Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Leading "Vote Leave" campaigner switches sides due to lies and deceit Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the leave campaign is such a joke, the only people who would vote leave are those who have succumbed to their irrational fears. They sell feelings not facts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You said
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    ... pensioners... will be motivated by racism, etc, which is why the Leavers are firmly using race/immigration as their main argument.
    I put it to you that you some (not all) of you soi disant "progressives "can't help yourselves. You are so obsessed with race, you see everything though the prism of perceived "racism" that you must play that card again and again and again.It never goes back in the pack, you have it in your hand all the time

    It is deeply tiresome.

    Getting on for half the country, who vote, are going to vote for exit. That means almost half the country is racist

    Racism as a political construct will soon totally lose its moral force. You will pull the card out of your hand and find it no longer wins the trick.

    If it is racist to want immigration controls and to vote leave (that isn't the major reason I am going to vote leave but for the sake of argument) then I am "racist" in your terms.

    So what?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Not everyone who votes leave is a racist. But I think it should be noted that every racist extremist group in Britain from Britain First/ Bnp to the SWP support brexit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Not everyone who votes leave is a racist. But I think it should be noted that every racist extremist group in Britain from Britain First/ Bnp to the SWP support brexit.
    Ahh yes, if you can't argue your point across and they don't agree with you, you can always call them a racist.

    Is this normal lefty thinking? Because I seem to see it from them a fair bit and it furthers suspicion that some of them might be utter morons.

    Most people who are voting remain seem, appear to be or are on the left.

    I'm not bothered what people vote, as long as they reached their descision through careful thought. There is no right or wrong as far as i'm concerned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh well. One potential political plant gone over to Remain in an act of childishness over one figure which is technically correct, and another two MPs declare themselves in favour of Leave (Dennis Skinner and some Liberal Democrat chap).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by floppycatfish96)
    The EU is not democratic. This alone is enough of a reason to get the hell out.
    No it's not. Democracy is inherently flawed and if you think the government is "democratic" because 32% of the country vote for them, you're simply humouring yourself.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    No it's not. Democracy is inherently flawed and if you think the government is "democratic" because 32% of the country vote for them, you're simply humouring yourself.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's a quirk of FPTP. The system usually works, but didn't this election around. We can, however, petition the government for a referendum on a PR or similar voting system and basically politically bind the parties into promising it in their manifesto if they want to get elected, much like we did the the EU referendum.

    The same cannot be said for the EU. They're not politically bound to the electorate, they don't need to do what we want them to in order to be elected.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EuanF)
    That's a quirk of FPTP. The system usually works, but didn't this election around. We can, however, petition the government for a referendum on a PR or similar voting system and basically politically bind the parties into promising it in their manifesto if they want to get elected, much like we did the the EU referendum.

    The same cannot be said for the EU. They're not politically bound to the electorate, they don't need to do what we want them to in order to be elected.
    There's no point petitioning, as far as the major parties are concerned the matter was settled 5 years ago, the only people who would actively try to get it implemented are those who Lowe out from FPTP, i.e. those with no say anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    silly **** dosent know what she is talking about. typical politician disconnected from the electorate living in her ivory tower, casting judgement down on the rest of us
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    That's a quirk of FPTP. The system usually works, but didn't this election around. We can, however, petition the government for a referendum on a PR or similar voting system and basically politically bind the parties into promising it in their manifesto if they want to get elected, much like we did the the EU referendum.

    The same cannot be said for the EU. They're not politically bound to the electorate, they don't need to do what we want them to in order to be elected.
    The system never works. It'll either be entirely unfair (i.e. 2005 and now), or will lead to coalition government (2011), even though it's designed to avoid that.

    You can make a petition, yes. What does that mean? It'll only succeed if the government want it to. They can easily reply with a generic answer just like they are doing all the time.

