Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Latest poll makes for interesting reading. I wonder what effect the Brussels attacks will have on the vote in June?

Honestly, whilst in the more immediate term it’ll have some effect – and some people may well still remember it come voting day – I doubt it’ll have much impact on actual voting as, sad as it may be, the majority of people will have forgotten about it come voting day.

Which is probably what the IN camp will put down to that most recent poll, but I honestly don’t think that is the case. I truly believe that speaking to the majority of people who I know to be undecided that IN is losing the campaign (and I am also starting to lean towards out, as can probably be guessed by my posts).

Their arguments just don’t add up, and are fairly easy to poke holes in – and even their big selling point of the economy they are starting to lose ground on, with their own leader saying wages would go up and their commissioned independent report saying the economy would be better if we vote out.

I think their entire problem seems to be that the IN campaign seem to be targeting IN voters, giving us the rhetoric that IN voters expect, whilst the OUT campaign seem to be targeting both OUT and undecided voters, giving a lot of OUT rhetoric but also basing them on some degree of fact. Whilst you can poke holes in some of OUT more extreme numbers and policies (no doubt aimed at OUT voters) they also are showing how OUT would work for the betterment of the UK much better than the IN side are showing remaining would do.

As much as I hate the phrase, it is true that IN are just using ‘project fear’ and the majority of what they are telling us to fear is being disproven or can easily be shown to be based on incorrect assumptions, like the ‘Norway style agreement’ I argued against above.

If IN is to sway undecided voters (and they should aim to do so as this is where the referendum will be won or lost) they need to change tactics on this, and the time for them to do so is fast running out.

 notprop wrote:
I saw a painful interview on CH4 news last night where Peter Spiegel (the FT's Brussels man) a Belgium Journalist, whose name escapes me but she has an unfortunate grin on her face considering she was standing at the scene of a bomb blast!

Anyway I found what they were saying quite shocking. The gist of PS's comments were that the Belgium's had been slow off the mark, deliberately so to save money, in dealing with both immigration, internal security and defence spending; only starting to do anything just prior to the Paris atrocities.

I was surprised at this as Brussels is the de facto home of the EU and that so little had been done to protect the core of the EU project and more importantly the citizens there. All of the participants quite blasé about the prospect of attacks.

What was said next I found particularly shocking. The Belgium Journalist stated that Islamist elements were known to be present in Brussels/Moenbeek and in numbers but were not seen as an issue as Belgium was not thought to be a target for terrorism.

This is supposed to be the heart of the EU. Their inaction on this threat from within borders on complicity to me. They have sat on their hands for years allowing the situation to fester at the heart of the EU.

This seems all to prophetic to me. How could anyone want to be part of this shambles?

Don't know who is this "Belgium Journalist" you're talking about, but you should be aware that there are many "political colors" in my country as well and that some of them want the same thing than your Brexit partisans.

That goes for some "journalists" as well.

Reality is a bit distorted here. Our police tries to do its best, but you know, even with terrorists around, there are still laws to respect and their numbers is not infinite. Military can't do the police's job as well.

Also, while it's true there are problems in Molenbeek, it's not really a "terrorist den" like some medias are trying to make it pass. It's like saying Brooklyn is a terrorist nest because some people doing horrible things lived here for a while.

If you find it shocking, ask yourself why some States try to block so much having a common security force because "it threatens their sovereignty". The reason it is happening is because there isn't enough Europe, not because of Europe itself. It's because Member States are selfish and only look their own belly button.

D_I_N_L_T: Hold on there bucko. You're complaining about the EU treading on people's sovereignty on the one hand, and yet expecting them to intervene in Belgium's internal security operations on the other? Smells like hypocrisy.

Conflating the Belgian Government and the EU is laziness of the highest order.

Isn't the EU parliment in brussels half the time?

Skullhammer wrote:
Another intesting find this one about economics worth the read to the end

http://www.cityam.com/237301/the-cbi-has-admitted-defeat-and-the-economic-case-against-brexit-is-collapsing

and the reaction of the CBI:

http://www.cityam.com/237395/the-economic-case-against-brexit-is-stacking-up-fast-a-vote-to-leave-is-a-vote-for-a-less-prosperous-britain

It just shows how much the same information can be used by the messenger to construct a completely different point of view.

And the same site says this

http://www.cityam.com/237371/eu-referendum-a-brexit-would-make-average-briton-30000-better-off-by-2020-says-report

But you are right, the writer makes a diffrence.

 Da Boss wrote:
D_I_N_L_T: Hold on there bucko. You're complaining about the EU treading on people's sovereignty on the one hand, and yet expecting them to intervene in Belgium's internal security operations on the other? Smells like hypocrisy.

