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.
2016/06/20 08:21:40
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
notprop wrote: Yeah, we got the ignorant Yank side of things when Obama was over here recently. Didn't need a repeat thank you.
Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Just as an example, on social media, 30,000 people have spread a meme which says
" Pythagoras’ Theory – 24 words
· Lords’ Prayer – 66 words
· Archimedes Principle – 67 words
· Ten Commandments - 179 words
· Gettysburg Address – 267 words
· US Declaration of Independence – 1,321 words
· Magna Carta (including signatures) – 3,856 words
· EU regulations on sale and trade of cabbages – 26,253 words"
Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/20 08:22:24
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm from a Catholic family in Belfast. I'm the only one voting to leave in my family. They tell me that the reasons why they're voting to stay is because they're worried that the money the EU invests here will not be given by the British government if we leave the EU, that the boarder between here and the Republic will be closed if we leave, and that they genuinely believe the British government will hammer us without the EU as a retraining bolt. That last one is important. My brother and father are very anti-British government but for different reasons. My brother is a typical socialist Corbyn fanboy student, and my dad is from the 'Troubles' generation. I'm struggling to get through to them, because they won't even let me talk. They both drown me out the second I try to put a point across. I don't think I can persuade them to change their mind.
I agree with them; the Tories have shown no interest in spreading wealth anywhere; all of the regeneration/infrastructure investment that isn't directly linked to London has come from the EU. I'm firmly in, because I've got a pretty good suspicion what'll happen if the tories get to run unchecked, and I haven't heard anything from the out campaign that's significant enough to negate it.
2016/06/20 08:44:46
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
What fraud?
2016/06/20 08:53:27
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
What fraud?
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
There is not an equivalence on both sides. One might well have purposely made the future economic scenario look worse; the other has wilfully misrepresented the present . Those are very different beasts.
If I point out that Boris Johnson was sacked for making up facts in the Times, perhaps you'd infer that's attacking the person. But it's necessary information for voters to make a choice and to judge his credibility. Including the lie on the side of his bus.
There is not an equivalence on both sides. One might well have purposely made the future economic scenario look worse; the other has wilfully misrepresented the present . Those are very different beasts.
If I point out that Boris Johnson was sacked for making up facts in the Times, perhaps you'd infer that's attacking the person. But it's necessary information for voters to make a choice and to judge his credibility. Including the lie on the side of his bus.
Inaccurate? Probably. Spin? Most definitely. Fraud? God no, the leave campaign has committed no criminal offence.
As for equivalence, neither side actually have a clue as to what would happen in the future in either case. From Leaves £350m a week cigarette packet calculations (failing to take account of the rebate) to Remains economic predictions in 2030(!), there's been plenty of dishonesty.
I'll leave questions on certain high profile individuals credibility aside - I'm sure we have plenty of opinions on certain figures in this campaign (Osbourne, for me, has been the worst, most despicable character in this whole campaign. But that's just me).
2016/06/20 09:16:49
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
As for equivalence, neither side actually have a clue as to what would happen in the future in either case. From Leaves £350m a week cigarette packet calculations (failing to take account of the rebate) to Remains economic predictions in 2030(!), there's been plenty of dishonesty.
failing to take account of the rebate is a good point. It either shows complete lack of financial understanding (incompetence), or a deliberate omission to make their point (malice). A good equivalent I heard was that it was the same as saying a pint of beer costs £20 in London, if you pay with a £20 note and don't consider the change you get (about £15?). I'd count that as being fraudulent; it's deliberately presenting an obvious lie, in order for direct benefit (votes).
a 14-year prediction is always going to be a bit iffy, since we can't predict more than 5 minutes ahead.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/20 09:20:13
2016/06/20 09:45:32
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
failing to take account of the rebate is a good point. It either shows complete lack of financial understanding (incompetence), or a deliberate omission to make their point (malice). A good equivalent I heard was that it was the same as saying a pint of beer costs £20 in London, if you pay with a £20 note and don't consider the change you get (about £15?). I'd count that as being fraudulent; it's deliberately presenting an obvious lie, in order for direct benefit (votes).
a 14-year prediction is always going to be a bit iffy, since we can't predict more than 5 minutes ahead.
