'Both sides misleading voters' - what utter bullshit

I must say I find the current - and latest - round of abject lying from the Remain camp pretty hard to take. They have now begun to accuse the #Brexit campaigners of misleading voters with their 'outrageous' claims for what would happen post Brexit.

Well excuse me but what claims are those? Essentially what Brexit campaigners have been saying so far is: 'no it won't'. 'No it doesn't'. 'That has no basis in fact'.

So far the Brexit campaign has essentially been refuting the ridiculous claims being made by 'Remain' - most, if not all of which, have also been trashed by experts - including, even the BBC's own reality check referendum website.

MPs committee claims both sides are misleading the public and that, if anything, the £350million a week claim is the worst of the misinformation - it's worth taking a look at this claim.

The £350m claim does not mention the rebate. It is a weekly figure that is absolutely correct. The committee is not saying the £350m is wrong just that it does not take account of the rebate. That is a different issue. What's more this is real money, it is actually paid, it is not some estimate of what 'might happen' sometime in the future. What happens is that we do pay £350m a week but less than half of that money comes back to the UK where it is spent by the EU on 'projects' that it decides upon. So while the money does technically come back to be spent in the UK, it is not spent on stuff that we decide upon but on vanity projects for the EU - some of which are good and worthwhile, some of which aren't. The issue is that it's our money and we have no control over how it is spent and we could spend it differently if we chose to carry on allocating it to UK projects after Brexit. The other half of our EU weekly spend is actual money that we pay and which disappears - a total of around £10billion a year. This is money we could spend on UK infrastructure if we left the EU. There's no disputing that fact - and it could amount to a fully staffed hospital every two weeks as an example of how the money could be spent. This is not an outrageous claim but solid financial fact.

On the other hand the £4,300 a year that families would be worse off after Brexit is pure speculation. It has no basis in fact,  was trashed by the BBC's own website on the day it was made (but subsequently watered down in its condemnation due to pressure put on the BBC by the Remain side). It makes use of ridiculous equations and is pure guesswork. Compare the two claims. This government committee and (in today's Mail On Sunday) John Major, are conflating the two claims as being misleading and untrue. Only one of them fits into that category.

Since even before the start of the campaign, Remain has been suggesting that Brexit could cost 3 million UK jobs. Nick Clegg made the claim and it has been repeated by Mandelson and others since then. It is utter bullshit as the committee concludes - but the claim has been made, the media coverage secured and the message communicated. This is outrageous.

And, speaking of outrageous, this also fits the bill. What Andrew Tyrie is saying here is that the only claim that is actually true and fact-based is much worse than the others! Utter bollocks.

And this from John Major today. The only falsehood he mentions is the one being perpetuated by his own side - the £40 billion black hole in UK finances. Where has that figure come from? How credible is it? Has it come from a treasury that cannot hit 6-monthly targets and forecasts let alone those for a 6 year or 16 year period? If so it has zero credibility.

Major compares this with the Brexit scaremongering about immigration. Again, sorry but the figure of 330,000 migrants into the UK (when we were promised that Dave would get the figure down to the tens of thousands), is actually real and factual. Major says Brexit campaigners are scaremongering about Turkey joining the EU which would give its 77 million people free access to the UK. 

Well how accurate is this? Is Turkey trying to become a member? Yes. Is Merkel in favour of it? Yes. Has Dave gone on the record to say that he would support it? Yes. Is the population of Turkey 77 million? Yes. Would they get free access to all EU countries if Turkey joined the EU? Yes.

So what is your fucking issue then Mr Major? How is the Brexit claim that Turkey joining the EU would potentially put even more pressure on UK infrastructure if we stay in the EU a shameless falsehood?

They've all learned from Tony Blair. If you have an area of weakness target it, shout loudly, claim it is your opponents area of weakness and thereby cause confusion so that the advantage that the other side had has been lost in the confusion you have created.

And the media is still falling for this tactic, time after time.

Thanks for reading.

Hitler would have wanted us to 'Remain'

 Only he wouldn't have given us a referendum of course.

Honestly the naivety of some people this morning following the BBC and other MSM quoting Boris making use of the word 'Hitler' is ridiculous. Maybe some facts might help?

