The result of the EU referendum:

[Brownie]

Gabriella:  I think our government should invest in affordable housing and more school places rather than come out of the EU - that is what will be most beneficial to Britain.

Quite agree with that.  It's very difficult for young people trying to buy their first home in the London area, atm.  All the politicians bleat about it but no-one actually does anything so far.  Our new mayor, who is a man from a very ordinary background in London and appears to have his ear to the ground, has said the same and we live in hope.

[Nearly Sane]

No mention of aliens though?

But because of its over the top and imprecise phrasing, a perfectly justifiable interpretation (and no spoof)

[jakswan]

But because of its over the top and imprecise phrasing, a perfectly justifiable interpretation (and no spoof)

You can't think of any threats that might come space other than aliens?

Tip. ICBM

[Nearly Sane]

You can't think of any threats that might come space other than aliens?

Tip. ICBM

Which wouldn't fit in with the speech where he is talking about new threats. Tip: ICBMs are not new, nor are they threats from space. And I didn't say it was the only interpretation just that given the language it was a valid one. Tip, reply to what is written not what you want to reply to.


It is the same issue with Cameron's speech yesterday. It's hard to phrase possible threats in this sort of way without creating interpretations, valid by what you say, that make you sound    like Chicken Licken crossed with Private Fraser.

[~TW~]

How about getting back on topic Britain out.The Result.Brownie has it right youngsters cannot afford a home.I bought one in 1962 no EU very nice.

                                     ~TW~

[jakswan]

Which wouldn't fit in with the speech where he is talking about new threats. Tip: ICBMs are not new, nor are they threats from space.

A new power could get ICBM, ohh sorry forgot who I was talking to, I don't mean aliens, I mean a government on earth that previously hasn't threatened the UK with a ICBM capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases

midcourse phase: approx. 25 minutes—sub-orbital spaceflight

And I didn't say it was the only interpretation just that given the language it was a valid one. Tip, reply to what is written not what you want to reply to.

Never claimed it was the only interpretation I did question it was valid.

It is the same issue with Cameron's speech yesterday. It's hard to phrase possible threats in this sort of way without creating interpretations, valid by what you say, that make you sound    like Chicken Licken crossed with Private Fraser.

Agree, although I don't think the scaremongering was worse for Scottish referendum, the Westminster establishment only seemed to become concerned quite late in the campaign.

[SweetPea]

I have already done it.
~TW~

Good show. Hope others do too.

Something about it reminded me of someone I knew, some years ago. He worked for parliament as an auditor. His job was to check that taxpayers money was spent the way parliament decided it should be spent. In practice it was very often spent outside parliamentary intention. This guy's job was to cover that up by lying to politicians and deceiving the public. His job was literally to lie and undermine democracy... after the ballot box.

After a length of time, he said, he just couldn't stay in the job any longer.

[Nearly Sane]

A new power could get ICBM, ohh sorry forgot who I was talking to, I don't mean aliens, I mean a government on earth that previously hasn't threatened the UK with a ICBM capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases
Never claimed it was the only interpretation I did question it was valid.

Agree, although I don't think the scaremongering was worse for Scottish referendum, the Westminster establishment only seemed to become concerned quite late in the campaign.

I think any disagreement we have is minor. The interpretation is valid because the speech is not specific and reads as a scare story. I don't know whether there is a time difference on the scare stories between the two referenda and i'm not sure if it makes much difference. But certainly by 2 months out it was frequent.


Have Stay done the 'it would be cataclysmic for the world' one yet?


http://tinyurl.com/mnujsbd

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

is this a joke-------I think our government should invest in affordable housing and more school places rather than come out of the EU - that is what will be most beneficial to Britain.

  How much is an affordable house also you forgot we need more hospitals,more health centres and you never told us what planet you are from.

             VOTE LEAVE.

                 ~TW~

Simple slogans won't cut it as an argument for leaving. You don't say how the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of staying in the EU so please explain.