    The only thing that can actually protect you here are the courts, and the only reason they can do so is because of the EU. The government, or any party for that matter, will do whatever it feels is best, but that is not directly under your control.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...aign?CMP=fb_gu

    Even high-ranking Leave campaigners are saying the Leave campaign is full of ****, but somehow people still disagree. Crazy.
    I think shes been paid/blackmailed/coerced by the remain campain/David Cameron's team to change her mind. Shes lost her confidence.

    Nobody changes their mind just out of the blue, it's not normal. She looks very nervous and less confident when shes talking about why she changed her mind.

    I already told you this on my own thread.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    ^ another oh voting remain therefore must be corrupt :lol:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)
    I think shes been paid/blackmailed/coerced by the remain campain/David Cameron's team to change her mind. Shes lost her confidence.

    Nobody changes their mind just out of the blue, it's not normal. She looks very nervous and less confident when shes talking about why she changed her mind.

    I already told you this on my own thread.
    I think Boris Johnson and Michael Gove looked a bit nervous. Definitely been paid/blackmailed or coerced.

    Is there anyone in the Leave campaign that isn't there due to some nefarious conspiracy?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    I think Boris Johnson and Michael Gove looked a bit nervous. Definitely been paid/blackmailed or coerced.

    Is there anyone in the Leave campaign that isn't there due to some nefarious conspiracy?
    I wonder... someone must have gotten to Mann and Dennis Skinner, right? Two veteran Labour politicians with the interests of the working class at heart... wonder why they'd go to the side which is going to privatise the queen and sell the country?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Okay, then it's a fact that the EU gives us £9.5 billion a year. We'll be £9.5b/year worse off without the EU.

    How anyone can truly believe leaving the EU is best for our economy, our democracy and our country is beyond me.
    How old are you?

    Here is how it works:

    The UK's membership fee to the EU, in 2015 was £18 billion.
    18bil / 52 = 346 million.

    This is NOT the amount it paid.


    Thatcher negotiated somthing called the UK Rebate. It fluctuates and how much it is the EU is constantly debating. In 2015 this was nearly £5billion
    5bil / 52 = 96 million per week.

    This sum is deducted BEFORE we pay

    346 - 96 = 250 million per week

    This is the amount we actually pay in cold hard cash. 250mil per week or £13 billion per year.

    The EU then pays the UK investment of around £4.5billion So you can further deduct this from our membership fee.

    13 - 4.5 = 8.5

    HOWEVER; we don't have a say in how this is spent and the EU decides this. It consists mostly of CAP (Agriculture) payments to Farmers, the rest is spent on poorer areas, like Wales.

    So we're sitting at £8.5 billion net contribution or £163 million per week and in fact, this is the amount we paid to the EU in cold hard cash in 2015.

    Now, you can argue that since we deducted the investment from the cold hard cash, which we can't control, so is effectively not ours it could be removed from the calculations.

    8.5 + 4.5 = 13

    We're now back at £13 billion or £250 million a week.

    I should also add, that in 2005 the EU tried to have the UK Rebate abolished and has on many occasions tried to get it reduced. The UK used its veto power to prevent its scrappage.

    In a simple analogy:
    You give me £20. I say no, give me £15 instead.
    You give me £15, I take the £15.
    I then give you £5 back and tell you you can only buy carrots with it.

    It's convoluted, but the EU is convoluted and that's how the system works for membership payments for the UK.

    Either way, we are still the 2nd largest net contributor behind Germany. To say if we left we'd be 9.5bill worse off is bad maths at best and falacy at worst. That statement is not true.

    If we left, we'd actually gain control of the £4.5billion of EU investment, since we'd never give it to them in the first place and we woudn't pay membership, so we'd actually be £13 billion better off.

    One final point, membership fees is only part of this argument. It has to be weighted against any loss in trade and any possible decline in GDP. If we lost £15 billion in trade for example (which happens to be half our trade exports to Germany) then obviously we'd be £2bil out of pocket.

    So far, i've seen estimates of between -0.8 and +0.6 GDP change in the long run for a brexit scenario.

