Wes Tender

Bully for them. They all say that there are risks that we might be a significantly poorer nation should we leave the EU. This is a statement of the bleeding obvious; of course there are risks. Every road safety expert would equally state that there are risks attached to crossing the road, compared to when one stayed at home. Where you have embellished your statement is the use of the phrase "compared to how it might otherwise be". Neither they or you have any idea of what our future prospects would be in the event of our leaving. That depends on numerous factors the scope of which is beyond them to take account of, beyond guessing what a worst case scenario would be, which in the interests of balance would need to be accompanied by a best case scenario. Needless to say, it isn't in their remit to give any positive spin to the consequences.

Yes, it is clear that you would rather accuse the elected government of corrupt and crooked dealings, whilst preferring the unelected and largely unaccountable executive of the EU. Perhaps you might care to read this and comment on whether you then think that there is not far more scope for corruption by those who run the EU:-

Thanks for your response, which is helpful, because at any time that a Brexit supporter dares to suggest that arguments from the remain camp might be biased propaganda depending on their source, the inevitable defensive response is that there is a lack of such credible information available from Brexit. Instead of this dismissal based on who is making the comment, why don't you do as I ask and discuss which points she made were not balanced and explain why? No doubt you will also dismiss the article I posted because of where that came from to.

Have a read of this when you have the time. It covers pretty well all aspects of our membership and also gives a pragmatic view of how we would go about leaving, what our options would be and the likely implications for trade and our economy for the UK post-Brexit. It also discusses the issues of immigration, sovereignty, the legal aspects and the implications of the effects on the EU if we departed. http://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/1159-emergency-exit

That wa balanced, it is you who are not. As a matter of interest, which points she made did you feel were not balanced.

Please read what I said and try and comprehend what I thought was simple English. I accepted that any scenario proposed by the Brexit campaign would be based purely on conjecture and suggested that the propaganda being put out by sources as credible as the Treasury and the Chancellor also depended largely on conjecture and supposition. Show me any modelled analysis that is based on fact. You can't because there are none, as crystal balls are fictional. And as you continually try and attempt to portray me as a UKIP supporter, I'll reiterate one last time for your benefit, I am a Conservative. As for your powers of prediction based on the evidence available, you predicted with absolute certainty that Corbyn would never be elected leader of the Labour Party.

The opinions of those currently holding office are to be given greater credence just because they are to be considered more relevant because they have a better grasp of the current situation? So the opinions of former Governors of the Bank of England, former Chancellors, Prime Ministers, are to be ordered in relevance depending on how long ago they were in those positions, regardless of whether history accords them greater recognition as being very good and effective in their jobs and the opinion of none of them stacks up against that of the current incumbents. Are the opinions of Mervin King also to dismissed on that basis? As for Call me Dave's achievements (or lack of them) in his attempts to gain some reform of the EU and its effects on us, was it really such an achievement to get them to agree that we should not accept further integration towards a federal Europe? As far as I'm aware, we either have a right to veto that already, or would have to put it to a referendum if some future Treaty proposed it. History shows that successive treaties which have taken us far along the path to a federal Europe already, have not resulted in us vetoing them, or offering a referendum on them, so if you wish to accept this as a great achievement by Cameron, then fill your boots.

You really don't get it all, do you? There have been forecasts and predictions from the Brexit camp, which are understandably ruled out as conjecture. But all the conjecture about the financial implications of Brexit from the remain camp is portrayed as being worthy of acceptance as fact. When predictions of the effect of Brexit on every household in the UK provided by the Treasury and put out by the Chancellor can be so easily torn apart, any voter with any intelligence would conclude that all forecasts could be wildly inaccurate also.

Of course, there are two points that can be made that shoot down your arguments, although I very much doubt that you would consider them, as it is clear that your position is as entrenched as mine. Firstly, these very same organisations that you you put such credence on are precisely the same ones that predicted the dire consequences should we not join the Euro-zone. How did that turn out? Secondly, Call me Dave had threatened that if we were not offered the concessions that he demanded, then he would actively campaign for a British Brexit. I am assuming that as Prime Minister, he would have been amply advised by both the Treasury and these financial and business gurus of what the consequences of our exit from the EU would be, and yet on the basis of the flimsiest of concessions towards reform that he claims to have achieved, all of a sudden he has been able to do a complete volte-face. Is it too much of a jump to conclude that without these concessions it would have been worth risking a Brexit and he would have actually campaigned for it, but that it is not worth it now? Or is the conclusion to be that Cameron is not to trusted on what he said before, and therefore it is reasonable to take everything he says now with a pinch of salt? Or is he just so devious and slippery that he would employ any tactic that he can in his sheer desperation to win the campaign to remain in that he leads? Tactics such as getting the American President to support him and poke his nose where it is not wanted, for example. Whilst talking about the credibility of sources, does the opinion of the current governor of the Bank of England hold sway over that of a former one? Does the opinion of a current Chancellor hold sway over a former one? Are the Treasury forecasts to be believed when they provided Osborne with figures based on GDP, which was not used as a measure for anything else and when they were further distorted by being based on population levels now rather than the projected figures for 2030? Anybody that doesn't accept these figures, forecasts or predictions as being the gospel truth, is accused of being "little Englanders." It is a bit weak and puerile frankly.

