EU referendum June 23rd

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.

**Goliath**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
National Sovereignty > Economics.

Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.
Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.

Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.

Ah, okay. So "Wish to create a federated super-state" is now equivalent to "Loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state"? Got it. Glad we've managed to sort out the issue, which is evidently that you've forgotten that words actually have definitions beyond "It means what I want it to mean"! See, those two sentences actually have two entirely different meanings.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.

The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.

Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!

Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!

Eh. He started off reasonably well, but fell apart when his predictions and plans for growth didn't quite pan out, and that meant he had to choose between doing what was best for the country, and what was best for the Conservative party. Naturally, he chose the latter, and resurrected the demons of PFI, slashing support from those who really needed it, and figure juggling to hide it.

Having said that, his economic stewardship is still better than Broon's was, but I'm really not sure how much of a ringing endorsement that is. Osborne's a mediocre chancellor at best, he has an alright grasp of the issues involved, but little imagination (or desire to express it) when things don't go according to plan.

Certainly, I wouldn't trust any of his predictions here, he seems to have enough trouble predicting three years into the future when he's already Chancellor and there are few bumps. That doesn't imply much skill at determining the economic consequences of ...well anything, really.

So essentially, you're agreeing with me?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.

Oh sure, because the Remain campaign are all angels who never stoop to making petty personal insults...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
National Sovereignty > Economics.

Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.
Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.

Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.
Ah, okay. So "Wish to create a federated super-state" is now equivalent to "Loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state"? Got it. Glad we've managed to sort out the issue, which is evidently that you've forgotten that words actually have definitions beyond "It means what I want it to mean"! See, those two sentences actually have two entirely different meanings.

Really, you're just embarrassing yourself now.

**Goliath**

Ketara wrote:
Goliath wrote:

Make. Better. Arguments.

I could point at the Five President's Report again, but considering you called the issue of sovereignty 'hyperbole' despite that, you don't seem to even believe it straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Unless of course, you were just addressing the comment about the government, in which case, fair play.

I'm not calling the issue of sovereignty hyperbole. It's one of the few arguments that the leave campaign is making that I actually agree is a valid point. My objection isn't to the argument about sovereignty, it's that people in this thread keep on making vast sweeping statements that aren't fact in order to muddy the remain side, and it's just gotten tedious.

Feel free to argue for Britain's sovereignty, it is (in my opinion) the main way that Leave can win the debate, just do it without going "The EU supports a european superstate (BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER)".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.

Oh sure, because the Remain campaign are all angels who never stoop to making petty personal insults...

I'm sure they have in the wider scheme of thing; I'd be surprised if they hadn't. In this thread though?

Goliath wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
National Sovereignty > Economics.

Our Government, and especially EU bureaucrats loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state.
Or, y'know, you could make points without needless hyperbole.

Thats not hyperbole...diminishing national sovereignty to create a federal European superstate is the core aim of the European union. Its hardly a secret.
Ah, okay. So "Wish to create a federated super-state" is now equivalent to "Loathe the very concept of a sovereign nation state"? Got it. Glad we've managed to sort out the issue, which is evidently that you've forgotten that words actually have definitions beyond "It means what I want it to mean"! See, those two sentences actually have two entirely different meanings.

Really, you're just embarrassing yourself now.

Because it's not a valid point somehow? Going "You're making yourself look stupid" doesn't change the fact that you seem to not understand that words have very specific definitions that you have been consistently ignoring in order to throw insults at the Remain side.

**Ketara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

So essentially, you're agreeing with me?

More or less, but adding some qualification/reasoning.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

So your main contribution to this thread now is tone policing?

My objection isn't to the argument about sovereignty, it's that people in this thread keep on making vast sweeping statements that aren't fact in order to muddy the remain side, and it's just gotten tedious.

What did you expect? This is a wargaming forum. Not the Oxford University debating society. People don't always have the time and inclination to make well researched, fact checked and well cited essays to express their views.

Feel free to argue for Britain's sovereignty, it is (in my opinion) the main way that Leave can win the debate, just do it without going "The EU supports a european superstate (BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER)".

[RULE #1 - Alpharius]

. You lecture me for the tone of my comments and mock me for using hyperhole, then characterize my comment as BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER"?

Practice what you preach.

**Goliath**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Oh God. Osborne says we're all going to lose our jobs now if we leave the EU.

The stupid thing is that I saw someone saying his next announcement would be that yesterday. Only it was a joke. Which just came true.

Seriously, what's next? Toilet paper shortages like Venezuela? The resurrection of Gary Glitter's career? Invasion by Nazis from their secret Moon base? Stay tuned for the next spin of Osborne's 'Prediction of Doom' wheel!

Whilst being in the EU, and under Osborne's stewardship, we've had economic woes, so his claim, as always, is frankly silly!

To be fair, "Economic woes" is relative. We've had consistent economic woes that I regularly criticise Osborne for, but even I won't pretend that they're on the same scale as Zimbabwe's, for exampl.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Feel free to argue for Britain's sovereignty, it is (in my opinion) the main way that Leave can win the debate, just do it without going "The EU supports a european superstate (BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER)".