If we look at countries that are not part of the EU such as Norway or Switzerland, but which trade with it, Norway still has to pay into the operational and administrative budgets, based on the relative size of its GDP compared to the total GDP of the EEA (for the operational costs). These payments are part of the treaties allowing them opportunities to trade. Britain's GDP is about 5 or 6 times that of Norway so their payments if they adopt the same status as Norway will be 5 or 6 times more. Norway's payments to fund EU programmes for 2014-21 can be found here:

http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.VzHwovkrLIU

Norway still has to sign up to the free movement of people if they want to trade with the EU, and they have to abide by EU trade regulations and EU decisions, which have to be incorporated into national legislation, but without having the opportunity to influence those decisions by participating in the EU Parliament.

Norway and Switzerland have higher per capita immigration than Britain, so over to you - what are the benefits of leaving?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11190269/If-EU-migration-is-the-problem-Switzerland-and-Norway-are-not-the-answer.html

The Swiss government does not seem to have not got very far in appeasing their population's tolerance of immigration with their economic need for trade with the EU.

On 9 February 2014 a slim majority of the Swiss population (50.3%) voted in favour of amending the constitution to introduce annual quotas on the number of non-Swiss nationals and to give preference to Swiss citizens in the job market. Implementing the results of the vote would not only be incompatible with the Free Movement of People Agreement (FMOP) (part of Bilateral I), but it would also put at risk the country’s entire series of bilateral treaties with the EU under the ‘guillotine clause’ — if one agreement is terminated, the other agreements would cease to apply. Faced with the EU’s firm refusal to renegotiate the free movement agreement, the Swiss Government is facing difficulties in overcoming the political and legal impasse created by the initiative. Consultations to overcome the impasse continue between the Commission and the Swiss authorities.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_6.5.3.html

Do you have any evidence that Britain could do better than the Swiss or is this just an understandable knee-jerk reaction to pressures on under-funded infrastructure?  The government scrapped a school building programme in 2010 and I'm not sure what exactly they put in place instead. Studies show birth rates of people already in Britain is a bigger factor in pressure on school places than EU immigration. Not sure how you propose to stop people having more children, so the infrastructure is going to continue to be under pressure and the government will therefore need to invest more in the infrastructure - there is no getting around that.

In terms of housing, as I said my impression is that EU migrants share accommodation - there seem to be lots of them living together in private rented accommodation. But if you post some stats to show otherwise, happy to take a look.

Also. we have an ageing population and more complex and therefore expensive medical treatment, so cost of healthcare is only going to go up. We have a shortage of labour in Britain and a need for people to efficiently and competently perform low-level jobs, both in the NHS and in other areas, and immigration from the EU seems to be plugging the gap. They are willing to come to do these jobs because of Britain's living wage and access to some in-work benefits. So what is your proposal to make sure there is healthcare for all the foreign people who come here to plug the skills gap as well as healthcare for existing British citizens?

[~TW~]

  Simple slogans won't cut it as an argument for leaving. You don't say how the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of staying in the EU so please explain. 

   What benefits are you on about,having lived outside of  the EU I can see benefits and this kind of democracy may suit you but not me 

                                                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozj0qwnMGZ0

 ~TW~

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So your only concern is democracy - I thought you had concerns about pressure on infrastructure, but clearly not.

Ok - yes there needs to be more transparency to MEPs during negotiations, otherwise they can't do their jobs properly.

EU national parliaments will have the opportunity to debate and object to the terms of TTIP before the EU Commission can sign-off on it , and there is already a sticking point with national governments refusing to accept the Investor State Dispute Settlement.

But we would be subject to the terms of EU treaties, including TTIP, if we want to trade with the EU, even if we are no longer members of the EU. But if we remain in the EU our representatives have a chance to object to TTIP terms in the European Parliament and also have a chance to reform the EU for greater transparency during treaty negotiations. In the meantime, Wiki Leaks isn't going to go away any time soon, so the EU cannot bypass ordinary people and activists getting to know the details of trade negotiations. 

There has been information relating to TTIP released to the British Parliament.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06688

[~TW~]

So your only concern is democracy - I thought you had concerns about pressure on infrastructure, but clearly not.