It's actually even worse (but I like the analogy) - the change is more like the direct grants that we get from the EU - the rebate (seeing as that money never actually leaves these shores or gets paid anywhere) is more like the pint being £3.00 instead of £5.00 because it's happy hour.
Well, the last few days are upon us, the polls are neck and neck, and the scare stories have been cranked up to 11!
Keep the faith
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/06/20 11:16:53
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
There is not an equivalence on both sides. One might well have purposely made the future economic scenario look worse; the other has wilfully misrepresented the present .
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3?
Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world?
Or when they said it would immediately trigger a uk recession?
Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?
The reason that figure is important is because it counts toward the EU 'economy' which the EU debt model is based on - it's how they get their credit rating as a nation and any extra money under their control increases the available borrowing which merkel is planning to use to 'rescue' the Greek economy.
Otherwise the would be no point in giving a rebate and we would be contributing less initially.
The difference between the two sides is that a few of the things for the remain side have been 'polytricks' whereas everything i've heared cameron or osbourne say in the media has been proven to be lies in this thread and refuted with supplied links.
The manner in which the EU has represented itself in regards to the referendum has been churlish and negative from start to finish - why do they think we will respond to threats? are they used to that?
If i was in the EU trying to convince someone to stay, i would be saying nothing but positive things; but we have seen nothing but threats, warnings, and predictions of doom and gloom forever after.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
2016/06/20 11:36:02
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3?
Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world?
Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?.
I don't recall seeing any of those claims from a credible source. Maybe I've been too isolated from it? Did anyone seriously mention a collapse or war?
Though I do think it's fair to say that in terms of defence, we're a lot better working *with* our neighbours - we can share information, experience, training and facilities. Though even if we split from the EU, I assume most of that will still apply but with a bit more red tape.
Or when they said it would immediately trigger a uk recession?
Isn't that essentially the only thing both sides agree on? At least, that we'll all be financially worse off, if not in a technical recession?
Stock market has already taken a hit based on the uncertainty of it all.
2016/06/20 11:41:49
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3? Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world? Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?.
I don't recall seeing any of those claims from a credible source. Maybe I've been too isolated from it? Did anyone seriously mention a collapse or war?
David Cameron (War). Donald Tusk (Collapse of the EU and Western civilization). Pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign (An independent Britain can't survive).
So yea, isolated is putting it lightly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/20 11:46:15
2016/06/20 11:48:56
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
What fraud?
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3?
Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world?
Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?.
I don't recall seeing any of those claims from a credible source.
War came from David Cameron
Collapse of western world from Donald Tusk
Yep - I agree with you, they haven't come from a credible source.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/20 11:50:12
2016/06/20 11:51:02
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
Pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign (An independent Britain can't survive).
You know how you don't like it when the Remain side uses hyperbole? Yeah, about that...
Ok then. I challenge you to cite a prominent figure (i.e. a politician, economist etc) in the Remain campaign who does think that Britain can succeed as an independent nation. When you do that, I will admit and withdraw said hyperbole.
Otherwise, its not hyperbole.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/20 11:58:30
2016/06/20 12:02:23
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
I'm not the one making a claim. The onus is on you to prove that "pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign" believes that "an independent Britain can't survive". Do note that pessimistic predictions about the future is not the same as arguing that the UK cannot survive without the EU.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2016/06/20 12:06:42
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
What fraud?
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
Just had some more literature through the post from leave. It has thrown up another interesting question.
Paraphrasing its asks what you would do if the vote was to enter the EU rather than leave.
On that hypothesis remarks from the remain campaign look even worse than they do now.
if we do not enter there will be war.
If we do not enter there will be financial collapse
If we do not enter there will be an increased risk from terrorism.
If we do not enter will have to beg the EU for trade deals.
We would also have to pay into the EU to prop up countries who are in debt.
We would also be entering at a time when the leaders of the EU have admitted that their planning and timing have been wrong and that the EU needs serious reform.
Doesn't sound like an organisation I would like to join.