Conflating the Belgian Government and the EU is laziness of the highest order.

Probably best to continue this discussion on the relevant thread, but I'm arguing that a new task force, drawn from NATO members, which is zero to do with the EU should take the lead on this to help Belgium.

 Antario wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Another intesting find this one about economics worth the read to the end

http://www.cityam.com/237301/the-cbi-has-admitted-defeat-and-the-economic-case-against-brexit-is-collapsing

and the reaction of the CBI:

http://www.cityam.com/237395/the-economic-case-against-brexit-is-stacking-up-fast-a-vote-to-leave-is-a-vote-for-a-less-prosperous-britain

It just shows how much the same information can be used by the messenger to construct a completely different point of view.

See, again the IN camp has posted something that is easy to pick hole in. The report from PwC is pretty clear, yes for the two years from 2018 (when we would eventually leave the EU in the case we vote out) to 2020 there is a dip in economic output, but after that the outlook for the UK outside the EU was BETTER than being in – and this from a report commissioned by a party wanting to stay in.

I did like this bit from the his article ‘The challenge to those pushing for the UK to leave is to make the economic case for how the UK would be better off outside the EU. When presented with solid economic analysis from numerous respected bodies, they choose to cherry-pick, ignore the facts or claim scare-mongering.’ – errmmmm, you’re the one choosing to cherry pick the two years of the report up to 2020, and not the fact that we benefit after that date from an exit.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Isn't the EU parliment in brussels half the time?

Most of the EU institutions are in Brussels, what's your point? Are the office workers in the institutions supposed to engage in counter terrorism? There is no EU counter terrorism force or intelligence agencies and I'm surprised to see people concerned at the prospect of a federal Europe arguing that there should be. Personally I would have no problem with establishing such an agency with the agreement of all concerned parties and with enough democratic oversight. But I was not aware that that was also a POV commonly expressed by Brexit supporters.

Stranger83 wrote:

 Antario wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Another intesting find this one about economics worth the read to the end

http://www.cityam.com/237301/the-cbi-has-admitted-defeat-and-the-economic-case-against-brexit-is-collapsing

and the reaction of the CBI:

http://www.cityam.com/237395/the-economic-case-against-brexit-is-stacking-up-fast-a-vote-to-leave-is-a-vote-for-a-less-prosperous-britain

It just shows how much the same information can be used by the messenger to construct a completely different point of view.

See, again the IN camp has posted something that is easy to pick hole in. The report from PwC is pretty clear, yes for the two years from 2018 (when we would eventually leave the EU in the case we vote out) to 2020 there is a dip in economic output, but after that the outlook for the UK outside the EU was BETTER than being in – and this from a report commissioned by a party wanting to stay in.

I did like this bit from the his article ‘The challenge to those pushing for the UK to leave is to make the economic case for how the UK would be better off outside the EU. When presented with solid economic analysis from numerous respected bodies, they choose to cherry-pick, ignore the facts or claim scare-mongering.’ – errmmmm, you’re the one choosing to cherry pick the two years of the report up to 2020, and not the fact that we benefit after that date from an exit.

And this is why you cut out the middle men who want to sell you a story. Here is a link to the PWC report itself. http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/leaving-eu-would-cause-a-serious-shock-to-uk-economy-new-pwc-analysis/

Page 8 shows the growth scenarios of the models. Judge for yourself.

Oh interesting – that seems to be a different report to the one I read the other day, wish I could remember where I followed the link from previously.

Now on that report (and I’ve only given it a glance read) things do look worse, though I do note this part

‘Average Total real UK GDP could be around 36-39% higher in 2030 than in 2015 in the two exit scenarios, as compared to a cumulative GDP rise of around 41% in our counterfactual scenario where the UK remains in the EU.’

So better if we stay in – but 6-2% is well within a margin of error for estimating something 15 years in the future (admittedly it could go the other way too)

All in all, a bit of a swing back to IN for me – but hardly a knockout punch.

It's much the same argument as scotland to me - a certain short term economic hit, an uncertain but possibly positive economic future that will require restructuring much of the economy and therefore some groups losing out and others gaining.

I don't think people should decide pro or anti Brexit based solely on economics, because it's too fluid and hard to predict. Ideology really does have a place in the debate. Do you believe the world is best served by local governments pursuing the interests of the local population because they best understand it's needs? Or do you think pooling our sovereignty makes it greater than the sum of it's parts and big problems require big power blocs? I think there are good arguments either way and I fall heavily on the latter.

 Antario wrote:


And this is why you cut out the middle men who want to sell you a story. Here is a link to the PWC report itself. http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/leaving-eu-would-cause-a-serious-shock-to-uk-economy-new-pwc-analysis/

Page 8 shows the growth scenarios of the models. Judge for yourself.

