 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest con being trotted out by the REMAIN campaign is that the UK will have a chance to "reform" the EU from within if we vote to stay.
While the biggest con trotted out by the Exit campaign is that something, anything might get better! If we do get out and things don't get better the exit campaigners and those who voted to leave are going to have something worse than egg on their faces.
Actually, I have thought of a reason to vote to leave: If we do so then the Tory party will split, with IDS, Gove, Johnson plus various euro-sceptics and opportunists going one way while Cameron or Osborne leads a minority rump. I wonder how long that will last?
Probably about 5 years until they realise they can't get elected when divided - at which point the AP and PP (or whatever) will come together in an alliance exactly as they did in Spain.
Unfortunately/fortunately depending on you point of view, unlike the centre left, splits on the centre right don't tend to be permanent. UKIP is a splintering off the right wing of the centre right of the paleo-right (and increasingly the paleo-left these days). Notably, whilst taking a lot of the more mind-boggling activists with them, they still haven't managed to take credible people that actually want to continue to be elected. Except Carswell. Who has a large personal following, not a UKIP one.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As I said, it's surprisingly easy to read the same "Obama is expected to repeat his support for the UK remaining in Europe" for several weeks, and therefore to gain the impression that this was a view Obama had a) expressed relatively recently, b) expressed reasonably often and c) not always in direct response to a question from the press about the UK referendum. It's interesting how that happens, especially when it's quite possible none of those three points is accurate!
I imagine the UK press is providing thorough coverage of every possible facet of the referendum issue. Just think, you have two more months of sober, reasoned analysis to look forward to. quote:
However, Obama stepping off the plane and has immediately written a piece for the Telegraph which includes support for the UK remaining in the EU.
I'd agree that certainly counts as "urging the Britons to vote to stay in the EU" (rolyn), though still not particularly strong evidence that US political and business leaders aren't "concentrating on domestic politics far more than the Brexit referendum" (Alan).
I'm not saying the US government has no preference; I'm saying the issue isn't particularly salient in the US overall, which is why I objected to rolyn's original statement that "America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire" (and why 3 year old responses to reporters' questions are weaker than recent unprompted statements.)
(And I'm not sure what rolyn meant by "lip-service", but I suspect Trump supporters, if they knew or cared about the issue at all, would be more likely to think the UK should leave than stay.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Fact is, we've been trying to "reform" the EU for the last 30 years: result absolutely no reform whatsoever, so why should things be any different after the referendum?
'Fact' is the UK hasn't. The UK has whinged a lot, and fulmination about the need for reform is popular.
However, in terms of actual pushing for reform over the long term, the UK hasn't done much. Service in the EU bodies including the parliament runs a distant second to service in the national government, the people UK sends to the EU tends to be a bunch of non-entities many with bizarre or extreme views.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Not to forget that a) there are as many 'fixes' for the EU as there are people with opinions, and therefore b) there is no consensus in the UK about how to fix it. That's assuming it's broken enough to need fixing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not to forget that a) there are as many 'fixes' for the EU as there are people with opinions, and therefore b) there is no consensus in the UK about how to fix it. That's assuming it's broken enough to need fixing.
Historically Britain normally steps on to the Continent to help fix their wars, discounting maybe the 100 yr war with France when we were out to help ourselves.
It's difficult to say if the EU is broken. It appears to have miscalculated over the the Euro, immigration, vulnerability to terrorism and internal growth of Right Wing extremism. But does Britain jumping ship do anything to prevent these things getting worse. Furthermore does it do anything to protect us from these problems?
Europe's problems have always ended up becoming Britain's problems regardless of the Channel not quite joining us at the hip.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... Notably, whilst taking a lot of the more mind-boggling activists with them, they still haven't managed to take credible people that actually want to continue to be elected. Except Carswell. Who has a large personal following, not a UKIP one.
I think that's the first time I've ever seen Carswell linked with the word 'credible'. It says a lot about the rest, that anyone could claim that compared with them, anyone could think of using the word 'credible' to describe him.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... Notably, whilst taking a lot of the more mind-boggling activists with them, they still haven't managed to take credible people that actually want to continue to be elected. Except Carswell. Who has a large personal following, not a UKIP one.
