EU referendum are you in or out

[KlaxonCow]

I think holding politicians accountable is something we can all get behind.

I've always liked the simple idea of introducing a rule whereby MPs are only allowed to use public services.

So, they can only have NHS treatment. Their children must go to state-run schools. They're only permitted to travel by public transport. Et cetera.

Thus, if they run it badly, then they personally suffer. But, equally, if they run it well, they benefit. And there is the simple underlying logic too that by being users of the things they run, they'll actually remain perfectly in touch with what's going on, and what's right and what's wrong with the service.

So, you know, it's only a punishment if they do a bad job and run awful public service. Therefore, it personally motivates them to give a shit that it isn't.

[gravy]

How surprising!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe- ... ws_central

[gravy]

Well done Leave!

[Absolute_Zero]

How surprising!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe- ... ws_central

Liechtenstein used clauses [Articles 112-113*] in the EEA agreement to restrict freedom of movement until 1998. Ditto Iceland in 2008 on the free movement of capital. EEA members can invoke these measures unilaterally, whereas within the EU we have to apply to the Commission. <-- with a good idea of what they'd say.

So in theory at least --in practice it surely helps to be 160 km^2 of inconsequence-- it is possible to access the single market whilst operating a brake on freedom of movement, as a member of the EEA.

[*] http://ec.europa.eu/translation/slovak/ ... ent_en.pdf

[Harlequin]

Yep. The classic "350m per week for the NHS" being the most bold-faced lie, considering it was admitted to be a lie"mistake" mere hours after the result. There's no way it can be spun otherwise, it was lying to get votes, pure and simple
They could try and spin it as "we said let's, it was a suggestion" all they like but I think a court would see through that.

The lie that most irritates me is the insistence that the main EU Institutions are unelected.

If that would have been an ad for a product, you'd be liable of "false advertising" and would cost you gazillions in fine.

If they would have said "yes" and months later claim that for some reasons they could not really do it would have been "lightly more believable" at least they could have said "we tried but it did not go".

But by saying it like this, they basically self-exposed "it was a fraud", if that would be another contract/thing, given the circumstances and say that "lot of people probably voted on the basis of that" this would be sufficient ground to NIL the whole referendum.

I think that's "one of the most incredible cases" of blatantly lying to the public.

One thing I think might be legally enforceable would be extending advertising standards to official political statements.

[gravy]

How surprising!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe- ... ws_central

Liechtenstein used clauses [Articles 112-113*] in the EEA agreement to restrict freedom of movement until 1998. Ditto Iceland in 2008 on the free movement of capital. EEA members can invoke these measures unilaterally, whereas within the EU we have to apply to the Commission. <-- with a good idea of what they'd say.

So in theory at least --in practice it surely helps to be 160 km^2 of inconsequence-- it is possible to access the single market whilst operating a brake on freedom of movement, as a member of the EEA.

[*] http://ec.europa.eu/translation/slovak/ ... ent_en.pdf

I don't think they got what they wanted by first telling the EU to fuck off first but hey, if we work hard we could be the new Liechtenstein!

I'm not sure free movement of capital warrants a 'likewise' here though.

But yeah, despite the NO NEGOTIATIONS position of the EU this is obviously a negotiation and the opener is the price of participating in the market is the same immigration policies you have now.

EDIT

So I didn't know about Lietchenstein and it's EU agreement is being used by Brexiters as a template we could follow.

Dig into the facts a bit and it really isn't

First-class jobs with modern working conditions and interesting perspectives in the fields of industry, financial services and manufacturing make Liechtenstein an attractive place to work. The Principality is home to around 36,000 jobs, of which almost half are performed by the local working population. The other half, more than 18,000, are performed by workers who live over the border in the Rhine Valley area near St. Gallen, in Vorarlberg and in the region around Lake Constance and commute to Liechtenstein every day.

The majority of their workforce are EU citizens. I can't see how that would have happened if there were any significant barriers to foriegn nationals getting work there.

[Absolute_Zero]

Yep. The classic "350m per week for the NHS" being the most bold-faced lie, considering it was admitted to be a lie"mistake" mere hours after the result. There's no way it can be spun otherwise, it was lying to get votes, pure and simple
They could try and spin it as "we said let's, it was a suggestion" all they like but I think a court would see through that.

Counterpoint: is anyone in this forum prepared to admit that they didn't know that this claim was specious?

It was widely and loudly debunked at the time... if you didn't know that the net transfer to the EU amounted to ~165m per week (iirc) then you had to be living under a rock. The only counter counter [and it's weak] is that the EU decided how the delta was spent in the UK rather than the indigenous administration.

The result didn't rest on this particular dodgy assertion. Border control was the big motivating concern. Aim there.

The implication here is that unlike the mighty minds of YakYak, the general public are as thick as pig shit. You might think so, I couldn't possibly comment.

[gravy]

Yep. The classic "350m per week for the NHS" being the most bold-faced lie, considering it was admitted to be a lie"mistake" mere hours after the result. There's no way it can be spun otherwise, it was lying to get votes, pure and simple
They could try and spin it as "we said let's, it was a suggestion" all they like but I think a court would see through that.

