Issues relating to the EU referendum

[Triggaaar]

They don't take an editorial position if that's what you're after. It's analysis - which is why it's a good neutral website.

You're either being disingenuous or naive.

"Authors Swati Dhingra and Thomas Sampson note that it is highly uncertain what the UK’s future would look like outside the EU, which makes ‘Brexit’ a leap into the unknown."
That's not analysis that is an editorial position. They could have equally said "The EU continues to change and the UK alone cannot prevent it from changing, the Eurozone crises is yet to be resolved, and remaining with the EU is a leap into the unknown."

Their "analysis" says that one option is ‘doing a Norway’ and that another option is ‘doing a Switzerland’. I'm sorry, but what about 'doing a UK'? If you add Norway and Switzerland together their economies are still less than half of ours. The EU relies far more on our spending that they do on others.

Their "analysis" says we're a small country, but we have the 5th largest economy in the world. Why didn't their "analysis" say "as a country with the 5th largest economy in the world, the UK would have substantial bargaining power"?

Because it's not just analysis is it.

And here's further proof that you're mistaken:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/02/19/the-uk-needs-the-eu-but-the-eu-needs-the-uk-too/

No one can read that, understand it, and honestly say it's not giving a position.
"LSE’s Visiting Professor in Practice Joaquín Almunia offers his opinion."


So, were you honestly mistaken, or disingenuous?

 

[Notters]

at least we have the option of change on one of these institutions

Yes, we may potentially change the EU if we're still in it.

The chances of changing the House of Lords significantly are minimal!

 

[5ways]

You're either being disingenuous or naive.

"Authors Swati Dhingra and Thomas Sampson note that it is highly uncertain what the UK’s future would look like outside the EU, which makes ‘Brexit’ a leap into the unknown."
That's not analysis that is an editorial position. They could have equally said "The EU continues to change and the UK alone cannot prevent it from changing, the Eurozone crises is yet to be resolved, and remaining with the EU is a leap into the unknown."

Their "analysis" says that one option is ‘doing a Norway’ and that another option is ‘doing a Switzerland’. I'm sorry, but what about 'doing a UK'? If you add Norway and Switzerland together their economies are still less than half of ours. The EU relies far more on our spending that they do on others.

Their "analysis" says we're a small country, but we have the 5th largest economy in the world. Why didn't their "analysis" say "as a country with the 5th largest economy in the world, the UK would have substantial bargaining power"?

Because it's not just analysis is it.

And here's further proof that you're mistaken:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/02/19/the-uk-needs-the-eu-but-the-eu-needs-the-uk-too/

No one can read that, understand it, and honestly say it's not giving a position.
"LSE’s Visiting Professor in Practice Joaquín Almunia offers his opinion."


So, were you honestly mistaken, or disingenuous?

An editorial position would be one taken by the publication itself not their contributors. This is the editorial position

" BrexitVote is a multi-disciplinary, evidence-based blog run by the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Our aim is to inform the debate surrounding the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union with accessible commentary and research."

They are informing the debate in a way that, to me, is balanced, fair and sophisticated.

 

[Triggaaar]

An editorial position would be one taken by the publication itself not their contributors.

The editors choose what is and isn't published.

mejona wanted facts so he could make an informed decision, and you put forward the LSE as independent. Everything I see on that site seems to support staying in, so I asked you to post a link to one of their articles that supports Brexit. You did the opposite. I asked again and you said they don't take a position, they just give analysis.

You are clearly wrong. They do take a position, it's clear in their articles. Therefore, it is not the independent advice you say it is.

They are informing the debate in a way that, to me, is balanced, fair and sophisticated.

You are mistaken. They give opinion, and the opinion they give is always the same. It would be like pretending the Daily Hate is giving fair and balanced analysis so that we may form our own view.

 

[neilbard]

Who are you

 

[Triggaaar]

Who are you

I was preparing to cringe as I watched that, but damn that was funny. Perfect timing.

 

[melias shoes]

They say our security will be at risk if we leave the EU. Well we was in the EU when the IRA was bombing British cities. We was in the EU when the 7/7 outrage took place. EU security didn't shine too brightly last year in Paris did it? Our security at risk if we leave EU? Absolute nonsense.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I was preparing to cringe as I watched that, but damn that was funny. Perfect timing.