I think that's the first time I've ever seen Carswell linked with the word 'credible'. It says a lot about the rest, that anyone could claim that compared with them, anyone could think of using the word 'credible' to describe him.
I meant purely in the sense that he's the only one credible enough to get elected - none of the others have been. Like it or not people will actually vote for Carswell in numbers that they won't vote for Farage, Reckless (nominative determinism at its finest), Hamilton, etc.
Unlike the left, which seems to split endlessly, the Conservative Party is a bit like the CofE - there are a lot of fellow travellers in it that merely see it as the best boat to fish from, regardless of what they think of the party or its leaders. I can't see that changing regardless of which way the referendum goes.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think Carswell is credible. From what little I know of him he appears to be an intelligent, high-minded libertarian. His politics are not mine and indeed I think they are harmful but as I understand them they represent a worked-out, coherent and in some sense morally serious position.
[ 22. April 2016, 16:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Fact is, we've been trying to "reform" the EU for the last 30 years: result absolutely no reform whatsoever, so why should things be any different after the referendum?
'Fact' is the UK hasn't. The UK has whinged a lot, and fulmination about the need for reform is popular.
However, in terms of actual pushing for reform over the long term, the UK hasn't done much. Service in the EU bodies including the parliament runs a distant second to service in the national government, the people UK sends to the EU tends to be a bunch of non-entities many with bizarre or extreme views.
Exactly. The only thing on which the UK has pushed for major reform is the CAP - and CAP has been reformed, several times, even if not as much as people want (and I'm not suggesting this is solely or even mainly down to the UK). I don't believe we've ever pushed for greater financial transparency or democracy.
Most of the time, if the UK doesn't like something, we just try to opt out.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Dave wrote:
quote:
I'm saying the issue isn't particularly salient in the US overall, which is why I objected to rolyn's original statement that "America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire" (and why 3 year old responses to reporters' questions are weaker than recent unprompted statements.)
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Americans who are paying lip service to that particular xenophobic nut-job bnillionaire are also among those least likely to know anything about the EU, much less have an opinion on it.
Even the ones who get their opinions on the EU from Jack Van Impe are probably more inclined to be supporting the more religious Cruz, rather than the New York property tycoon.
[ 22. April 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
So, Obama spoke on the topic of trade agreements:
"And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.".
Which is essentially what many - including me - have described above, and simply a reflection that every country has a limited amount of legislative time.
This of course works against the position of the 'Leave' camp who have been insistent that we would be able to negotiate EU and US trade agreements quickly.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The irony is that many on the leave side opposed Scottish independence, and rubbished the claims that an independent Scotland could just inherit the existing UK EU/NATO membership and trade deals. Their claim then was that Scotland would either need to renegotiate their membership (which would take time), or accept whatever the first deal given to them was (which would be heavily in favour of the other party).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Chris Stiles quote:
'Fact' is the UK hasn't. The UK has whinged a lot, and fulmination about the need for reform is popular.
However, in terms of actual pushing for reform over the long term, the UK hasn't done much. Service in the EU bodies including the parliament runs a distant second to service in the national government, the people UK sends to the EU tends to be a bunch of non-entities many with bizarre or extreme views.
Actually there has been a team of Management/ Organisational experts in Brussels for more than 12 years trying to get some semblance of order and purpose into the creaking EU bureaucracy; the team was proposed by the UK but is comprised of senior management gurus from various EU countries. At every turn they have encountered resistance with Eurocrats bringing in political members of the commission to help stymie any requests for information, etc.
Similarly the UK is only one of a number of governments - Germany and the Netherlands are 2 more - who have been trying to get the EU to up its game so it can produce accounts that can be audited: something that has been ongoing for a long time, only in this instance for nearly 30 years. And again their efforts have proved fruitless with not only Eurocrats but also some national governments doing their utmost to stop any reform happening.
And all of that before we look at the situation with regard to (for example) the CAP or the subsidies for olive oil, etc, etc, etc.
