future generations that cannot even be acuretly understood or calculated at this time. There is a old adage that says thatba man should only gamble what he can afford to lose - we can't afford to damage our economy just because you kippers want to.

Non EU immigration into the UK is a primarily matter for our Parliment to regulate. As for so called "low skilled" EU immigrants not being a very useful addition to our economy, I see no actual evidence provided to support any such contention.

We can safely conlude I think that artificialy restricting the supply of ready labour would have the effect of decreasing growth overall in our economy. If we seek to secure a more prosperous future for ourselves then restricting growth would be a bad thing would it not?

So this study specificaly EXCLUDES then any impact that reductions in future immigration would have on our economy.

Well why don't you post a link as to where you are getting these numbers from so that we can all see for ourselves?

I wonder wether the "worse case senario" factors in the negative impact that any significant restrictions on future immigration (surely a key motivation behind the Bretex cause) would have on the vital 'supply side" of our economy? As for the "per capita" number being quoted being (at worst) some £5,000 - you do understand I hope that "per capita" includes children and old age pensioners in the population as well as working age adults etc. Therefore, elementary arithmetic tells you that a £5k reduction per capita would ammount to a loss of some £20k every single year for a typical family of four. I suppose you may see a trifling £20,000 as a price well worth paying to rid ourselves of the EU. In my circumstances £20k seems like a decent pile of cash ... so I vote no then.

Again, all reputable research shows that our economy risks becoming a poorer one should we vote to leave the EU and its huge Single Market area. The relative economic performance of other European economys vis a vis the UK is irrelevant to this central point as we are discusing the prospects for OUR economy here. As for your "miniscule" reductions in our future GDP being somehow insignificant - I can only conclude that attitude betrays a fundamental level of economic illiteracy as relativly small reductions in annual GDP - even as little 0.2% to 0.5% perhaps - would in fact ammout to a very large sum of money in a economy of our size. .

Interesting link. You do understand I take it that the assumptions of this “Economists for Brexit" group (that title gives you a clue as to their level of academic objectivity) are not a proper study or forecast, but rather just their induvidual opinions? Furthermore, if you read the article carefully then you will soon see that their assumptions are entirly CONTINGENT upon a set of circumstances being achived post 'Brexit' that they can neither meaningfully predict, let alone guarantee, at this time. But if you choose to depict the CONTINGENT, and indeed unspecified, opinions of a few induvidual economists (note that even the author of this article conceeds that they don't all agree!) coupled with the dubious conclusions of Boris Johnson's (utterly impartial of course) "economic team" as some kind of meaningful forecast from reputable bodies ... well then good for you I suppose. However, I doubt somehow that the London Mayor's hiterto unknown "economic team" has as yet established a stella reputation for itself in the field of international economics that rivals the competence of the OECD, HM Treasury or the Governer of the Bank of England. You will no doubt think differently, but in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davis "well you would wouldn't you". So again, whether you find this truth to be uncomforable or not, the fact of the matter is that EVERY serious economic forcast we have seen to date has concluded that this nation risks its future prosperity should we vote to leave the EU. On that question of risk, I'm entirly 'non fussed' that you should seek to gamble away your future in exchange for the 'pocket full of promises' on offer from the likes of Nigel Farage, Michael Grove and that charlatan Boris Johnson. However, I'm rather less sanguine that dyed-in-the-wool kippers such as yourself should so glibly endanger the prospects of future generations who now rely on us to show at least some minimal concern in regard of their welfare.

The fact of the matter is that every serious econmic forecast that I am aware of has concluded that this nation risks being a significantly poorer one, compared to how it might otherwise be, should we vote to leave the EU.