2016/06/20 12:17:35
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
Pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign (An independent Britain can't survive).
You know how you don't like it when the Remain side uses hyperbole? Yeah, about that...
Absolutely - hyperbole has no place in this discussion.
I don't need to use hyperbole because the facts are pretty damning as they are.
Whether the average voter is bothered enough to read through that crap is what this referendum is hinging on - i went to the effort of reading the five presidents report, i had a look into the secret meetings they hold, i read a whole load of juncker/tusks speeches to the EU and i waded through the mass of reports on the EU plan for dealing with the Greek and Italian economies; and it was alarming how dismissive these people are of alternative opinions.
Here is a snippet from a speech made by donald tusk at the 40th meeting of the EPP or the 'european peoples party'...
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm.
in the same speech he also said this...
A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world.
Like, holy feth dude! his intention is to start imposing values on the entire world.
How is russia going to respond to that?!? or china for that matter?!?
Peace in our time?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
2016/06/20 12:23:24
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world.
Like, holy feth dude! his intention is to start imposing values on the entire world.
How is russia going to respond to that?!? or china for that matter?!?
Peace in our time?
Did you actually read this speech? He is criticising those who hold these "utopian" ideas, not stating them as his intention!
More integration is not the answer to the current crises faced by Europe, EU Council president Donald Tusk has warned.
He said on Monday European politicians were “confronting reality with all kinds of utopian ideas”.
“A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of a Euro-Asian unity," he told an event marking the 40th anniversary of the conservative European People's Party (EPP) in Luxembourg.
The former Polish prime minister warned that those advocating for stronger and quicker European integration fail to understand the voice of the people.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
2016/06/20 12:28:48
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
When I go to the pub and it's Happy Hour, the reduced price (£5 -> £3 to copy the example above) is what I pay - the fact that next week they might change it DOES NOT STOP THE FACT THAT THE REDUCED PRICE OF £3 IS WHAT I AM PAYING THIS WEEK, NOT £5.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/20 12:30:36
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
When I go to the pub and it's Happy Hour, the reduced price (£5 -> £3 to copy the example above) is what I pay - the fact that next week they might change it DOES NOT STOP THE FACT THAT THE REDUCED PRICE OF £3 IS WHAT I AM PAYING THIS WEEK, NOT £5.
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
2016/06/20 12:38:56
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
Did you actually read this speech? He is criticising those who hold these "utopian" ideas, not stating them as his intention!
More integration is not the answer to the current crises faced by Europe, EU Council president Donald Tusk has warned.
He said on Monday European politicians were “confronting reality with all kinds of utopian ideas”.
“A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of a Euro-Asian unity," he told an event marking the 40th anniversary of the conservative European People's Party (EPP) in Luxembourg.
The former Polish prime minister warned that those advocating for stronger and quicker European integration fail to understand the voice of the people.
Yes i did, i can tell you didn't though because thats not the speech, this is...
Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now.
Why bother taking a journalists biased article about the speech when you can just read the speech directly from the EU website?
So not only has this meglalomaniac got ideas on bossing the world around at the expense of our security, he regards reality as needing to be 'confronted' with his 'united states of europeland' fantasy.
Because thats exactly what it is - a fantasy that we will have to pay for. literally.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
2016/06/20 12:40:16
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
When I go to the pub and it's Happy Hour, the reduced price (£5 -> £3 to copy the example above) is what I pay - the fact that next week they might change it DOES NOT STOP THE FACT THAT THE REDUCED PRICE OF £3 IS WHAT I AM PAYING THIS WEEK, NOT £5.
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
We disagree on the meaning of fraudulent then - if the authors also knew that it would mislead most readers (and let's be honest, they did), then they are making a fraudulent claim.
In this case, Happy Hour has been running for 31 years (started in 1985) I think that's long enough for it to be relied on as a pretty regular thing no? It's not like it's a one off reduction to keep the UK sweet in referendum year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias.