    TL;DR
    Either way, we are still the 2nd largest net contributor behind Germany. To say if we left we'd be 9.5bill worse off is bad maths at best and falacy at worst. That statement is not true.

    If we left, we'd actually gain control of the £4.5billion of EU investment, since we'd never give it to them in the first place and we woudn't pay membership, so we'd actually be £13 billion better off.

    This figure would have to be offset against any trade loss / GDP changes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malevolent)
    ^ another oh voting remain therefore must be corrupt :lol:
    Understandable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    How old are you?

    Here is how it works:

    The UK's membership fee to the EU, in 2015 was £18 billion.
    18bil / 52 = 346 million.

    This is NOT the amount it paid.


    Thatcher negotiated somthing called the UK Rebate. It fluctuates and how much it is the EU is constantly debating. In 2015 this was nearly £5billion
    5bil / 52 = 96 million per week.

    This sum is deducted BEFORE we pay

    346 - 96 = 250 million per week

    This is the amount we actually pay in cold hard cash. 250mil per week or £13 billion per year.

    The EU then pays the UK investment of around £4.5billion So you can further deduct this from our membership fee.

    13 - 4.5 = 8.5

    HOWEVER; we don't have a say in how this is spent and the EU decides this. It consists mostly of CAP (Agriculture) payments to Farmers, the rest is spent on poorer areas, like Wales.

    So we're sitting at £8.5 billion net contribution or £163 million per week and in fact, this is the amount we paid to the EU in cold hard cash in 2015.

    Now, you can argue that since we deducted the investment from the cold hard cash, which we can't control, so is effectively not ours it could be removed from the calculations.

    8.5 + 4.5 = 13

    We're now back at £13 billion or £250 million a week.

    I should also add, that in 2005 the EU tried to have the UK Rebate abolished and has on many occasions tried to get it reduced. The UK used its veto power to prevent its scrappage.

    In a simple analogy:
    You give me £20. I say no, give me £15 instead.
    You give me £15, I take the £15.
    I then give you £5 back and tell you you can only buy carrots with it.

    It's convoluted, but the EU is convoluted and that's how the system works for membership payments for the UK.

    Either way, we are still the 2nd largest net contributor behind Germany. To say if we left we'd be 9.5bill worse off is bad maths at best and falacy at worst. That statement is not true.

    If we left, we'd actually gain control of the £4.5billion of EU investment, since we'd never give it to them in the first place and we woudn't pay membership, so we'd actually be £13 billion better off.

    One final point, membership fees is only part of this argument. It has to be weighted against any loss in trade and any possible decline in GDP. If we lost £15 billion in trade for example (which happens to be half our trade exports to Germany) then obviously we'd be £2bil out of pocket.

    So far, i've seen estimates of between -0.8 and +0.6 GDP change in the long run for a brexit scenario.

    TL;DR
    Either way, we are still the 2nd largest net contributor behind Germany. To say if we left we'd be 9.5bill worse off is bad maths at best and falacy at worst. That statement is not true.

    If we left, we'd actually gain control of the £4.5billion of EU investment, since we'd never give it to them in the first place and we woudn't pay membership, so we'd actually be £13 billion better off.

    This figure would have to be offset against any trade loss / GDP changes.
    What an excellent analogy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by celloel)
    It isn't being intentionally misleading - it is fact.

    But if you want exact figures, in 2015 our NET contribution to the EU was £8.5 billion. That money could be much better spent and we'd have our democratic right back.

    How anyone can truly believe the EU is best for our economy, our democracy and our country is beyond me.
    I agree. Some of the facts may not be entirely true but the real facts still show that the UK do contribute much more money to the EU than they get back.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think (I'm from the Netherlands XD) that it would be good for everyone (so also the UK) if you stay. Because you can easily communicate, exchange information and knowledge and earn more money :-)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    and everyone contributes money for a safe and beautiful EU. So when in for example 20 years, the economy in the UK would happen to fall behind, the EU would help
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 14, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.