As for political non-entities - what about Daniel Hannan? In any case, Brussels isn't interested in political heavyweights unless they are rabidly pro-EU.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I take it you have something to support those claims.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Similarly the UK is only one of a number of governments - Germany and the Netherlands are 2 more - who have been trying to get the EU to up its game so it can produce accounts that can be audited: something that has been ongoing for a long time, only in this instance for nearly 30 years. And again their efforts have proved fruitless with not only Eurocrats but also some national governments doing their utmost to stop any reform happening.
That is not correct, at least according to the web site below, which links in turn to a .pdf file from the auditors.
web page
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually there has been a team of Management/ Organisational experts in Brussels for more than 12 years trying to get some semblance of order and purpose into the creaking EU bureaucracy; the team was proposed by the UK but is comprised of senior management gurus from various EU countries.
Reform implies more than simply setting up a body, which has over the years become a place to park time servers. It involves sustained effort over a long period of time which is something signally lacking.
quote:
As for political non-entities - what about Daniel Hannan?
If he were in national politics, he'd occupy a space somewhere between John Redwood and William Rees-Mogg.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The EU's Court of Auditors 'signs off' the accounts of the EU every year - that is, they agree the accounts - but that doesn't mean that they pass proper audit standards because they don't.
For example, in 2014 the Court of Auditors reported that €109bn out of a total of €117bn was, in their own words, affected by material error.
Sure, the EU produce accounts, but that doesn't mean there isn't waste and outright fraud on a massive scale.
As for Daniel Hannan: he hasn't been wheeled out much because he is far too sensible, very far from being a swivel-eyed loon.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
'Waste' is a very subjective term, and usually just means disagreement with spending decisions. I happen to think that our government is planning to waste millions on renewing the Trident system, but others would disagree. Does that expenditure get called waste, or not?
The European Parliament has two seats in Brussels and Strasbourg. Is it a waste of money to keep moving back and forth? Or, is it spending money in response to a political need? The Strasbourg seat exists as a symbol of union, the EP sitting in one of the most fought over parts of Europe - is that symbol worth something? Having the EP solely in Brussels would cut the European budget by a small amount, but would that be reducing waste?
Fraud is, of course, an entirely different matter. And, there may be some within the EU structures - but, we have our own examples of MPs claiming expenses fraudulently so the UK can hardly be held up as an exemplar of good practice. Almost certainly some of the money spent by the EU through regional development, CAP, research funding etc has been spent fraudulently because the best checks in the world aren't going to prevent that. But, from experience of EU research funding, the level of accounting for every euro that is involved in running a European funded project is far greater than demanded by UK government or research council funding, and as for industrial funding they just fix a price for the value of the results provided and basically don't care how the money they give is spent.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for Daniel Hannan: he hasn't been wheeled out much because he is far too sensible, very far from being a swivel-eyed loon.
Um, No.
Even David Cameron described him as having "some rather eccentric points of view"
I well remember his ludicrous interventions in the US Affordable Healthcare Act debate.
My problem with Hannan is that I remain very attached to the notion that whilst everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. (With thanks to Senator Moynihan).
It really worries me that you would consider him sensible.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The EU's Court of Auditors 'signs off' the accounts of the EU every year - that is, they agree the accounts - but that doesn't mean that they pass proper audit standards because they don't.
For example, in 2014 the Court of Auditors reported that €109bn out of a total of €117bn was, in their own words, affected by material error.
Sure, the EU produce accounts, but that doesn't mean there isn't waste and outright fraud on a massive scale.
Full Fact disagrees. This is a site that claims to try to present the full unvarnished facts, and this is what they say:
"The EU budget contained €142.5 billion of spending in 2014. In every area of the budget (apart from administration), and overall, enough spending fell outside of the proper procedures to pass the 2% 'materiality threshold'—the point at which the auditors view these 'errors' as significant.
Overall, 4.4% of the EU's spending didn't follow the rules and accordingly shouldn't have been paid out.
This can cover quite a wide range of situations and isn't synonymous with waste or fraud, according to the ECA.
For instance, one way to run afoul of the rules is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. While generally this is a bad idea, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.”
"The ECA said that 22 of 1,200 transactions it inspected during the audit might have been fraudulent, and referred them for further investigation.”