Hitler led a socialist dictatorship (although he was elected by the German people, twice) whose aim was to take-over the continent of Europe and make the whole place a single country called Germany. It would have had a single currency, flag, anthem, army and government and the people would not have been able to democratically get rid of their government once the new state had been established. Former national governments would have been subservient to the central power in Berlin and would have been responsible for enacting and enforcing centrally created laws in their local 'regions' of Europe. They would have been answerable to the European/German government in Berlin.

Whereas the EU is a socialist dictatorship whose aim, via its 'ever closer union' policy, is to make the continent of Europe a single place with its own currency, flag, anthem, army and government. Once established (and this is true now) the people are unable to get rid of those who govern them via the democratic process, power is centralised in Brussels and national governments are increasingly subservient to the central power base, responsible for enacting and enforcing local laws handed down by Brussels.

The difference between the two is that we (the UK) opposed Hitler and fought a war for our own freedom and the freedom of the people of Europe; whereas we are now paying to support the EU and our government is campaigning to hand over our democratic freedoms and the UK's status as a self-governing, independent nation state to Brussels.

You can see where people might get confused between the two issues can't you?

We seem to be trying to airbrush Hitler from the lexicon, the word seems to have become like the 'N' word for some crazy reason. How can we learn from the mistakes of the past if the 'right on' brigade won't even allow them to be discussed? That seems to me to be very like Fascism.

Thanks for reading.

Do non-European companies really want to have to do a trade deal with 27 disparate & dodgy states or a globally trusted partner?

If you're an international company wanting to invest in and gain access to the European marketplace, what would be your preference in terms of securing the best possible arrangements?

Clearly you want free and unfettered access to trade with the whole of Europe and the EU and EZ (Eurozone countries); so what is the best way of achieving this?

Would it be easier to have to negotiate with 27 or 28 individual countries, all of whom have a veto as well as local issues (perhaps it has important manufacturers operating - and competing - in the same sector for example), and many of whom are mired in corruption from their former eastern bloc pasts...

Or would it instead be easier just to do a deal with one country, through whom you can secure the free and unfettered access you need? A country which, crucially, is a trusted, uncorrupted, financially stable, trade-driven, internationalist partner with strong trading and distribution infrastructure and which speaks the same international business language (English) as you do?

You see, following Brexit, the chances of the UK being frozen out of trade with the EU are vanishingly small, given that the EU enjoys a trade deficit (in its favour) of £106.4 billion a year (2015 figures - ONS). So the UK will have free and unfettered access to the European marketplace post Brexit and, therefore, in order to operate in the EU marketplace, all you would have to do is do a trade deal with a highly receptive UK, rather than the clunking, red-tape infested and highly protectionist machinery of the EU.

Oh and by the way, your deal with the UK would also give you access to the biggest 'customer' in the European union and, almost certainly, Commonwealth countries as well. Do you really need to go to Romania, or Hungary, or Albania?

It's a no-brainer - and it's what terrifies the 'Remain' camp both within the UK and the EU - that the UK will thrive and prosper outside the Union and will then cause other ambitious EU member states to want to leave and take control of their own economies rather than being dictated to by the EU and, as far as southern Europe is concerned, being economically sacrificed on the alter of what is effectively a German economic take-over of the continent.

And, just as a 'by the way' comment, we're also being told of the threat to Sterling of Brexit. The real threat to Sterling is not from Brexit but from staying in, whereupon we will, according to the EU's own Five Presidents Report, be forced to adopt the Euro currency by 2025 at the very latest.

If we do leave the EU the pound will become an extremely safe and strong currency, particularly in comparison to what would then be an ailing and failing Euro as the whole EU project starts to crumble even more quickly than it is doing already.

Thanks for reading.

Stronger IN - 50 reasons

Bullshit - debunked by the BBC's own fact check website. Government gets its predictions wrong in two months let alone 16 years.

There is no evidence that there would be any trade barriers imposed if we leave - the EU needs our trade more than we need it - to the tune of a £106.4bn trade deficit in Europe's favour. We are the EU's biggest customer worldwide.

Linked to our trade with the EU - not dependent upon our membership. This is a bogus 'fact' based on a 2002 student essay.

Part of the establishment, so what?