Counterpoint: is anyone in this forum prepared to admit that they didn't know that this claim was specious?

It was widely and loudly debunked at the time... if you didn't know that the net transfer to the EU amounted to ~165m per week (iirc) then you had to be living under a rock. The only counter counter [and it's weak] is that the EU decided how the delta was spent in the UK rather than the indigenous administration.

The result didn't rest on this particular dodgy assertion. Border control was the big motivating concern. Aim there.

The implication here is that unlike the mighty minds of YakYak, the general public are as thick as pig shit. You might think so, I couldn't possibly comment.

I know people who latched onto this figure. They're not thick as pig shit but ignorant (and I'm not saying that pejoratively)

[Absolute_Zero]

I know people who latched onto this figure. They're not thick as pig shit but ignorant (and I'm not saying that pejoratively)

As a slogan? People and politicians will say all sorts of things that they know to be suspect provided they believe in the general, hoped-for outcome.

[gilesgoat]

Yep. The classic "350m per week for the NHS" being the most bold-faced lie, considering it was admitted to be a lie"mistake" mere hours after the result. There's no way it can be spun otherwise, it was lying to get votes, pure and simple
They could try and spin it as "we said let's, it was a suggestion" all they like but I think a court would see through that.

Counterpoint: is anyone in this forum prepared to admit that they didn't know that this claim was specious?

It was widely and loudly debunked at the time... if you didn't know that the net transfer to the EU amounted to ~165m per week (iirc) then you had to be living under a rock. The only counter counter [and it's weak] is that the EU decided how the delta was spent in the UK rather than the indigenous administration.

The result didn't rest on this particular dodgy assertion. Border control was the big motivating concern. Aim there.

The implication here is that unlike the mighty minds of YakYak, the general public are as thick as pig shit. You might think so, I couldn't possibly comment.

I know people who latched onto this figure. They're not thick as pig shit but ignorant (and I'm not saying that pejoratively)

So who are "the most idiots of all" then ? Some people that maybe believed that ? Some that should have know NOT to believe at that ? OR in the first place whoever promised that and wrote it on the side of their vans ?

Ok "politics is politics" .. whatever that could mean .. but .. I mean .. I suspect there are quite a few people more concerned about actually have more money for the NHS than what the immigration control could do, in theory, because while that you are not 100% sure of all the implications at least knowing more money for NHS is "a better thing to hope for".

[Harlequin]

The result didn't rest on this particular dodgy assertion. Border control was the big motivating concern. Aim there.

I doubt that it rested on any one particular concern for the 4% who tipped the balance.

[gravy]

I know people who latched onto this figure. They're not thick as pig shit but ignorant (and I'm not saying that pejoratively)

As a slogan? People and politicians will say all sorts of things that they know to be suspect provided they believe in the general, hoped-for outcome.

I've been asking people what they want to happen now and more money on the NHS is recurrent theme. Funnily old people seem to find this important.

More widely it's part of a belief that as we wont be sending money to the EU we will be better off by that amount. Which is weird as even the brexiters backed off from that towards the end.

[gilesgoat]

I know people who latched onto this figure. They're not thick as pig shit but ignorant (and I'm not saying that pejoratively)

As a slogan? People and politicians will say all sorts of things that they know to be suspect provided they believe in the general, hoped-for outcome.

I've been asking people what they want to happen now and more money on the NHS is recurrent theme. Funnily old people seem to find this important.

More widely it's part of a belief that as we wont be sending money to the EU we will be better off by that amount. Which is weird as even the brexiters backed off from that towards the end.

The gut feeling about this subject ( and another one 'less talked about' ? ) I got from "lot before all this" and what was going on is that this NHS story in reality has very little to do with EU in/EU out ..

What really "smells" to me is that looks like the government would love to "totally ditch" the NHS and make it become all "USA like" based on ( or mostly ) private health insurances that you'd pay with your own money.

The other problem "less talked about" that is quite a bit worrying me as well is all that new story of that funny monster and "the pensions regulator" which again "screams" to me like "the government does not want any more anything to do with pensions, if you want one pay with your own cash and do a private insurance/thing".. again "USA like" ..

What worries me LOT about about all those private schemes is that I think they are "as close as they can be to a legalizes scam" - if they bother at all to be - as I've seen "far too many (*)" around contracts/stuff telling you basically "actually you'll put a fuckload of money into the scheme and you'll get CONSIDERABLY LESS, if any, when time will be" ..

And that, I am afraid, EU or not EU seems it's going to be a massive fuck up regardless of what ...

[Absolute_Zero]

^ Harley/Gravy

It may turn out to be a draw on over-egged claims. We will have to await the final accounting as it's way too early to know how this will turn out. e.g. that sterling seems to have rallied proves/suggests nothing at this point.

[(o)(o)]

One thing I think might be legally enforceable would be extending advertising standards to official political statements.

Yes! Likewise stringent regulations for the press and even lobbyist materials, with proper penalties to stem the flow of disinformation. Some will complain about chill effect, but tell me again when you need hospital treatment and there's nothing left because you voted with good intentions on all the mischievous stuff seduced by misinformation propaganda and misdirection.