"While it's correct that spending in that €133.6 billion was "materially affected by error", it's not the case that the entire block of spending was "irregular or possibly illegal"; it just means that some of the spending within that total didn't follow the rules.”
---
I make that that 1.8% might have been fraudulent. Hardly “fraud on a massive scale”; it may not be fraud at all.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
That is not correct, at least according to the web site below, which links in turn to a .pdf file from the auditors.
web page
From the Statement of Assurance in the linked pdf:
quote:
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the 2013 accounts of the European Union.
Revenue for 2013, taken as a whole, is legal and regular.
Commitments for 2013, taken as a whole, are legal and regular.
Payments for 2013 are materially affected by error. The ECA therefore gives an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.
That said, the issue AIUI is that the Court of Auditors produces one Statement of Assurance for the entire conglomerate of EU accounts, meaning that an issue in one budget leads to the whole lot being qualified.
Conversely the NAO in Britain audits different accounts separately and produces a verdict on each individually. Thus every year a few departments will get a qualified report, but this doesn't lead to UK government finance getting a qualified audit overall because AFAIK no such overall statement is ever produced.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The EU's Court of Auditors 'signs off' the accounts of the EU every year - that is, they agree the accounts - but that doesn't mean that they pass proper audit standards because they don't.
What is your evidence that the Court of Auditors don't follow 'proper' auditing standards? According to its own website:
quote:
The ECA conducts its audits in accordance with ISSAIs, the international standards on auditing issued by INTOSAI, the international organisation of supreme audit institutions worldwide.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The evidence is that any accounts which have to be 'qualified' more than a certain amount or for a certain time are a sign that there is something not right and that a full investigation should be undertaken to discover what is going on.
According to the EU's own figures, the accounts for 2013 alone showed tha 90% of monies paid out by the EU were affected by 'material errors'. In fact the UK treasury was so concerned that they called for a special task force to be set up to look into it.
Now of course that same Treasury would have us believe that all is well with the EU accounting function ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
While we're on the subject of audit, HMRC doesn't do very well, having had its accounts qualified every year since Tax Credits were introduced. Things really aren't rosy at home.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
According to the EU's own figures, the accounts for 2013 alone showed tha 90% of monies paid out by the EU were affected by 'material errors'.
Again, statements without support mean nothing.
Especially when a very quick search gives the EU's own figures for 2013 showing 4.7% (pdf) overall, and "a large proportion of the transactions affected by error in the shared management areas, authorities in the Member States had sufficient information available to have detected and corrected the errors before claiming reimbursement from the Commission" - ie: even though there was an error there is didn't actually cost anyone anything because they were corrected rapidly.
Now, it seems that if you want to support a claim that the majority of EU expenditure is affected by "material errors" you'll have to look somewhere other than the EUs own documents - because they'll only allow 5%, with much of it corrected rapidly.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The evidence is that any accounts which have to be 'qualified' more than a certain amount or for a certain time are a sign that there is something not right and that a full investigation should be undertaken to discover what is going on.
That may be true but says nothing about audit standards. If the doctor consistently says I'm overweight and I do nothing about it, does that prove the NHS fails to meet proper diagnostic standards?
quote:
According to the EU's own figures, the accounts for 2013 alone showed tha 90% of monies paid out by the EU were affected by 'material errors'. In fact the UK treasury was so concerned that they called for a special task force to be set up to look into it.
That's a bit like saying that if I work at a bookshop and steal a book, and books make up 90% of the bookshop's income, then 90% of the bookshop's revenue stream is subject to staff fraud. It's true but misleading.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... That's a bit like saying that if I work at a bookshop and steal a book, and books make up 90% of the bookshop's income, then 90% of the bookshop's revenue stream is subject to staff fraud. It's true but misleading.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
This is the first time I heard someone saying that the EU doesn't have enough red tape ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I probably quote Paul Krugman too much, but this is really good.
He (in simple terms) explains the economic cost and frames the politics very nicely:
quote:
Paul Krugman writes:
So Britain, don’t do this. You would pay a fairly large economic price, and in return you would get governance so bad that it would make the EU look good.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I must say I was impressed at Mr Farage's insight that Mr Obama had been told what to say by Downing Street. Because everyone knows that the chief fault in the Special Relationship is America's willingness to do whatever the UK tells it to.
