Carryfast:
Franglais:
BBC Radio 4 - More or Less - Available now
BBCs "More or Less". Seems to me to be a fairly unbiased set of facts and figures. And where no good reliable figures are available they say so. (How unlike politicians).This whole referendum "debate" is really showing some of our politicians in their true, unappealing, colours isnt it?
Hopefully the above link may help anyone looking for facts to make up their mind. Doubtless some on this will listen to the above podcasts (5 of them in nice 11minute slices) and say:
- Obviously biased “for”
- Obviously biased “against”
- Can
t be true because its the BBC.
- Must be true because it`s the BBC.
- Not biased because it supports what I already believe in.
- Biased because it shows evidence against what I already believe.
- And some may see it for an attempt to cut thro the bovine excrement being thrown about by others. Obviously that`s me and you too dear reader! (Well, most of you anyway)
Can’t be bothered to listen to another minute of pro EU BBC propaganda or anything which is trying to suggest that the EU isn’t anything other than a net burden on our economy regards trade balance and ‘contributions’.Or a net loss of sovereignty regards government accountability.
On that note the usual question applies.What could possibly be the motivation for anyone wanting to impose the idea of Federation over Nation State which is what the argument comes down to.
I guess thats a "3" then. It could have been a "6" too if youd listened to it.
(edit) P.S. the “3” option is really rather a shot in the foot as this programme does cite it`s sources, again unlike many politicos, of all sides.
The bbc aren’t impartial, they receive millions in Eu subsidies
Franglais:
I guess thats a "3" then. It could have been a "6" too if youd listened to it.
(edit) P.S. the “3” option is really rather a shot in the foot as this programme does cite it`s sources, again unlike many politicos, of all sides.
Which part of selected ‘sources’ to suit a biased pro EU establishment position didn’t you understand.
As I said where do you personally stand on the issue of Federation v Nation State and if favouring the former why.The answer to that question should at least provide an idea of your own take on the so called ‘impartiality’ of the BBC.
Thought I’d share this with you as it’s a totally unbiased view of life after Brexit, and nothing to do with the BBC and may be of use to the undecided or anyone fearful of Brexit’s implications.
Neil Woodford who is one of the most successful investment fund managers currently managing £8.6billion, commissioned the highly respected Capital Economics Group to produce a report on the likely impact of Brexit on the UK.
Its a very long report, in fact its even longer than Carryfast’s posts, but even if you skip through it you should get the basics
The report can be found at the link below and there’s also a video in which Neil discusses the economic side of the report.
woodfordfunds.com/economic-impa … it-report/
Re BBC bias. The programme gives its original sources. And seems to me it shouldnt matter who pays the bills. More licence fee funding wouldnt guarantee un-biased reporting from individuals, would it? Since the ITV is paid for by advertisers should we discount everything reported on the ITV news as being biased in favour of those advertisers?? The figures are offered up, and interpretation is up to the listener. If the facts challenge any beliefs held by the listener then the listener is of course free to modify their point of view, or not. Ive got a point of view regards in/out, but if you dont agree with my point of view on that issue, it doesnt automatically mean Im spinning and twisting the truth and cherry-picking figures to support that point of view. Im in favour of staying in, but am not gonna say the EU is the best thing since whenever. It is less than perfect. But I reckon it`s better than any (realistic) alternative.
Franglais:
Im in favour of staying in, but am not gonna say the EU is the best thing since whenever. It is less than perfect. But I reckon its better than any (realistic) alternative.
Just an answer to the deal breaker of where do you stand on the question of Federation v Nation State ? would provide an idea of the credibility of your position in that regard.
wing-nut:
Thought I’d share this with you as it’s a totally unbiased view of life after Brexit, and nothing to do with the BBC and may be of use to the undecided or anyone fearful of Brexit’s implications.
Neil Woodford who is one of the most successful investment fund managers currently managing £8.6billion, commissioned the highly respected Capital Economics Group to produce a report on the likely impact of Brexit on the UK.
Its a very long report, in fact its even longer than Carryfast’s posts, but even if you skip through it you should get the basics
The report can be found at the link below and there’s also a video in which Neil discusses the economic side of the report.
woodfordfunds.com/economic-impa … it-report/
More economics of the madhouse which say that low wages create economic growth. 
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Im in favour of staying in, but am not gonna say the EU is the best thing since whenever. It is less than perfect. But I reckon its better than any (realistic) alternative.
Just an answer to the deal breaker of where do you stand on the question of Federation v Nation State ? would provide an idea of the credibility of your position in that regard.
My original post was an attempt to look at some facts and figures. Any stance I may or mayn`t have on a federal Europe is, after all, irrelevant to the Facts. If you were to disagree with my particular stance (if any) on federalism, would that mean all of my opinions are invalid? Would it alter any facts??
Well I can’t decide. The stayers say it will be utopia if we stay,and the leavers say it will be utopia if we leave. The current situation is already known,so the maverick in me wants to leave,just to see if the sh*t hits the fan as badly as the stayers say it will. All I know is that any leaver that thinks it will improve the economic migration situation is probably mistaken…
There’s no chance of improvement of we stay in. Once ttip goes through, that’ll be the nhs, education, police, fire service all going public. I’m not looking forward to it at all
Franglais:
Carryfast:
Just an answer to the deal breaker of where do you stand on the question of Federation v Nation State ? would provide an idea of the credibility of your position in that regard.
Any stance I may or mayn`t have on a federal Europe is, after all, irrelevant to the Facts. If you were to disagree with my particular stance (if any) on federalism, would that mean all of my opinions are invalid? Would it alter any facts??