Ok - yes there needs to be more transparency to MEPs during negotiations, otherwise they can't do their jobs properly.

EU national parliaments will have the opportunity to debate and object to the terms of TTIP before the EU Commission can sign-off on it , and there is already a sticking point with national governments refusing to accept the Investor State Dispute Settlement.

But we would be subject to the terms of EU treaties, including TTIP, if we want to trade with the EU, even if we are no longer members of the EU. But if we remain in the EU our representatives have a chance to object to TTIP terms in the European Parliament and also have a chance to reform the EU for greater transparency during treaty negotiations. In the meantime, Wiki Leaks isn't going to go away any time soon, so the EU cannot bypass ordinary people and activists getting to know the details of trade negotiations. 

There has been information relating to TTIP released to the British Parliament.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06688

 No it is not my only concern,a market is fine,why do we need them as a government.We dont.
~TW~

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So in real terms Britain leaves the EU and signs up to treaties that makes us subject to EU regulations and decisions - how is that more helpful than staying in?

[~TW~]

So in real terms Britain leaves the EU and signs up to treaties that makes us subject to EU regulations and decisions - how is that more helpful than staying in?

 So you think the EU holds the Ace's wrong.
~TW~

[Aruntraveller]

The European Union is a "force for social injustice" which backs "the haves rather than the have-nots", Iain Duncan Smith has said.

Regardless of whether you are in favour of being in or out I hope you agree that this rank, stinking hypocrisy should come back to haunt this useless, stupid man.

[jakswan]

Regardless of whether you are in favour of being in or out I hope you agree that this rank, stinking hypocrisy should come back to haunt this useless, stupid man.

Nope, keep blowing the dog whistle though.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So you think the EU holds the Ace's wrong.
~TW~

More slogans but no detail and no substance to make an actual argument about how the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of staying.

This isn't a card game - negotiation of separate treaties and contracts is a lengthy, expensive and bureaucratic process and the Swiss find that every time the EU passes new legislation they have to then negotiate their own separate treaty relating to that legislation in order to trade. Given the huge sums involved in trade with Europe, no one will be willing to do business without contracts being signed to cover the terms of business and dispute resolution.

And there is the not so small matter of how much slower the process will be if you have to get visas for travel and work. Or are you hoping to exit the EU but maintain the free movement of people because you don't have a problem with the numbers Britain needs to fill its skills gaps or to do the low-skilled jobs that local people aren't willing to do, such as carers in the NHS or private system?



 

[ProfessorDavey]

Regardless of whether you are in favour of being in or out I hope you agree that this rank, stinking hypocrisy should come back to haunt this useless, stupid man.

It is simply jaw dropping that IDS, one of the most right wing Tories ever to be in a senior position in that party, and the architect of the swinging benefit cuts that have hit those with the very least the very hardest, is somehow trying to come over as champion of the down trodden poor. He is of course one of the ones doing the treading.

And the notion is totally in error anyhow - one of the great successes of the EU is to support the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy, including wealthy regions, and to poorer regions and poorer people.

[Aruntraveller]

Nope, keep blowing the dog whistle though.

No dog whistle involved here. Look at his record - rather than his supposed Damascene conversion.

[jakswan]

And the notion is totally in error anyhow - one of the great successes of the EU is to support the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy, including wealthy regions, and to poorer regions and poorer people.

Yeah living in Greece is awesome currently, really enjoying the wealth they are!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, swap your statement:-

Brits are better educated than foreigners.

Doesn't pass the sniff test does it.

The statement I made was that recent migrants were better educated than many of the Brits who apply for jobs, and I then went on to specify that this was in relation to my experience in hiring receptionists and that many of the Polish CVs that came in had degrees listed from Polish universities .

Having said that, one of the best receptionists we had was a local person - and I'm not even sure she had A'Levels (I can't remember - they might have been really bad A'Levels) as she was really bad at performing in exams but her membership of a youth politics group caught my eye and she had a really good reference from the school uniform shop she worked in - positive, can-do attitude - and when I interviewed her and she did a Microsoft Office test, she was great so I hired her. Her can-do attitude and common-sense and ability meant she was given lots of new admin responsibilities, varied on-the-job training in various areas outside the scope of her job role, exposure to different software, she started lots of great initiatives, and was closely involved in business strategy.