As always with these reports, you have to consider how biased PWC is towards the Remain position.
They provide "services to assist the EU Institutions in fulfilling their mission of policy making, governance and organisational delivery.". How much do they make from the EU and what affect does this income and possible relationships with brussels bureaucrats have on the writing of the report...

 zedmeister wrote:

 Antario wrote:


And this is why you cut out the middle men who want to sell you a story. Here is a link to the PWC report itself. http://news.cbi.org.uk/news/leaving-eu-would-cause-a-serious-shock-to-uk-economy-new-pwc-analysis/

Page 8 shows the growth scenarios of the models. Judge for yourself.

As always with these reports, you have to consider how biased PWC is towards the Remain position.
They provide "services to assist the EU Institutions in fulfilling their mission of policy making, governance and organisational delivery.". How much do they make from the EU and what affect does this income and possible relationships with brussels bureaucrats have on the writing of the report...

There is probably a certain bias towards the wishes of the customer but more importantly a number of partisan commentators misrepresented the findings to forge their own narrative, or they simply did not understand, which is not uncommon with politicians and journalists on topics of economics.

 Da Boss wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Isn't the EU parliment in brussels half the time?

Most of the EU institutions are in Brussels, what's your point? Are the office workers in the institutions supposed to engage in counter terrorism? There is no EU counter terrorism force or intelligence agencies and I'm surprised to see people concerned at the prospect of a federal Europe arguing that there should be. Personally I would have no problem with establishing such an agency with the agreement of all concerned parties and with enough democratic oversight. But I was not aware that that was also a POV commonly expressed by Brexit supporters.

If the EU has loads of it's institutions in brussels shouldn't they have a vested interest in belgian security? A liaison, at least, for co-ordination of security efforts of both local police and EU parliamentary security.

As an institution which may be larger that their own parliment they are an integral part of brussels security arrangement and i think it could contribute to the security burden it lays on a rather small (geographically speaking) nation.
In the UK you can subsidise police time - football clubs for example - can pay to have an increased police presence with or without specialist equipment and i don't see why the same couldn't be done in brussels.
Some clubs get given a bill for police time etc when the response needed is excessive for the event; this effectively pins the cost of football hooliganism on the clubs involved - perhaps this model could be applied to EU security arrangements and give belgian security forces a boost in funding?

EU interference in security and police in an EU member state is EXACTLY the sort of thing that would drive the Euroskeptic wing into overdrive. Now that an attack has happened, it's easy to say "Oh hey they should have done XYZ" but prior to any attack, the mention of combining European Security agencies raises hackles all over the place.

I mean, I'd be all for it like I said, but it's not usual to see a Euroskeptic arguing along the same lines.

What i'm saying is that the EU parliment is based in the wrong place half the time - i don't think that belgium is capable of funding the part-time security arrangement required and having the EU bureaucratic structure Susidise belgium's existing security sounds perfectly amicable doesn't it? Belgium retains whatever sovereignty it has left and the EU bureaucracy pays for the extra security burden it creates.

 Da Boss wrote:
EU interference in security and police in an EU member state is EXACTLY the sort of thing that would drive the Euroskeptic wing into overdrive. Now that an attack has happened, it's easy to say "Oh hey they should have done XYZ" but prior to any attack, the mention of combining European Security agencies raises hackles all over the place.

I mean, I'd be all for it like I said, but it's not usual to see a Euroskeptic arguing along the same lines.

I'm not opposed to mechanisms for national security and police forces to come together to share intelligence, resources and command structures on a temporary basis to deal with international crises, but I am vehemently opposed to the EU exploiting tragedies like this to make power grabs and set up EU agencies that interfere in domestic politics and jurisdiction.

As Frazzled said, once we create a European Homeland Security, it'll never go away, it'll just grow and grow and then mission creep and bureaucratic empire-building will set in. Massive and powerful international organisations are inherently anti-democratic. If national voters dislike the actions, behaviour and practices of an EU organisation and perceive them to be corrupt, how on earth can they possibly oppose it? How do they go about getting it dismantled? Vote in a Eurosceptic party into the European Parliament? They're just one nation's worth of MEP's in a Parliament comprising dozens of Nations with competing interests; and the power of the Parliament is very limited anyway.

Massive and powerful bureaucracies are inherently anti-democratic and unaccountable to the electorate, because it adds layer upon layer of government between the voters and the politicians in charge.

Do you believe the world is best served by local governments pursuing the interests of the local population because they best understand it's needs? Or do you think pooling our sovereignty makes it greater than the sum of it's parts and big problems require big power blocs? I think there are good arguments either way and I fall heavily on the latter.

