Current Affairs EU In or Out

[bring the ghost on]

Goebbles worthy propaganda? The London School of Economics saying the turnout of young people was higher than first thought? Just step into reality for a second.

Mate you need to learn your history, Goebbles key areas of propaganda were:

1. The Aryan race are superior to all others
2. The Jews are the enemy of the state
3. Turnout in referendums amongst young people can sometimes be higher than predicted.

 

[bobbydigital]

I now live in the midlands and most people were for Leave. The folk I know tend to be either farmers, businessmen and women, self employed types. These people are not fools but like workers around the country tend to be the backbone of our economy. Many people travel daily to work in London, but like myself none of them would actually want to live there with the sneering elite.......

Interesting you mention farmers. Do they think losing the subsidies they receive from the EU is a good idea? Do they think having free trade agreements with countries such as New Zealand like you have mentioned earlier will be good for them? Genuinely interested to understand as there must be some kind of benefits they see.

Anyway, it seems to contradict the beliefs of the National Farmers Union, which represents around 55,000 farmers in England and Wales and was against breaking with the EU from the start. Its president has subsequently gone as far as calling the vote’s result a “political car crash.”

 

[1966efc]

There are two certain facts about the voting: the percentage turnout among registered voters and the number of people in each age cohort. L S E suggests that 64% of those registered to vote in the age group 18 - 25. YouGov suggests 36% of the adults aged 18 - 25 turned out.

Both of these things can be true.

(As bonkers as the polls can be, doubt that any reputable firm is 30 points away from relative accuracy.)

 

[roydo]

Interesting you mention farmers. Do they think losing the subsidies they receive from the EU is a good idea? Do they think having free trade agreements with countries such as New Zealand like you have mentioned earlier will be good for them? Genuinely interested to understand as there must be some kind of benefits they see.

Anyway, it seems to contradict the beliefs of the National Farmers Union, which represents around 55,000 farmers in England and Wales and was against breaking with the EU from the start. Its president has subsequently gone as far as calling the vote’s result a “political car crash.”

Bit of a generalisation, but big farmers like the EU, smaller ones less so.

No idea how the NFU is funded, but I would guess they take more notice of their larger members than their smaller ones.

 

[bobbydigital]

Bit of a generalisation, but big farmers like the EU, smaller ones less so.

No idea how the NFU is funded, but I would guess they take more notice of their larger members than their smaller ones.

I don't know how they are funded either. Was genuinely asking the question as they must see some kind of benefits.

Looking from the outside it would be fair to say losing the subsidies from the EU and then removing restrictions on trade with countries that have a competitive advantage in producing agricultural products would not be a good thing for farmers. Maybe they are thinking the UK government will replace the EU subsidies?

 

[bring back the catt]

Having looked at the source it's Propaganda, glorified propaganda which is worthy of Goebbles. Does not warrant further thought.

Having read your comment, I decided none the less to read the report.
Doing so, i went through each line, sentence and paragraph and concluded you are absolutely correct in your synopsis in that it is riddled with innuendo and conjecture. It is without a single shred of credibility or factual evidence and should be confined, along with the LSE, to the annals of perpetuity and flushed away.
I have made notes of all the, erm, findings, and how anybody can be deemed an 'expert' and put their name to such a useless and banal paper and not blush with shame baffles me. I would distance myself from such blatant bias, whether it be on my own behalf, or that of my paymaster, with all undue haste. This merely prolongs needless ammunition to promote civil unrest which will do NOBODY any favours whether they agree with the outcome of the vote or not.
PLEASE, a heartfelt plea to all to move on and look to the positives. (That's not aimed at you Gwladysstreetlad, I hasten to add).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Having read your comment, I decided none the less to read the report.
Doing so, i went through each line, sentence and paragraph and concluded you are absolutely correct in your synopsis in that it is riddled with innuendo and conjecture. It is without a single shred of credibility or factual evidence and should be confined, along with the LSE, to the annals of perpetuity and flushed away.
I have made notes of all the, erm, findings, and how anybody can be deemed an 'expert' and put their name to such a useless and banal paper and not blush with shame baffles me. I would distance myself from such blatant bias, whether it be on my own behalf, or that of my paymaster, with all undue haste. This merely prolongs needless ammunition to promote civil unrest which will do NOBODY any favours whether they agree with the outcome of the vote or not.
PLEASE, a heartfelt plea to all to move on and look to the positives. (That's not aimed at you Gwladysstreetlad, I hasten to add).