That man really puts his finger on the nub of the matter ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
From where I'm sitting Obama's intervention doesn't help the Remain campaign, though. Nobody likes feeling they're being told what to do by a foreign power.
[ 25. April 2016, 06:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Doesn't stop us advising the American public freely and extensively on their choice of Presidential candidate.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There's a difference between speculation by the pundits and a premier making speeches and giving interviews.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think the comments by Obama have probably been fairly neutral overall.
The remain camp will have been heartened by evidence from Obama (repeated by Clinton) that there wouldn't be a rapid trade agreement with the US - and if we can't manage a rapid trade agreement with the US then we're very unlikely to manage that with the rest of the EU, India, China, Australia or anywhere else.
The leave camp can have their "bloody yanks telling us what to do" moment, and resultant swing their way out of sheer contrariness.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From where I'm sitting Obama's intervention doesn't help the Remain campaign, though. Nobody likes feeling they're being told what to do by a foreign power.
I think it does for a couple of reasons.
1) He was very balanced and came across better than the Remain campaign - I know a lot of people who say they want to be better informed about the issues and make up their minds accordingly.
2) The Brexit backlash showed them to be petulant and (IMHO) angry at the facts for not agreeing with their ideology.
Anti-Europeans across the country will not be impressed by Obama but I don't think he will have increased their numbers. Especially as he came across very respectful of the British people's right to decide. Undecideds will have seen a balanced, sensible position and then a childish response.
I think Obama has done Dave a big favour. One he needed as thus far the Remain campaign has been awful.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
1) He was very balanced and came across better than the Remain campaign - I know a lot of people who say they want to be better informed about the issues and make up their minds accordingly.
What concerns me is the extent to which the kind of people Shipmates know are representative of the electorate as a whole in terms of wanting to reach an informed decision.
Again, I'm at a distance from all this, but it seems to me that neither Remain nor Leave are giving much room to dispassionate argument in their campaigns, which suggests that they think most people will be swayed by more irrational approaches.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What concerns me is the extent to which the kind of people Shipmates know are representative of the electorate as a whole in terms of wanting to reach an informed decision.
Again, I'm at a distance from all this, but it seems to me that neither Remain nor Leave are giving much room to dispassionate argument in their campaigns, which suggests that they think most people will be swayed by more irrational approaches.
Eutychus, part of that impression derives from the fact that the BBC is obliged to be non-partisan. It has to allocate time equally between the two sides. It has to give the impression that both sets of arguments are equally valid. If it interviews someone who wants to remain, it has to let a Leaver have the same airtime in reply. This gives the public the impression that both positions are indeed equally legitimate. The same happens to a lesser extent on climate change.
However, because there are no rational or dispassionate arguments in favour of the leave side, its campaigners have no alternative but to claim their time and rant loudly. They make so much noise doing so, that nobody can hear anything else.
In a quite different context, I was surprised and more than a bit shocked a year or two ago, when somebody said that what he wanted to see were people who were passionate about something. To him, that mattered. That was what he found persuasive. He wasn't really very bothered whether what they were passionate about was objectively right, or made sense. It would be their conviction that swayed him.
I found that quite disturbing. It's deeply alien to how I've lived over the past 60+ years. I'm quite fearful that throughout what's now quite a long lifetime, it might be me, and people like me, who all along have been the odd ones out.
The other factor is that there are relatively few passionate Euro-enthusiasts. Most of us who will vote remain aren't all that excited by the EU. It isn't the sort of cause that stirs the soul. However, it has served us well in the last 40+ years. On balance, it's overall a good thing. We know it makes sense and the alternative doesn't.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What concerns me is the extent to which the kind of people Shipmates know are representative of the electorate as a whole in terms of wanting to reach an informed decision.
Again, I'm at a distance from all this, but it seems to me that neither Remain nor Leave are giving much room to dispassionate argument in their campaigns, which suggests that they think most people will be swayed by more irrational approaches.