You see it as a warning and I'll see it as a threat. The outrage shown in many quarters suggests that Obama's intervention is taken as far more than a warning or friendly advice and unwelcome. Whichever way, it is leverage from Obama on behalf of his mate Call me Dave. Go ahead in accusing me of not being interested in any opinion or evidence that doesn't fit my views of the situation, whilst simultaneously rubbishing the views that don't suit you own position. Also, go on pretending that none of your views are preconceived, if it makes you feel smug. I didn't mention the Presidents "right" to comment on our affairs, but since you bring it up, I presume that Obama would be equally happy if Call me Dave was to speak on behalf of the British people and issue statements about what the repercussions might be in our future relationships if America voted one way or another in their forthcoming Presidential Election. Naturally we would have a right to do so based on our mutual efforts and the number of our dead fighting alongside the "johnny come lately" Americans in the two last World wars. Regarding the power and influence that the large American corporations have over their Government, that isn't a case of claiming to being more in touch with US opinion than the soon to be ex-President. It is common sense based purely on the the motivations of self-interest of those corporations and the power that they wield. Exactly the same situation applies to the biggest corporations in Germany and other European states and the influence that they would have over their Governments in the event of a Brexit. But still, I'm glad that you found it amusing. Little things please little minds.

Obama really has made a huge error of judgement if he thinks that issuing threats is the way to persuade us to stay in the EU. There will be many who were sat on the fence who will take the view that firstly they don't like being told how to vote by some Yank who ought to keep his nose out of our affairs and secondly they will not respond well to be threatened. I don't know who advised him to issue these threats, or whether he employed his own lame brain to arrive at this position, but he has done more to damage the special relationship than any other recent American President. Luckily it will be recognised that he is not going to be President for much longer and that even if he has the blessing of the Democratic Party and the Senate for taking this stance, the situation might well have changed in the new future after their elections. In any event, I very much doubt that his big mouth speaks on behalf of the large American corporations who will be only to happy to press for trade deals with us and I'm sure that the influence they wield will not allow us to be "pushed to the back of the queue".

Of course it was. They have history of raising their game when they face the biggest clubs in World football. This was an even greater victory for them than the one in 1995 which they achieved against that season's double winners Manchester United http://www.harrogateminstermen.com/manchester-united-0-york-city-3.html Whereas York should then have had four goals but for a wrongly denied decision, the plucky Skates managed more yesterday than that illustrious Man Utd team by scoring one themselves. So losing against such famous giant-killers is not anything to be ashamed of. I note from the report of the Man Utd match that a certain tenacious Graeme Murty turned out for York that day.

An article from a Greek, who has absolutely no agenda at all in preventing Turkey joining the European Union. Regarding Osborne's comments:- On Sunday's Andrew Marr show, Mr Osborne said: Countries closer in size and prosperity to ours like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia, etc.

It appears that the Government is accused of massaging the figures/cooking the books, in an attempt to give the impression that they have met the 2% of GDP expenditure on defence target. Who'd have thunk it? A little bit of creative accounting to send out the message they want. Could that be happening elsewhere? Surely not.

I agree with you entirely. A narrow majority vote to leave would naturally give us more clout than one narrowly in favour of staying, of course, but Dave's pathetic performance in attempting to negotiate reforms before the referendum was announced was enough to make me believe that he is just not a credible negotiator for us. His position as our negotiator would also have been weakened considerably because he is chief cheer-leader for remaining, and in the process he has used the same ammunition in his attempts to persuade the electorate that we should remain in, that would be fired back at us by the EU at the negotiating table should we vote to leave. Mind you, who would be suitable?

Agreed that we both have entrenched views, my mind already having been made up sometime shortly after Maastricht when I decided then that unless we could gain substantial reforms to the EU, we should leave. I have endured broken promise after broken promise by the subsequent governments to hold a referendum and finally it is to happen. The mini-debate was indeed interesting. I agree that our referendum will have some effect on how other EU states perceive their own positions. It has caused some comment from euro-sceptics elsewhere and dark mutterings that they should have their own referenda. Juncker is quite right to recognise that there is growing antagonism amongst the peoples of Europe towards too much interference in their daily lives and I think that there are nervous glances towards us and what the result will be here. These are the first signs that there is recognition at Brussels that the problems caused by a Brexit are not only about renegotiating our trade deals, but also realising the possibility that other states might follow us out.