Even Stuart Rose, head of the BSE campaign said prices are higher in the UK - by between 8% and 17% because of our EU membership

It's a declining figure of less than 40% (figure includes worldwide exports that go via Rotterdam). This is predicted to diminish further to around 25% by 2025. And there's that trade deficit of £106.4 billion (2015) in their favour. If we go and the EU doesn't get a good trade deal with the UK, the EU fails economically. That's where the power lies in this relationship.

Hardly surprising given where we are geographically - there's no evidence that this would be adversely effected by Brexit.

A stupid one-off comment about a figure that is itself pure fantasy.

Source? Most UK small businesses don't trade with Europe and want to be outside the EU's cloying red tape and regulations that they currently have to meet even if the don't trade with the EU.

Nebulous comment not based in any way on knowable facts.

UK research funding via the EU is less than 4% of the total and is unlikely to diminish because of Brexit because we have the research facilities in the UK that they don't have anywhere else.

Rubbish. These are commercial operators working in a free market - this would not change in the event of Brexit.

What we're at the front of the queue for currently is the massively damaging TTIP which would harm the NHS and allow major US corporations to sue nationally elected governments if their policies affected corporate profits. Not a queue anyone in their right mind would want to join.

Several other unions want to leave as they quite rightly see the EU's immigration policies damaging wage levels and job security as more uncontrolled and unskilled people arrive from third world countries and lesser economies in former eastern bloc countries.

The majority of establishment figures who want to continue the position where ordinary people are kept subservient to the elite who want to carry on exploiting them. Hardly a surprise is it?

More establishment organisations who are all in the same elitist boat and not operating for the benefit of ordinary people and for whom a lack of democracy is a good thing.

Rubbish - not based on any factual evidence whatsoever - the RAC questions these figures and they are simply not knowable given the volatility of oil prices.

The EU's push for green energy has seen UK energy prices increase by more than 50% in the past 7 years, forcing high energy industries away from the UK and causing massive job losses. This is the absolute opposite of reality.

Two thirds of UK farmers want us to leave the EU. Nuff said. The EU's CAP which is still 47% of the total EU budget is about protecting inefficient EU farmers, particularly the French subsistence farming culture which that country could not possibly afford on its own - that's why France is now subservient to Germany.

Rubbish. Saving the £19 billion we spend (give) to the the EU every year would allow us to spend much more on the NHS and other UK infrastructure as well as allowing us to control our borders so that we know how many people's needs we need to meet, which is not the case at the moment. TTIP would be a disaster for the NHS.

Investment - i.e. spending money in the EU's biggest and fastest-growing economy for profit. This is not about our membership it's about trade which will not be adversely effected by Brexit.

Yes because under the terms of our EU membership we are not allowed to forge our own trade deals outside the EU. The EU is a protectionist bloc, preventing us from being more global and preventing Africa from trading its way into the first world. Our existing trade deals would not be effected by Brexit because the EU needs a fair deal with its biggest customer.

Rubbish. The Commonwealth wants to secure trade deals with the world's 5th largest economy and given the language, cultural and historic connections with the UK. The EU does not help our trade with the Commonwealth at all.

Source? Credibility? How can we possibly be better off if we continue to give so much money to the EU that could instead be spent on UK public services? The money coming from the EU is not the EU's money, it is less than 50% of the money we give to the EU for goodness' sake. Only we don't control how it is spent. Madness.

Annual black hole? No evidence to support this. This is just a made-up figure as part of project fear. It is simply not credible.

Source? Credibility? Or finger in the air wishful thinking? There is no evidence to support this claim.

Establishment figure. So what?

If a charity has to be supported by the EU - i.e. by government taxation, it is not a charity. It's time the charity sector was scrutinised much more carefully and that charities were seen to be about supporting good causes rather than as mega salary vehicles for chief executives and management teams.

Tax avoidance is a matter for national governments (until the EU completes its take-over anyway). Juncker and his pals have been helping multinationals to avoid tax for years and now, once it becomes high profile they change their tune? It simply doesn't stack up.

Brexit is a risk to financial stability in Europe - because if we go and there isn't a good (fair) trade deal then the EU economy will sink into recession again. That is vanishingly unlikely to happen (no trade deal) but the risk is to the EU not the UK - why should we continue to pay for and to prop up this failing bloc when it's not in our interests to do so?