I do know a few people who want to leave the EU. Some who are just emotionally anti-Europe. And I understand that - I am too, really. And some who just want a better understanding of the issues because they feel one side claims this and the other, that. What frustrates me a bit, is that such people don't go and educate themselves, but there you go. Such is the state of our democracy.
This article by Will Hutton is very good. For example:
quote:
The BBC, a public broadcaster born of the best Enlightenment tradition of reason, should rejoin their [Universities 'recommitted to the a quest for understanding, backed by evidence'] ranks. Its new understanding of objectivity – to treat everything as equal claim and counterclaim – is to surrender.
Maybe it's time to change my signature again...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[x-post with AFZ]
Enoch:
I don't watch the BBC but I do read the website. When I see the summary of Obama's speech being that it "provoked backlash", I don't think that's unbiased.
There have been endless debates about partisan bias at the BBC; that's not what I'm talking about: I think it and practically all mainstream media are biased towards controversy.
I think the media are being increasingly spurred to fuel controversy and extreme opinions to drive traffic to their sites. It is in the BBC's interest to focus on adverse reactions to Obama's interventions rather than their content, just as they focus on the most alarming declarations by either side. My fear is that this tendency also shapes the basis on which most people will make up their minds.
In this respect, I don't think a layer of technocray in the EU is an entirely bad thing, and certainly not an argument for leaving. The issues call for reflected consideration, not decision on the basis of tabloid-readers' gut feelings and politicians' focus groups.
[ 25. April 2016, 08:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The bias towards contraversy is a big factor in news reporting, and the BBC is certainly not imune to it. And, of course, it doesn't just relate to politics. With the 30th Anniversary, Chernobyl has been making the news again, and you get this sort of thing, "it is still not clear how badly the local wildlife has been affected by the radiation". It would be significantly clearer if the very small, poorly constrained experiments by people who seem to be able to consistently generate sensational results were not given a veneer of legitimacy by being reported by the mainstream media, with barely a word given to large scale investigations by large consortia of experts that consistently find that the effects of radiation are very small, if present at all, in all but a small number of extreme cases. I could, of course, have written a functionally identical sentance about climate change, and several other topics.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There have been endless debates about partisan bias at the BBC; that's not what I'm talking about: I think it and practically all mainstream media are biased towards controversy.
I think, and fear, that you have a good point there. There is a comment in the Wiki article on John Reith which points to something which I think is being lost in BBC broadcasting.
quote:
Reith succeeded in building a high wall against an American-style free-for-all in radio in which the goal was to attract the largest audiences and thereby secure the greatest advertising revenue.
The Reith principles included:
a) an equal consideration of all viewpoints,
b) probity,
c) universality and
d) a commitment to public service.
Freedom from bias is probably an impossibly ideal standard, but is worth aiming for. It requires, amongst other things, being measured in the way information is conveyed. 24/7 news broadcasting is generally moving away from measuring (that's one of the things that dumbing down is about). And the politics of licence fees isn't helping either.
The wheels haven't come off altogether, not just yet. But the wheel nuts are loosening under the pressures to obtain and retain audience ratings.
[ 25. April 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Freedom from bias is probably an impossibly ideal standard, but is worth aiming for. It requires, amongst other things, being measured in the way information is conveyed. 24/7 news broadcasting is generally moving away from measuring (that's one of the things that dumbing down is about). And the politics of licence fees isn't helping either.
The wheels haven't come off altogether, not just yet. But the wheel nuts are loosening under the pressures to obtain and retain audience ratings.
I think you're spot-on here. The BBC remains vitally set-apart from the awfulness of our print media but the gap is shrinking rapidly.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As an aside, while Frank Peretti is remembered (if at all) mostly for his lurid demon-infested novels (This Present Darkness etc.), his overlooked novel Prophet, while a little dated now, offers an easy-to-read insight into how news editorial decisions are made.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post with AFZ]
Enoch:
I don't watch the BBC but I do read the website. When I see the summary of Obama's speech being that it "provoked backlash", I don't think that's unbiased.
The problem with that statement though is the followon question that isn't being answered, 'among who?'.