I think this is the key line, and we differ on our interpretation - you think Trusk is saying that this is a good thing, and I think he is arguing the point that it is a bad thing. I think at this point we shrug at each other and each assumes the other has poor reading comprehension.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/20 12:44:11
So not only has this meglalomaniac got ideas on bossing the world around at the expense of our security, he regards reality as needing to be 'confronted' with his 'united states of europeland' fantasy.
Because thats exactly what it is - a fantasy that we will have to pay for. literally.
He's saying that he's part of the people that are responsible for having tried to ignore reality in order to create a utopia, not that this should be the case.
Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euro-scepticism, or even Euro-pessimism have become an alternative to those illusions. And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it. We need to understand the necessity of the historical moment. As the President of the European Council I want to start an honest and open debate on the subject. The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provides a good background for such a debate.
You can't just snip out the second part of the argument being made. When looked at together, Tusk is arguing that they've tried to hard to create a utopia and that this has led to a disconnect with reality. It's essentially the main issue the Leave campaign has with Europe, but you've somehow managed to misread it as though Tusk wants to ignore reality and keep going. I have no idea how you managed to do that, but it does you no credit.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2016/06/20 12:55:59
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
THis is such an interesting area.
Firstly, "we might have to pay at some point in the future" is not the same as "we pay."
We do not pay that £350m Some dodgy types claim that we "get the money back later" but that's not true. We don't pay the larger amount and get a cashback. We pay the lesser amount. (For instance, as the Telegraph puts it, "the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all."
Secondly, some folk like to claim that because we might have to pay this amount in the future, than we're really paying it now (I know, incredible, but some people are dodgy enough to claim that.).
We have a veto on a change on the rebate.
So, the truth about that £90m or so, is we don't pay it, and we will only lose this discount if we volunteer to pay more.
We don't need analogies about beer. We don't pay £350m.
It's not open to interpretation! heres the speech!
Spoiler:
Dear President Joseph Daul, dear friends,
People celebrate anniversaries in order to remember. What should we, Christian Democrats, remember when we celebrate the fortieth anniversary of our political community? First and foremost, we should remember why we are together, and what the real reason behind creating a one-party family was. Today we often refer to ourselves as a party of results, not a party of ideology but this is too little to survive in good shape for the next forty years. The need for a deeper reflection of a historical, ideological and political nature is obvious. Proud as we are of our pragmatism, we must also remember that pragmatism itself does not constitute the foundations of our community.
Today, I want to tell you about the three, to my mind, most important challenges currently facing the European People's Party. First, we must redefine our fundamental catalogue of values, the minimum of Christian democracy, so to speak. And by this I do not mean the need for some ideological inventions, but rather a conscious and very seriously taken return to our roots.
It has been forty years exactly since I started my studies at the University of Gdańsk. It was precisely at the same time when the communists once again brutally crushed workers' protests and strikes in several Polish cities. In reaction to those events, a small group of Warsaw intellectuals and dissidents established the so-called KOR, the Workers' Defense Committee, an initiative to help the imprisoned, the injured and those thrown out of work. Illegal students' committees were also being set up at some universities. We didn't know at the time that four years later the great 10-million-strong Solidarity movement would come to life.
When I set up such an underground student committee at my University in 1977, I was not thinking about politics as an art of achieving results. It was difficult to call that activity pragmatic, as it was strictly connected with taking a risk. On the other hand, however, it was an exciting experience, if not mystical. And that's because in those days ethics came before politics, or, to put it differently, political engagement was a result of exclusively ethical motives. Paradoxically, this is precisely what in the longer-term perspective became a source of strength and effectiveness.
It was also then that we were discovering forbidden words and ideas: liberty, democracy, freedom of religion and expression, the rule of law, free market and private property. It is not a feeling of nostalgia that makes me go back to the old times, but a deep conviction that those values are still relevant in the Christian democratic minimum. Do they sound old-fashioned and banal? They do. But this is where their strength lies. We do not need further constructivist and progressive ideologies. Socialists are much better at this. Let us again believe in those ideas which are rooted in our tradition of freedom, in the Decalogue, in our hearts and experiences. What we lack today is a new energy and genuine determination to defend them.
Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euro-scepticism, or even Euro-pessimism have become an alternative to those illusions. And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it. We need to understand the necessity of the historical moment. As the President of the European Council I want to start an honest and open debate on the subject. The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provides a good background for such a debate.
The third challenge concerns ourselves. Let me be absolutely blunt when I tell you what I think about the internal situation in the EPP, in our political party. Before I start, however, I want to make an important declaration: I am terribly proud to be in the same party with such people as Joseph Daul and Angela Merkel, as Viktor Orban and Manfred Weber, as Jean-Claude Juncker and Boyko Borissov. That they are different from each other is clear. Just look at Boyko and Jean-Claude. But differences should not mean conflicts. There is space in the EPP for different sensitivities and different tactics as long as we share the same values and a common strategy. When you look at it objectively, there is no conflict between the idea of strict respect for the rules, e.g. Schengen, and solidarity with the refugees. In addition to that, Europe needs a wise synthesis of those two values. If we succeed in building it, people will believe that we are able to cope with this or another crisis. Speaking openly, we will either understand that the views of Angela and Viktor are compatible with each other and only together can they provide a full answer, or people will search for other radical and brutal recipes for how to solve the crisis. We have to look for what we share, and not underline our differences. That is why let us refrain from exaggerated rhetoric, because exaggeration, in whichever direction, is a heavy sin in politics.
If we want a united Europe, a Europe of Solidarity, we must start with ourselves. One of the great moral authorities, John Paul the Second said that Solidarity is never one against the other. Solidarity is always one with the other, together. When one is a Christian Democrat, it is sometimes worth listening to the Pope.
At no point does he say that the message needs to change. thats what he was working for and its what he remains working for.
Today, I want to tell you about the three, to my mind, most important challenges currently facing the European People's Party.
The closest he gets to what you're claiming is this...
The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it.
...Where he says that a vision of a federal state is not the answer to the risk of the EU breaking upnot that he's against the idea of a 'united states of europeland'.
He also said this in the speech...
That is why let us refrain from exaggerated rhetoric, because exaggeration, in whichever direction, is a heavy sin in politics.
which is why he said WW3 would start upon brexit.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
2016/06/20 13:05:51
Subject: EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
THis is such an interesting area.
Firstly, "we might have to pay at some point in the future" is not the same as "we pay."
We do not pay that £350m Some dodgy types claim that we "get the money back later" but that's not true. We don't pay the larger amount and get a cashback. We pay the lesser amount. (For instance, as the Telegraph puts it, "the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all."
Secondly, some folk like to claim that because we might have to pay this amount in the future, than we're really paying it now (I know, incredible, but some people are dodgy enough to claim that.).
We have a veto on a change on the rebate.
So, the truth about that £90m or so, is we don't pay it, and we will only lose this discount if we volunteer to pay more.
We don't need analogies about beer. We don't pay £350m.
But it is the fee - regardless of weather we get the rebate before or after the Gross fee for our being in the EU is £350mn - this is not a fraudulent claim, indeed this is supported by government figures.
Maybe it isn't what we pay, but it is the Gross cost of our being in the EU.
There is an important difference between misleading and fraudulent. A Fraudulent claim could lead to the referendum being challenged in the event of a Brexit, whilst a misleading one cannot as people should have done their own investigation. Thus a Fraudulent claim would be the cost of EU membership is £500mn per week (which it isn’t) whilst a misleading claim is that it is £350mn per week (which it technically is but doesn’t take account of the rebate)
Even as an outer I agree that the claim is misleading, but it isn’t fraudulent as the Gross cost of being in the EU is £350mn per week
2016/06/20 13:12:16
Subject: Re:EU referendum June 23rd : Reality ends, page 53
So...fraudulent = making misleading but technically true claims that don't tell the whole truth? By that logic, the Remain side are also making "fraudulent" claims. After all, David Cameron is not above using spin and cherry picking facts that favour his arguments whilst ignoring others.
I've been mocked for using hyperbole, but isn't this hyperbole too?
At best, the £350m figure is misleading, because its not the whole truth. But it is not fraudulent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/20 13:12:59