You fething hypocrite. . You lecture me for the tone of my comments and mock me for using hyperhole, then characterize my comment as BECAUSE THEY'RE HITLER"?

Practice what you preach.

An example of "Here's what you shouldn't do" is not me saying "Here's what you said". Going "Don't use hyperbole. Don't say '[Hyperbole]', for example" is not itself using hyperbole.

And no, my main contribution to thread has actually been me trying to get people to make better arguments by playing Devil's Advocate. This decision is important, and I'd quite like it to be made through actual reasoning rather than constantly misrepresenting the opposition and making illogical conclusions.

**Alpharius**

RULE #1 - IT REALLY DOES APPLY AT ALL TIMES, IN ALL PLACES.

**Future War Cultist**

Goliath wrote: I mean, sure, your opposition will clearly support your side if you misrepresent their arguments, that's Mildly-Dishonest Internet Argumentation 101.

How the hell am I misrepresenting their arguments?

Goliath wrote: Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.

110% sure. It's hardly a ridiculous allegation since I spoke to a group of these types in person.

Goliath wrote:Make. Better. Arguments.

Fine.

Falling house prices, which the remain side forecast in the event of brexit, will make it easier for all those young people who are currently priced out of the market. And whilst raising wages might be bad for employers (I don't think I have to go into why its good for employees), it can be offset by a reduction in taxes and red tape, which we're free to fully control outside of the EU.

That good enough for you?

**notprop**

Falling house prices.......Good enough for me to vote out.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

notprop wrote:
Falling house prices.......Good enough for me to vote out.

Whoa, hang about! I smell a vested interest here!

Didn't you say you were in the building industry, so lower house prices = more people able to buy houses = more demand = more work for you!

Notprop is in the pockets of the building industry who back a No vote.

Don't listen to him!

**notprop**

Gotta go, those ~~sweat shops~~........err affordable housing units for orphans wont build themselves!

**Goliath**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Goliath wrote: Do they? Do they really? Are you 100% sure about that statement? Or is this yet another incident in this cesspool of a thread of stupid fething insults being just thrown at the remain side? "If we make up enough ridiculous allegations that they murder grandmothers for sport, I'm sure someone will believe us!.

110% sure. It's hardly a ridiculous allegation since I spoke to a group of these types in person.

Okay, so just to clarify, you feel that you can make the statement that remainers as a whole "think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them"? That's the declaration that you're making based on the fact that you "spoke to a group of these types in person"?

**notprop**

So the Ex-Generals are for Brexit because the EU policy undermines NATO compliance and will lead to a European Army.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36371104

The In campaign have the IFS predicting 2 more years of Austerity, no change there then.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Interesting story on Radio 4 this morning.

John Redwood admitting that the "£350m a day" savings are a fantasy. He said he thought it would be half that amount. yesterday, I noticed another Brexit organisation put it at 40% of that amount.

When you start admitting in public that your propaganda is fantasy, you're probably already looking out for a bunker to hide in.

I'm looking forward to the fallout between all these future failures. It would be especially sweet if Boris, who saw this as the perfect vehicle for his leadership campaign, despite not believing in the cause, is wiped out as a contender.

**zedmeister**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I'm looking forward to the fallout between all these future failures. It would be especially sweet if Boris, who saw this as the perfect vehicle for his leadership campaign, despite not believing in the cause, is wiped out as a contender.

As mentioned earlier (and I don't single you out for this), and as I regularly caution to anyone who listens to my drivelings, don't fall into the trap of deciding to vote one way because of a dislike of personality on one side - this is too important for that.

Either way, regardless of the referendum result, there'll be blood letting in the Tory party. Should remain prevail, the local associations won't forgive those who got voted in on a brexit ticket and backed remain. Osbourne's ambitions (he's the current puller of strings in the party) are pretty much nobbled - he's already drastically unpopular in the party and his ratings continues to plummet. Should leave prevail, there'll be a big cull and the knives will definitely be out for Cameron and Osbourne.

So, after the vote, break out the popcorn!

**Future War Cultist**

Goliath wrote:Okay, so just to clarify, you feel that you can make the statement that remainers as a whole "think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them"? That's the declaration that you're making based on the fact that you "spoke to a group of these types in person"?

I'm going to go ahead and stop responding to you.

**Goliath**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Goliath wrote:Okay, so just to clarify, you feel that you can make the statement that remainers as a whole "think that they have the right to get violent against people who hold different opinions to them"? That's the declaration that you're making based on the fact that you "spoke to a group of these types in person"?

I'm going to go ahead and stop responding to you.

Why? Those are direct quotes from your comment.

If you misspoke then fine, cop to it and move on, but otherwise you're stating that half the people in this country are opposed to free speech on the basis of their opinions on the EU, which is messed up.

**zedmeister**

And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.

**Goliath**

Wow. The comments section on that article is... out there.

Either way, does that not still require the consent of the MEPs?

**notprop**

With most EU nations already in the EMU wont it just be a case of them pretty much rubber stamping it.

Brits can lobby against it but that could be a futile gesture given the likely hood of those in the EMU to not back out now.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

zedmeister wrote:
And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.