This is money that we provide to the EU - and it would represent less than half of what we provide - it is not 'free money'. We could, outside the EU invest more money in these things - we are already doing so - and to suggest our fisheries industry would be helped by the EU which has decimated them over the last 40 years is just laughable.

The UK is the world's leading financial centre. This is like suggesting that we're better off in the EU because it has a small piggy bank, compared to our global financial institutions. Laughable.

Safer? When Frau Merkel is inviting Muslims from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia etc to come to Europe in uncontrolled numbers? With no border controls and the provable migration of terrorists? Rubbish.

Let's get this straight. We cannot (man cannot) control the climate. Every single alarmist prediction made by the IPCC over the past 30 years has failed to materialise. The climate is changing, it always has, we cannot stop it and trying to do so is imposing mega taxes on people who can afford it the least. This is a global scam that is being perpetuated by the EU.

As we have seen recently in France and Belgium this information sharing is dodgy at best - security services are reluctant to share terrorist information within countries let alone internationally. They are not fit for purpose - our own membership of the Five-Eyes system is much more effective and nothing to do with the EU.

We have our own air quality and environmental standards - the EU didn't invent this - it has made use of many of our world-leading standards to bring up standards elsewhere in the Eurozone, not because we were not pulling our weight.

This would not change if we were to leave - we have some of the highest standards of environmental protection in the world - this is a nebulous argument.

The two things that threaten workers' rights the most in the EU are uncontrolled immigration and the TTIP trade deal. We have always set global standards for workers rights and there is no evidence to suggest that this would not continue to be the case following Brexit.

And look where this has got us? Multiculturalism has failed according to Dave and to Frau Merkel. We have always had strong rules in this area but the EU has taken them to more extreme levels to the point where our legally imposed tolerance is being used against us to actually threaten our way of life. Time we took back control of this issue.

It has failed to achieve much at all in 40 years. Importing millions of immigrants who view women as second class citizens is hardly going to help is it?

Ah the pitch for the gay vote? The UK has recognised same sex marriages and equal treatment for minorities of all persuasions - quite rightly. This would not change one iota if we were to leave the EU.

Erasmus has nothing to do with the EU - it is about students from all over the world and the UK's leading institutions will prosper because of their quality whatever we do about Brexit. This is a global market not one run by the EU.

And the UK doesn't have a creative sector without the EU? This is nonsense. The UK creative sector is thriving despite the regimented EU and will be freer to do so outside of the EU.

The EU has created conflict with Russia because of its utterly mad expansionist colonial ambitions. There is no need for this - we should be working with Russia against the current threat (terrorism) rather than still viewing it through the outdated prism of the cold war. Our own foreign policy goals are invariably ignored by the EU.

This is not EU law but a move by the mobile industry. It would be extremely unlikely to change if we leave. And for £55m a day it's hardly a reason to stay in and lose our sovereignty.

The UK is the world's largest per capita donor of aid (of a major economy). We give more per capita than the USA, Germany and France. And we meet our commitments rather than making pledges that are subsequently ignored. And it's our money for goodness' sake. We're already giving 0.7% of GDP to foreign despots who don't need our money as it is.

Or two days' worth of UK contribution to the EU. This is piffle. The EU has made very little impact on the peace process and is itself creating conflict around Europe with its immigration and economic policies.

Yet none of them have said they will leave after Brexit. Some of the most efficient car plants in the world are here in the UK, it's a thriving sector. And the German manufacturers need our business to survive. They are simply not going to jeopardise that. Ford is no surprise since the EU gave it £80m to move Transit van production from Southampton to non-EU Turkey recently.

Yeah yeah and I'm sure we could find hundreds more who take the opposite view. This has no substance to it whatsoever.

The EU should not be about University entrants or success. This is a matter for the universities themselves - they will not suffer inn what is a global 'marketplace' if we leave. Cherry picking some establishment academics who don't make a coherent argument for 'Remain' is hardly proof positive that we should stay in.



And there you have it. The 50 reasons why we should give away our ability to govern ourselves or be able to elect or discard the people who represent us and who we pay for. 50 reasons why we should prop up the world's worst performing trading bloc?

It doesn't amout to a hill of beans does it.

Vote Brexit.

Thanks for reading.