It was funny, but then the extended exaggerated hysterical laughter was cringeworthy, like primary school kids.

 

[Triggaaar]

It was funny, but then the extended exaggerated hysterical laughter was cringeworthy, like primary school kids.

I disagree

 

[Bold Seagull]

I disagree

Good for you.

 

[5ways]

The editors choose what is and isn't published.

mejona wanted facts so he could make an informed decision, and you put forward the LSE as independent. Everything I see on that site seems to support staying in, so I asked you to post a link to one of their articles that supports Brexit. You did the opposite. I asked again and you said they don't take a position, they just give analysis.

You are clearly wrong. They do take a position, it's clear in their articles. Therefore, it is not the independent advice you say it is.

You are mistaken. They give opinion, and the opinion they give is always the same. It would be like pretending the Daily Hate is giving fair and balanced analysis so that we may form our own view.

It is totally and completely unlike the Mail. There is a lot of fair and balanced information there. It is a good source with a good amount of detail. If they survey the facts as they see them and come to a consistent conclusion, perhaps that says more about the facts than about them. Both tallies do not need to be equal for the articles published to be fair and informative. LSE academics are hardly going to try and hoodwink the nation. Mejona will get informed views there.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/

 

[pb21]

They say our security will be at risk if we leave the EU. Well we was in the EU when the IRA was bombing British cities. We was in the EU when the 7/7 outrage took place. EU security didn't shine too brightly last year in Paris did it? Our security at risk if we leave EU? Absolute nonsense.

How many terrorist attacks did France have during the period it wasn't in the EU in the last two years?

I don't think you'll be able to answer as they were in the EU, therefore you can't come to any conclusions regarding being a member state of the EU and and the decreased/increased chances of a terrorist attack.

 

[melias shoes]

How many terrorist attacks did France have during the period it wasn't in the EU in the last two years?

I don't think you'll be able to answer as they were in the EU, therefore you can't come to any conclusions regarding being a member state of the EU and and the decreased/increased chances of a terrorist attack.

Does anyone understand what he just said?

 

[Triggaaar]

If they survey the facts as they see them and come to a consistent conclusion, perhaps that says more about the facts than about them.

That is so naive it's ridiculous. If we were discussing something where pretty much everyone in the country was in agreement, you'd have a point, but we're discussing something where the country is completely split. Intelligent, educated, successful people on both sides with different views. If you find a collection of people that all share the same view on this, it means they are biased, not that they are correct. That applies whether that group is for the IN camp or OUT camp.

Both tallies do not need to be equal for the articles published to be fair and informative.

They don't need to be equal, but I would like see at least a few marks in the OUT tally. There are none. The website is completely biased.

 

[pb21]

Does anyone understand what he just said?

You said EU security didn't shine too brightly, how do you know that, how do you know it wouldn't have been worse had France not been in the EU?

Answer is you don't, nobody does therefore to say it's nonsense that being in the EU provides added security is actually in itself nonsense!

 

[GT49er]

Does anyone understand what he just said?

In the unlikely event of someone understanding it, I hope they'll have the common decency to explain it to him!

 

[maltaseagull]

I'd like to find more source and info on a 2nd referendum.

Out of the corner of my ear I (mis)heard on the radio that Boris had mentioned it. It was moved on from before I'd focused in on it.

Can anyone find some source or commentary on this ?

I got the impression that if the vote is no, it's final we leave. Despite what Boris says about negotiating another new deal.

 

[melias shoes]

You said EU security didn't shine too brightly, how do you know that, how do you know it wouldn't have been worse had France not been in the EU?

Answer is you don't, nobody does therefore to say it's nonsense that being in the EU provides added security is actually in itself nonsense!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b181da-9393-11e5-befa-99ceebcbb272_story.html

Perhaps you should read this.

 

[pb21]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b181da-9393-11e5-befa-99ceebcbb272_story.html

Perhaps you should read this.

That doesn't tell me how many attacks there would have been had France not been in the EU!

 

[Triggaaar]

That doesn't tell me how many attacks there would have been had France not been in the EU!

It suggests there wouldn't have been that one. It suggest Europe is more in danger of similar attacks due to the open border policy, than if the countries weren't in the EU.