Nice of you to attempt to interpret what I "seem" to have said as some sort of metaphor and then to label it as unsophisticated and unfounded. I would rather that you commented on what I said than what you thought I said. Of course the potential outcomes of both the remain or leave position are both speculative. Did you miss the mini-debate a few posts ago pondering on whether it would suit us better as a nation if the referendum result gave a narrow majority to either side, or whether there was a clearer majority for one position or the other? Of course there is less risk involved with the status quo position, as that is the devil you know, although past history proves that the movement towards a federal Europe is what precipitated this referendum in the first place, so there is ample scope for reasoned speculation that if we remain in, that progression could well continue. But if the position you argue is accepted that there is less risk attached to our remaining in, then it follows logically that the campaign to leave has to be based on other factors apart from trade that are deemed to be significant enough that the risks are acceptable. The remain campaign continually cite the examples of Norway and Switzerland ad nauseam and that has been debated to death. You can continue to consider that despite us being a considerably bigger fish in the Euro pond, we will not be able to negotiate more beneficial trading options and we will have to accept the free movement of people from within the EU as a result. My opinion is that we won't. Neither do I accept that the EU would be in a stronger bargaining position than us if we voted with a clear enough majority to leave. I think that you underestimate the power that mega-industrial corporations like the German car industry have over the politicians in their countries. As immigration is one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign, I cannot see us allowing the unfettered free movement of peoples as being acceptable and if Dave allowed it, then he would potentially pay for it at the next election (provided that he hasn't resigned first) I'll have to accept your assurances that these former Yank Financial Secretaries popping up to put in their two cents worth immediately prior to their President coming over to poke his head into our affairs is just a coincidence. Or is it? I suppose one person's conspiracy theory is another person's cynical view that there are underhand tactics at work by parties with vested interests in the result. Maybe our own Chancellor has already briefed them as to the potential worst case scenario of the level of income reduction that will be suffered by every household if we left. I also read avidly the opinions of the remain campaign and generally find them to be exaggerated to the worst possible scenario, based on speculation often dressed up as fact. As there is little in the way of attempt by the commentators to discuss both the pros and cons, why should I not be cynically dismissive of them?

Brexit have made many arguments, as have UKIP and many euro-sceptics over several years. OK, you remain unconvinced by them, preferring to accept the opinions of those with vested interests in us remaining and their forecasts of dire consequences based on pure speculation should we leave. I have also digested the reasons given by the Brexit campaign and with the benefit of the perspective I have gained from seeing the European project evolve since its inception, I have arrived at my own opinion that we would be better off leaving it. I would be happy to stay if the EU underwent substantial reforms, but that is not going to happen, so we are backed into a corner by the EU and it will be their fault if we leave. Just to pick you up on some of your claims; you say that we have control of our borders. So we can refuse the free movement of EU citizens from entering our country without any limitations on their numbers? We have not suffered any loss of Sovereignty, so therefore we cannot gain it back? Yet again, Norway (as Switzerland often is too) is cited as an example of what would face us if we left, and we would be helpless apparently in negotiating a different position, despite being considerably bigger than Norway as a trading partner. Trade; of course we will have the support of the German car manufacturers and other major European corporations whose products are exported to us in considerable volumes when it comes to negotiating post-Brexit trading arrangements. You are naive to believe that tariffs and other obstacles would be placed on us to the detriment of their sales. I took it that this whole new trade area that Michael Gove invented was the rest of the World that we currently do not trade with in any volume and I am surprised to hear that it does not exist. My take on the eight former US Treasury Secretaries? I take it with a giant pinch of salt, especially as Call me Dave pleaded with Obama to support his remain campaign and all of a sudden this appears just before his visit. Regarding your reluctance to listen to those you listed, I would recommend you to note what they say before condemning it just because of who it is saying it, but I also note that your position is to mistrust any individual politician's opinion, so presumably that also covers ex-US individual politicians, who are probably as capable, if not more capable of talking through their arses as our lot.

Ah, so you're going to make broad sweeping statements accusing the Brexit camp of misunderstanding issues like immigration, sovereignty, trade, defence etc, and not be prepared to provide some illustrations of what these misunderstandings are, or what the correct position is. I also note that you claim that most Brexit claims are exaggerated, but that you excuse the likes of George Osborne when he makes his claims that every family in the land will be thousands of pounds per annum worse off, a claim totally without any basis of fact and consistent with the general campaign of fear that is being waged by the remain lobby. I can see how the Brexit camp misunderstandings come about when they are faced with this sort of unsubstantiated twaddle. But I am glad that you consider his claims as an individual politician to be irrelevant.