The stance on a Federal Europe is everything because a pro USE anti Nation State stance means that every other argument then becomes bs justification ( excuse ) for that ideological position.
While a pro Nation State stance can mean nothing other than support for secession of the European States thereby smashing the EU in its present form with the choice of then rebuilding it along Confederal lines.The difference then being a Union built on consent and consensus,among independent sovereign states with democratic accountability to match,not imposition of Federal centralised rule.
In which case why is it and no surprise that every Europhile supporter on here doesn’t seem to want to answer that simple question.IE where do they stand on the issue of Federation v sovereignty of the Nation Sate and why.
Nobby_Clarke:
Well I can’t decide. The stayers say it will be utopia if we stay,and the leavers say it will be utopia if we leave. The current situation is already known,so the maverick in me wants to leave,just to see if the sh*t hits the fan as badly as the stayers say it will. All I know is that any leaver that thinks it will improve the economic migration situation is probably mistaken…
Youre making a valid point. ANYONE who is SURE about the future is either a charlatan, clairvoyant, or worse still a politician. The more sure someone is, the more suspicious I become. (Danish proverb/Neils Bohr: "Its difficult to predict things, especially the future")
Nobby_Clarke:
Well I can’t decide. The stayers say it will be utopia if we stay,and the leavers say it will be utopia if we leave. The current situation is already known,so the maverick in me wants to leave,just to see if the sh*t hits the fan as badly as the stayers say it will. All I know is that any leaver that thinks it will improve the economic migration situation is probably mistaken…
There’s no such thing as utopia.The utopian model is rightly more a description of naive idealistic indoctrinated Socialist ideology.The same Socialist ideology that wants to wipe out the individual sovereign Nation States of Europe in favour of building a much bigger utopian version of the former Yugoslavia.In this case EUSSR.Hence the situation of Corbyn being allied with Cameron to save their Federalist dream.
So you’re saying that Merkel’s and Cameron’s and Juncker’s idea of free movement between Asia in the form of Turkey and the EU won’t add to the immigration issue/problems.
Franglais:
Youre making a valid point. ANYONE who is SURE about the future is either a charlatan, clairvoyant, or worse still a politician. The more sure someone is, the more suspicious I become. (Danish proverb/Neils Bohr: "Its difficult to predict things, especially the future")
No surprise that the in campaign is happy to selectively ignore that fact in the case of Cameron’s scare tactics.
OVLOV JAY:
The bbc aren’t impartial, they receive millions in Eu subsidies
They also employ child molesters!
Oh you dont do you BBC?? Sue me then!
Contact trucknet for IP address etc and am sure i can be easily traced by somebody in the know
PS Screw ur telly licence and stop knocking my door. Ur goons will never get in. Only wasting ur time 
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Youre making a valid point. ANYONE who is SURE about the future is either a charlatan, clairvoyant, or worse still a politician. The more sure someone is, the more suspicious I become. (Danish proverb/Neils Bohr: "Its difficult to predict things, especially the future")
No surprise that the in campaign is happy to selectively ignore that fact in the case of Cameron’s scare tactics.
Dont mention a pigs mouth and what should enter it
Carryfast:
anon84679660:
Jeremy Clarkson: My gut says stay in the EU
theguardian.com/politics/201 … -in-the-eu
What a surprise. The pro Clarkson Cameron gets support from the pro Cameron Clarkson.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03 … 49972.html
It’s like the Bore-o-vision ■■■■■■■ Contest.
Carryfast:
wing-nut:
Thought I’d share this with you as it’s a totally unbiased view of life after Brexit, and nothing to do with the BBC and may be of use to the undecided or anyone fearful of Brexit’s implications.
Neil Woodford who is one of the most successful investment fund managers currently managing £8.6billion, commissioned the highly respected Capital Economics Group to produce a report on the likely impact of Brexit on the UK.
Its a very long report, in fact its even longer than Carryfast’s posts, but even if you skip through it you should get the basics
The report can be found at the link below and there’s also a video in which Neil discusses the economic side of the report.
woodfordfunds.com/economic-impa … it-report/
More economics of the madhouse which say that low wages create economic growth.
Can anyone name a single big business that has gone into voluntary administration over it’s unwillingness to pay it’s staff say, the minimum wage/living wage/a payrise above the rate of inflation etc.?
“Economic Growth” is now defined by slave-driving firms that want everything they pay for as cheap as possible, but expect that same “public” they employ to pay THEM top dollar for their “services” rather than actual hands-on goods that we just don’t seem to make any more in this country…
TRUE economic growth in my mind - is when you create jobs that pay enough money to cover accommodation at the going rate for the proverbial 2.2 children family, put food on the table, AND have something left for “luxury” with. That “luxury” wealth is what powers the positive integer of growth. NO luxury = lack of feelgood factor, and a “bump along the bottom” renumeration that barely keeps up with the cost of living.
Each job created BELOW that threshold is therefore a step in the wrong direction. 1000 jobs thus created need 1001 jobs ABOVE that threshold - to put us back into net positive territory overall then I am suggesting… 
Winseer:
Carryfast:
More economics of the madhouse which say that low wages create economic growth.
“Economic Growth” is now defined by slave-driving firms that want everything they pay for as cheap as possible, but expect that same “public” they employ to pay THEM top dollar for their “services” rather than actual hands-on goods that we just don’t seem to make any more in this country…
^ This.That’s the definition of post Fordist economics which can only result in a deflationary crash resulting from cash loans secured against collapsing asset values.As proved by the impossible lie of bringing house values down to suit minimum wage levels without causing a massive negative equity trap for existing mortgage holders and the banks.