I've looked on the LSE site and can't find anything - do you have a source?

 

[monty]

I've looked on the LSE site and can't find anything - do you have a source?

The sauce was brown Bruce as it came from backsides

 

[Joey66]

Having looked at the source it's Propaganda, glorified propaganda which is worthy of Goebbles. Does not warrant further thought.

Yes it cost the UK tax payer 8 million on a pamphlet that I burnt on my coal fire without reading it got a bit of heat to warm my water cystern up!

 

[Joey66]

I've looked on the LSE site and can't find anything - do you have a source?

Has Google let you down?

 

[hullefc]

I don't know how they are funded either. Was genuinely asking the question as they must see some kind of benefits.

Looking from the outside it would be fair to say losing the subsidies from the EU and then removing restrictions on trade with countries that have a competitive advantage in producing agricultural products would not be a good thing for farmers. Maybe they are thinking the UK government will replace the EU subsidies?

Those that led the leave campaign, said they would honour the money that went to farmers, regional development payments - which also help the rural communities and farmers - and the social fund.

EU referendum: what would leaving the Common Agricultural Policy mean for farmers?

"How much money do British farmers receive from CAP?
The CAP scheme has two main pillars: direct payments, known as the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), and funding for the wider rural economy.

In 2015, UK farmers received almost €3.1bn (£2.4bn) in direct payments, according to the NFU.

Farmers have access to the €5.2bn (£4bn) pot of funding that has been allocated to the UK for rural development projects over the period 2014-2020, including €2.3bn that has been transferred from the BPS to the UK rural development programmes.

In total, 55 per cent of UK total income from farming comes from CAP support".

Of course there is an opportunity to do away with support, and maybe more food, milk, etc. would get produced if support wasn't given. Opportunities beckon for farmers.

 

[bobbydigital]

Those that led the leave campaign, said they would honour the money that went to farmers, regional development payments - which also help the rural communities and farmers - and the social fund.

EU referendum: what would leaving the Common Agricultural Policy mean for farmers?

"How much money do British farmers receive from CAP?
The CAP scheme has two main pillars: direct payments, known as the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), and funding for the wider rural economy.

In 2015, UK farmers received almost €3.1bn (£2.4bn) in direct payments, according to the NFU.

Farmers have access to the €5.2bn (£4bn) pot of funding that has been allocated to the UK for rural development projects over the period 2014-2020, including €2.3bn that has been transferred from the BPS to the UK rural development programmes.

In total, 55 per cent of UK total income from farming comes from CAP support".

Of course there is an opportunity to do away with support, and maybe more food, milk, etc. would get produced if support wasn't given. Opportunities beckon for farmers.

Lucky they have another of those watertight promises from Farage, Johnson, Gove and the lads to rely upon then. No worries!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Has Google let you down?

Google and you lot.

 

[hullefc]

Lucky they have another of those watertight promises from Farage, Johnson, Gove and the lads to rely upon then. No worries!

Those that guaranteed those 'watertight' promises better hope that May gets in and doesn't 'honour' them. If she does it will lead to cuts elsewhere and/or tax rises.

 

[roydo]

Those that guaranteed those 'watertight' promises better hope that May gets in and doesn't 'honour' them. If she does it will lead to cuts elsewhere and/or tax rises.

It all gets a bit murky doesnt it? On the one hand, the Leavers bang on about the democratic will of the people having spoken, and Parliament should honour that, whilst some of the reasons that folk voted "Out" are not actually enshrined in a manifesto, nor were the "promises" (sic) made by anyone who is in a position to actually implement them.

Its like the country now has to act on a vote in taken a VIth form college debate.

Like I have said ad finitum, we just didnt think this through, and for such a ridiculously serious decision to be made on the back of such nonsense, an "Are you sure?" vote should be taken.

Undemocratic? Some would say so. Sensible? Pretty sure most other than hard line Leavers would say so.