Well done. Maintains the standard that alongside the paranoid fantasies (the only fact there is consistent tax ID numbering across Europe, which would benefit me hugely by eliminating double-taxing) there is the obligatory mis-spelling of the word "sovereignty"

I wouldn't normally point out spelling errors, but is this the standard spelling on a UKIP website somewhere? Someone on Facebook posted this, this morning: "the whole Brexit idea is not about money but sovereignity that is lost now to an totalitarian institution as is the EU with its' commission (who voted them in?) and parliament (without any real democratic powers). These people can't even speak and understand English properly."

Beyond parody, I'd say!

**Goliath**

notprop wrote:
So the Ex-Generals are for Brexit because the EU policy undermines NATO compliance and will lead to a European Army.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36371104

The In campaign have the IFS predicting 2 more years of Austerity, no change there then.

This would be the IFS that various members of the leave campaign have consistently hailed as being fair and independent?

And I believe the implication was two *additional* years of austerity, in that however long the recovery takes (because obviously that'll be this century) will be two years longer than it otherwise would be.

**zedmeister**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.

Well done. Maintains the standard that alongside the paranoid fantasies (the only fact there is consistent tax ID numbering across Europe, which would benefit me hugely by eliminating double-taxing) there is the obligatory mis-spelling of the word "sovereignty"

I wouldn't normally point out spelling errors, but is this the standard spelling on a UKIP website somewhere? Someone on Facebook posted this, this morning: "the whole Brexit idea is not about money but sovereignity that is lost now to an totalitarian institution as is the EU with its' commission (who voted them in?) and parliament (without any real democratic powers). These people can't even speak and understand English properly."

Beyond parody, I'd say!

Eh? Of all the objections to what I posted you pick out my atrocious spelling (yes, I did type that in and no, I don't visit UKIP sites and the like)?

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

zedmeister wrote:

Eh? Of all the objections to what I posted you pick out my atrocious spelling (yes, I did type that in and no, I don't visit UKIP sites and the like)?

It was a low blow personally, I admit, but it illustrates a larger point, that those who proclaim themself the most British tend to have the poorest command of the language, as shown by a third party quote.

Secondly, I did address the main point; a common tax ID would be a good thing. It stops something called with-holding tax which is a real problem. Every time I get money from Poland, Spain, Germany I have to fill out tax forms, it would be great if we could stop that.

**zedmeister**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
It was a low blow personally, I admit, but it illustrates a larger point, that those who proclaim themself the most British tend to have the poorest command of the language, as shown by a third party quote.

Secondly, I did address the main point; a common tax ID would be a good thing. It stops something called with-holding tax which is a real problem. Every time I get money from Poland, Spain, Germany I have to fill out tax forms, it would be great if we could stop that.

If you can find a post in this thread where I was drum beating and going on patriotic rants about "Britishness", johnny foreigner, etc, etc, then show me and I will apologise. Also, I fail to understand how spelling relates to being British. Surely that's a question of cultural identity, not a flippin' spelling test? Otherwise your 'point' veers towards argumentum ad hominem.

As to your second point (or first depending on which post), I can see why it would be useful to those working cross-border. On the tax avoidance point, it goes without saying that a business or individual hellbent on avoiding tax has all sorts of trickery to move money between different non-eu nations. Though, just spotted an article and looks like Ireland, UK and other nations are looking to reject the new rules at present.

**Ketara**

zedmeister wrote:
And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.

I'm trying to find a primary source/report for this and having real difficulty. I found the results of a consultation held two years ago, and another unsourced article about it on somewhere called 'The Daily Squib', but not a single news source reporting anything from last night. Anyone?

**notprop**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
zedmeister wrote:

Eh? Of all the objections to what I posted you pick out my atrocious spelling (yes, I did type that in and no, I don't visit UKIP sites and the like)?

It was a low blow personally, I admit, but it illustrates a larger point, that those who proclaim themself the most British tend to have the poorest command of the language, as shown by a third party quote.

What a load of old tosh!

it would only illustrate that you would put your own (perceived) more eloquent missives above those what darn't talk lik U?

Not a Kipper myself but dismissing 14M of your countrymen on your perceived view of their spelling is not a convincing argument for anything..

**Antario**

Ketara wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.

I'm trying to find a primary source/report for this and having real difficulty. I found the results of a consultation held two years ago, and another unsourced article about it on somewhere called 'The Daily Squib', but not a single news source reporting anything from last night. Anyone?

The consultation on TIN was indeed in may 2013 and the Irish paper referred to the one in January on corporate tax standards http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/consultations/tax/index_en.htm

**zedmeister**

Ketara wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
And so, the groundwork for the first steps outlined in the Five Presidents report begins:- Full Fiscal Union. If this isn't a stripping of a nations sovereignity, the right to control their own tax and affairs, then I don't know what is.

I'm trying to find a primary source/report for this and having real difficulty. I found the results of a consultation held two years ago, and another unsourced article about it on somewhere called 'The Daily Squib', but not a single news source reporting anything from last night. Anyone?

Only other source I could find was the Irish times mention. This is looking a bit like a vote leave timed news dump and the debate the other night was just that - a debate, which I fell for