You say you fall heavily on the side of big international power blocs. I fall on the other end of the spectrum. You and I are diametrically opposed on this issue.

Yeah I know we are. That's fine though. I'm cool with Brexit. And any other EU exit. It's gotta be done through democratic consent.

 SirDonlad wrote:
What i'm saying is that the EU parliment is based in the wrong place half the time - i don't think that belgium is capable of funding the part-time security arrangement required and having the EU bureaucratic structure Susidise belgium's existing security sounds perfectly amicable doesn't it? Belgium retains whatever sovereignty it has left and the EU bureaucracy pays for the extra security burden it creates.

Belgium can easily fund the security arrangements, it's just that the country can't seem to organize it efficiently. The city of Brussels is a bureaucratic nightmare with 19 different municipalities and mayors, in addition the police is hopelessly fragmented. The whole country is like a less efficient mini version of the EU.

Here's a good article about economic realities of Brexit:
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21695544-it-would-be-hard-britain-negotiate-good-trade-deals-post-brexit-unfavourable-trade-winds

So, the steel crisis. Pretty rough for the 40,000 or so people whose jobs are on the line.

The EU wanted to do something about China dumping cheap steel onto the market through tarrifs, but the UK government veto'd the plan.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about when I speak of seeing the UK as a drag on the proper functioning of the European Union. I hope this is highlighted and questions are asked in your parliament about it.

That can't be right surely? I thought that all legislation in the EU was done by faceless bureaucrats? Are you implying that not only did our government have the ability to do something about this issue, but that they also actively defeated in order to cosy up to China?

Seriously though, when you say "UK Government" do you mean the actual tory government? or our MEPs? Because immediately overturning EU legislation for the hell of it does sound like something or UKIP MEPs might do.

 Da Boss wrote:
. I hope this is highlighted and questions are asked in your parliament about it.

https://twitter.com/spencerstokestv/status/715474974446751746

Bidding for Northern Pwrhouse minister intv, govt press officer says, "sorry how does steel issue affect the north, I thought it was Wales."

... we can but hope.

 Da Boss wrote:
So, the steel crisis. Pretty rough for the 40,000 or so people whose jobs are on the line.

The EU wanted to do something about China dumping cheap steel onto the market through tarrifs, but the UK government veto'd the plan.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about when I speak of seeing the UK as a drag on the proper functioning of the European Union. I hope this is highlighted and questions are asked in your parliament about it.

I thought the anti-dumping plan went through or are they still talking about it?

UK a drag? Hmmm. I think the current steel problems are a lot more complex than simply China dumping cheap steel on the market and flooding the global market. This is a very interesting take on it and points out the fact that, due to heavy handed and convoluted EU regs on energy and carbon reduction, our steel industry can't compete on the global market.

In fact, the UK hands are tied both by the EU energy regs as well as being prevented by EU rules from unilaterally bailing out our flagging industry. The best our politiicans can do is shrug their shoulders and say "Sorry guv..."

It's no real game changer to the debate but one could not help but sigh a little bit...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/30/daily-mail-editor-paul-dacre-received-88000-eu-subsidies-2014

The editor-in-chief of the Eurosceptic Daily Mail benefited from at least £88,000 in subsidies from the European Union for his country houses in Sussex and the Scottish highlands in 2014.

Payments from the EU totalling £59,534.85 were made in 2014 for Langwell estate, a 20,000-acre stretch of moorland near Ullapool in the Scottish Highlands owned by Paul Dacre. A further £29,118.76 was paid to a P Dacre in respect of a home in Wadhurst, Sussex during the year.

The payments were made under the common agricultural policy, one of many EU institutions regularly attacked in the pages of the tabloid.

The payments for Langwell, first unearthed by BuzzFeed, come on top of almost half a million euros the estate received between 2011 and 2012 from the funds set up under the CAP.

Governments are only required to list CAP payments covering the most recent financial year, however Farmsubsidy.org, which archives the records, lists payments totalling €179,267 for the property in 2011, rising to €300,408 the following year.

Under today’s exchange rates, Dacre has benefited from at least £460,000 in subsidies since 2011.

One cannot help but think that if, say, an MP had been caught indulging in such behaviour then certain newspapers might him them a bit of a hard time perhaps ..?

The steel industry will be preserved in one form or another. It's too crucial to national defence to let slip.

 Ketara wrote:
The steel industry will be preserved in one form or another. It's too crucial to national defence to let slip.

I think you over estimate the competency of British politicians.

Which decision will make the Sterling go down so that FW is more affordable for us Canadians? :p

 Crazyterran wrote:
Which decision will make the Sterling go down so that FW is more affordable for us Canadians? :p

BREXIT is the one for you.