Yes of course, there are people across the country who support a Brexit - the voices represented in the media tend to be very media/London centric though - and amongst the most extreme.
So we don't know to what extent 'provokes backlash' is a reflection of the popular mood.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From where I'm sitting Obama's intervention doesn't help the Remain campaign, though. Nobody likes feeling they're being told what to do by a foreign power.
Well, ISTM that Brexiteers vary in the degree to which they value independence.
So there will be some who see independence as an end in itself. For them the economic question is almost irrelevant, regardless of whether it's propounded by a British economist or a foreign politician. (They would be the equivalent of Mr Salmond - I think the reason he struggled with questions like 'What about the currency?' was because he saw Scottish independence as a good in itself, and if there was an economic price to pay then that was the price of freedom.)
But others I think want independence, but not at any price. If the economic price is too high, they may decide it's not worth it. These people are more likely to be swayed by economic arguments, and because they value independence slightly less, they are less likely to be bothered that the argument comes from a foreign politician. (Their equivalent would be a fair number of Welsh people of my acquaintance, who would quite like an independent Wales but don't think it would be viable.)
[ 25. April 2016, 14:15: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
As I pointed out to Chill, above: sometimes the only freedom we gain is the freedom to choose which road we sit beside while we starve.
I was listening to a pollster on R4 over the weekend, who baldly stated that the majority of those toying with Brexit can be swayed into the Remain camp by telling them it'll cost them not thousands, not hundreds of pounds. But £25.
That's it. The price of freedom, apparently.
Not that it matters, since Obama has helpfully holed the Leave boat below the waterline, and Boris and Nigel can re-arrange the deckchairs as much as they like (probably into 'whites only' and 'coloureds' areas): their ship is still sinking.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The problem will be if they manage to patch things enough to stay afloat long enough to get to polling day and get a Brexit. Then they'll drag us all down with them. Rule Britannia! Britannia rules beneath the waves!
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not that it matters, since Obama has helpfully holed the Leave boat below the waterline, and Boris and Nigel can re-arrange the deckchairs as much as they like (probably into 'whites only' and 'coloureds' areas): their ship is still sinking.
We'll see: The Times has just tweeted the results of a Yougov/Times poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday this week. Excluding don't knows / won't votes: Remain: 49% (-2 on 12th-14th April); Leave: 51% (+2 on 12th-14th April). All to play for at the moment.
[ 27. April 2016, 21:32: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not that it matters, since Obama has helpfully holed the Leave boat below the waterline, and Boris and Nigel can re-arrange the deckchairs as much as they like (probably into 'whites only' and 'coloureds' areas): their ship is still sinking.
We'll see: The Times has just tweeted the results of a Yougov/Times poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday this week. Excluding don't knows / won't votes: Remain: 49% (-2 on 12th-14th April); Leave: 51% (+2 on 12th-14th April). All to play for at the moment.
It'll be down to "stories of the day" and turnout, as usual. Watch out for some spectacular and inaccurate scare stories in the last few days before the vote.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Sorry to back up to a discussion on the 20th March about NZ and other Commonwealth countries in relation to UK/EU. Cod had been arguing that the UK entry into the EU had been bad for exports from NZ and other Commonwealth countries. This is just a part of the ensuing discussion:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Something very similar has happened with trade: the UK has vanished behind the EU-wide tariff wall and that undoutably has reduced trade between the UK and its former colonies (not to mention other countries). The claim that leaving the EU will be detrimental to British trade seems incomplete without taking this factor into account. To put it bluntly, the EU, in trading terms, is hostile to countries beyond its borders particularly when it comes to agricultural produce, which subsidised EU producers dump on world markets.
I'm coming back to this because Malcolm Turnball has been expressing his opinions, very diplomatically that the UK has the right to decide, but quote:
The EU is an enormous economic and political entity and from our point of view - you might say from our selfish point of view - having a country to whom we have close ties and such strong relationships... is definitely an advantage.
So if the British people, in their wisdom, decide to stay in the European Union, then we would welcome that
John Key has also made similar statements recently (although that BBC article doesn't link to them).
Of course, in a democracy the residents of NZ and Australia are free to disagree with their respective PMs.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