I agree with you and a Brexit vote with subsequent renegotiation on serious reforms is a position that I would support and I suspect that a majority of the electorate would too. However, this situation when proposed by Boris was knocked into the long grass by Dave, so isn't really a viable option, as Dave never breaks promises, does he? And even if he did go back to Angela with this strong bargaining hand with which to renegotiate our continued membership, he has form in claiming that little sops to appease him are great negotiating triumphs, so I don't hold my breath that much would change. But as others have indicated, some of the electorate are gullible to swallow this sort of guff, so it might only take a swing of a few percent to produce the majority in a re-vote to remain in, regardless.

You're sure about that are you? Just as you would no doubt have assured us that no country would sign up to the Maastricht Treaty, or the Treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon without consulting with their electorates over the significant changes with the loss of national sovereignty, judicial powers, immigration controls and additional bureaucratic imperatives that they entailed.

He hasn't bothered responding to my challenge to him to explain where the Brexiters' are misunderstanding the matters that are important to them, you know, sovereignty, immigration, trade, defence (and anything else). I asked him that first. It is a bit lazy to assert that somebody's position is based on a misunderstanding of the situation and then not to explain why that situation is misunderstood.

Kindly do enlighten us, oh knowledgeable one, what aspects of sovereignty, immigration, trade, defence and anything else, are based on misunderstandings by the Brexit camp and what those misunderstandings are. Then, as you have brought it up, pray do tell us what the correct position is on those subjects. You see, despite your position that these things have little relevance to whether we stay or leave the EU, please accept that whatever understanding people have of these issues that is up to them, and they should not be belittled for holding their own views just because you don't agree with them. You insist that the Brexit camp cannot produce any clear evidence to support what the future situation would be following our exit, but equally you should accept that neither can the remain camp support their position that somehow everything will remain the same if we stay. The European project that began as the Common Market did not remain as just that and has continued to evolve towards a Federal Europe. Despite Dave's assurances that we will not be continuing along that road, the events of the past few decades that have dragged us inexorably towards that position do not provide any real comfort that pressures will not be brought upon us to relent, nor that a future government will not be more inclined towards that position.

Yes, you're entirely right in your opinion that a large proportion of the British public will be gullible enough to give more credence to the propaganda that has been issued to each household because it has the HM Government logo on it. Sufficient numbers have recognised this and enough have signed a petition to that effect, that it will be debated in the House of Parliament. There has already been a rather weak whitewash response on behalf of the government claiming that a significant percentage of the electorate (figures provided by the Department of Guesswork) required additional factual information about the implications of us staying or leaving in order to make their minds up. Like you, I have a background in advertising over an even longer period and am capable of recognising that there are many ways that questions can be asked, how a position is presented to gain either the most approval or to generate the most cause for concern and uncertainty. For the benefit of those who accused me of conspiracy theories for saying this a few weeks back before I went on holiday, here is a visual explanation that should illustrate the methodology in a way that they ought to be able to comprehend. What was despicable about the Government's propaganda, was that they claimed that the document was a factual summary, when there were elements of speculation about what the possible implications of our leaving would be. Yes, they used factual information about the benefits that we had accrued from our membership in terms of trade and social legislation benefits, but then subsequently made this monstrous claim by Osborne about how much poorer each family would be per annum in the event of us leaving. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

It only shows you what you think you want it to say. Anybody else who cares to look at it with a bit more objectivity realises that there are several factors which could be interpreted in whatever way that people wish to in order to suit their own agendas, like most of statistical "evidence". Let's have a look at some of these factors. Size of sample: 60,000. How representative is that and how evenly was the spread of responses over the geographical area and the age variations? Time period: This covered a time scale of up to a couple of years or more and events since have probably altered voters' intentions, especially following the immigration growth situation. Reliability: What percentage of responses to any poll are honest, as it is certainly the case that some will deliberately be mischievous to skew the results. Regarding the demographics of the poll sample, whereas you like to simplify it as the young and intelligent who wish to remain, it could equally be summarised that those older voters with more life experience and the wisdom that brings are for leaving. They at least have some idea of how we fared before we joined the Common Market and how we had been denied a say on the subsequent treaty changes by successive governments. Regarding the education profile of the sample polled, any conclusions drawn from that have been skewed over the past decades by the comparative ease of going to university to obtain useless degrees in media studies and the like, as well as the deterioration in the value of the qualifications obtained at secondary and college level. What is far more significant, is the probability that the older voters are far more likely to vote than the younger ones, so it seems that despite the idealism that comes with youth and the supposed intelligence that they possess, they don't really care enough about the issue to be that bothered about it all, despite it being influential on their futures. It is ironic in some ways that when I was young, it was during a period of the younger generation idealistically wanting to change the establishment, whereas now they seem quite content to accept the status quo whereby much of the running of our country is in the hands of unelected and faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.