We were sorry to lose her when she moved on to bigger and better things - she took the training and experience she got at our firm and got a job in Manchester as a PA for more than double the salary - and well done to her - even though I had to go through the headache of recruiting someone else. Small businesses are a really useful training ground.

My point was that our firm seems to get more applications from immigrants with degrees for basic admin jobs who recognise that even if we don't earn the kind of fees that could pay them a great salary, the training and opportunities to take on responsibilities and gain useful experience in admin and using Microsoft Office applications will mean that our job is a stepping-stone to something more lucrative in a bigger company.

I did not say all foreigners are better educated than the Brits.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yeah living in Greece is awesome currently, really enjoying the wealth they are!

They certainly seem to have enjoyed pay rises and increased public sector employment after they joined the EU, which funded increased consumerism in Greece to buy imported goods but also created large public debt. They just forgot to figure out how to balance their books because the EU funding and their own fiscal policy and inefficient tax collection couldn't keep up with the pay rises and expenditure. Plus some of the EU funding obviously had to be shared out later amongst the newer members of the EU that joined after Greece and who needed help with their economies. Maybe the Greek population just objected to the idea of sharing some of the EU wealth with poor countries.

Banks and financial institutions lend money based on many factors - the credit risk of the person borrowing the money is one such factor, especially as not repaying the loan puts the bank and the country's financial system in jeopardy. That's just common sense, which many in the Greek population failed to grasp when they voted in their national elections. They could have chosen to be stricter about tax evasion and to adopt far less stringent austerity measures earlier, stopped the pay rises, reduced the public debt and stopped buying so much foreign consumer junk they didn't really need and couldn't afford. When a government previously did introduce austerity measures in Greece they usually got voted out at the next election.

[jakswan]

I did not say all foreigners are better educated than the Brits.

I feel asleep and woke up again for this, wasn't replying to you.

[jakswan]

They certainly seem to have enjoyed pay rises and increased public sector employment after they joined the EU, which funded increased consumerism in Greece to buy imported goods but also created large public debt. They just forgot to figure out how to balance their books because the EU funding and their own fiscal policy and inefficient tax collection couldn't keep up with the pay rises and expenditure. Plus some of the EU funding obviously had to be shared out later amongst the newer members of the EU that joined after Greece and who needed help with their economies. Maybe the Greek population just objected to the idea of sharing some of the EU wealth with poor countries.

Like Iceland who always enjoyed increased wealth during the same period who didn't join the EU, crashed at the same time and recovered much more quickly than Greece.

Banks and financial institutions lend money based on many factors - the credit risk of the person borrowing the money is one such factor, especially as not repaying the loan puts the bank and the country's financial system in jeopardy. That's just common sense, which many in the Greek population failed to grasp when they voted in their national elections. They could have chosen to be stricter about tax evasion and to adopt far less stringent austerity measures earlier, stopped the pay rises, reduced the public debt and stopped buying so much foreign consumer junk they didn't really need and couldn't afford. When a government previously did introduce austerity measures in Greece they usually got voted out at the next election.

Free from the EU Greece could have followed the hard left policies of the party it voted for. I think it would have been a disaster but that is democracy for you.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yeah living in Greece is awesome currently, really enjoying the wealth they are!

And where would the Greek economy and the people of Greece have been without the input into economic develop that the EU have invested since Greece joined in 1981.

Don't forget that prior to joining the EU Greece was an authoritarian dictatorship and in the post EU period through to the crash the Greek economy, supported by the EU was growing at more than 5% per year, significantly more than the UK, or Germany or the USA or Japan etc etc etc - so sure the fall has been tough but it would have been anyhow, but without the levels of growth in the economy through the 1990s the absolute levels of economic prosperity would have been far lower to start with. So in effect, even with the austerity the Greek economy now is much stronger than it would have been had Greece not been in the EU.