SURVEY: Brexit, do you support it?

[Grouse]

"The country, along with the rest in the Schengen, was ordered by Brussels to accept thousands of migrants or face a £195,000 fine (250,000) per person rejected."

This from Hungary who are voting on whether to let more migrants into their country. Hungary feel they are being bullied by the E.U. Now, who would have thought that the E.U would try to force such a thing through? And this coming from elected representatives? NO.

We do need to vote OUT to stop our own beautiful country being under an E.U. dictatorship.

IMHO of course

So Whambam, what would you suggest doing about the refugee crisis? Separately, in this age of global media, what would you do about economic migration?

I'm all ears!

Which 'refugees'?

Have you seen how many of these 'refugees' are fit, healthy young men? These should be back in their own countries fighting to help liberate them. Instead, they move into Europe where they try ti intimidate the local populations. There are reports of them patrolling streets insisting life should be lived their way.

Women are harassed for wearing western style clothing. Women and children are accosted in streets, on trains, in swimming pools.

These 'immigrants should be deported back to their own countires.

I see no reason why these 'immigrants' should be forced onto any country that does not want them.

The women and children - and there seem to be very few of these - should be given safe haven in the FIRST safe country they land in. This should be a temporary measure until their own countries are deemed safe once again (which - admittedly - may take some time). But these genuine refugees should not then be allowed to have all their dozens of relatives join them. They, also, should not be allocated to a country that does not want them, but remain in the safe countries they land in.

If Turkey - as the E.U. says - is a safe place, then they should stay there, not be shipped to Europe.

I suppose you would have them flood into the U.K. and live here on benefits, get free housing, white goods and free schooling? They do not integrate wherever they go.

There are reports today that another refugee place has been torched in Italy. That would make it the 3rd time they have torched this particular place. A safe place where they are looked after and given shelter. Not that it means much to them.

My, what an angry, unpleasant person you must be. Have you tried getting help?

[Grouse]

Did you miss this part ?

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671271/BBC-poll-watchdog-Remain-campaign-Leave-Brexit-News-watch

You should read the article, not just the headline!

Much of it is rehashed, where they have deliberately looked at programmes from only select dates and in such a way as to provide an unfair and unrepresentative picture of the BBCs referendum coverage"

.

The BBC provides clear and impartial information about the different sides of the argument and will ensure that its coverage is balanced across the duration of the campaign.

We dont accept this so-called analysis, which comes from a group with a clear agenda".

This article is based on News-watch.

Of course they're picking certain dates. Dates when the BBC has been anything but impartial. Throughout this campaign and before,it has shown a complete bias to the remain group. Remember when they were Forced to make a public apology to UKIP over the make up of the BBC Question time audiences.

This is just one of many examples.

They're intelligent people. What do you expect them to do?

[Grouse]

Here is another example of the BBC's biased reporting and lack of impartiality. I believe it has yet to provide its answer, but it is under

an injunction to respond within 60 days.

It concerns climate change (global warming to the BBC), and where a complete disregard for the

"guidelines" which are handed down from on high. Here is a small excerpt from the complaint:

. . . "It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the official position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but politically-correct opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBCs continuing bias on the climate question its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not"

The full article makes interesting reading. Here is the link.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/major-new-complaint-submitted-to-bbc-over-climate-bias/

Haha! Brexit, Trump, anti climate change, creationism probably (probably caravans also).

[nontabury]

Have we all of a sudden moved away from discussing Brexit and on to a discussion of whether BBC is impartial on it's views of global warming! Regardless, the BBC is just one piece of the communications services that serve the UK populous, it seems tedious to continue to debate attributes of the the BBC unless there is an over riding point to be made and/or, folks are inclined to bash the BBC anyway - I thought not and I thought so!

The point that is proven,is just how biased the BBC is. It's not about bashing the BBC,it's wanting impartial reporting from an organisation that used to be respected throughout the world,sadly those years are long gone.

[nontabury]

"The country, along with the rest in the Schengen, was ordered by Brussels to accept thousands of migrants or face a £195,000 fine (250,000) per person rejected."

This from Hungary who are voting on whether to let more migrants into their country. Hungary feel they are being bullied by the E.U. Now, who would have thought that the E.U would try to force such a thing through? And this coming from elected representatives? NO.

We do need to vote OUT to stop our own beautiful country being under an E.U. dictatorship.

IMHO of course

So Whambam, what would you suggest doing about the refugee crisis? Separately, in this age of global media, what would you do about economic migration?

I'm all ears!

Which 'refugees'?

Have you seen how many of these 'refugees' are fit, healthy young men? These should be back in their own countries fighting to help liberate them. Instead, they move into Europe where they try ti intimidate the local populations. There are reports of them patrolling streets insisting life should be lived their way.

Women are harassed for wearing western style clothing. Women and children are accosted in streets, on trains, in swimming pools.

These 'immigrants should be deported back to their own countires.

I see no reason why these 'immigrants' should be forced onto any country that does not want them.

The women and children - and there seem to be very few of these - should be given safe haven in the FIRST safe country they land in. This should be a temporary measure until their own countries are deemed safe once again (which - admittedly - may take some time). But these genuine refugees should not then be allowed to have all their dozens of relatives join them. They, also, should not be allocated to a country that does not want them, but remain in the safe countries they land in.

If Turkey - as the E.U. says - is a safe place, then they should stay there, not be shipped to Europe.

I suppose you would have them flood into the U.K. and live here on benefits, get free housing, white goods and free schooling? They do not integrate wherever they go.

There are reports today that another refugee place has been torched in Italy. That would make it the 3rd time they have torched this particular place. A safe place where they are looked after and given shelter. Not that it means much to them.

My, what an angry, unpleasant person you must be. Have you tried getting help?

Says Mr Nasty, Sorry! I should have said "Mr only me educated Mr Nasty".

[Grouse]

BIAS

Turns out The Spectator ( they of the great BBC expose) are owned by the same people who own the Telegraph

Past editors include Nigel Lawson and Boris.

And people on here have the AUDACITY to call the BBC biased

Shameful

[nontabury]

Did you miss this part ?

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671271/BBC-poll-watchdog-Remain-campaign-Leave-Brexit-News-watch

You should read the article, not just the headline!

Much of it is rehashed, where they have deliberately looked at programmes from only select dates and in such a way as to provide an unfair and unrepresentative picture of the BBCs referendum coverage"

.

The BBC provides clear and impartial information about the different sides of the argument and will ensure that its coverage is balanced across the duration of the campaign.

We dont accept this so-called analysis, which comes from a group with a clear agenda".

This article is based on News-watch.

Of course they're picking certain dates. Dates when the BBC has been anything but impartial. Throughout this campaign and before,it has shown a complete bias to the remain group. Remember when they were Forced to make a public apology to UKIP over the make up of the BBC Question time audiences.

This is just one of many examples.

They're intelligent people. What do you expect them to do?

Completely agree,unfortunately Chang Mia thinks otherwise.

[Grouse]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/u-k-pound-rises-as-opinion-poll-boosts-lead-of-pro-eu-campaign

"It's all over now" as Jagger would say!

[chiang mai]

Have we all of a sudden moved away from discussing Brexit and on to a discussion of whether BBC is impartial on it's views of global warming! Regardless, the BBC is just one piece of the communications services that serve the UK populous, it seems tedious to continue to debate attributes of the the BBC unless there is an over riding point to be made and/or, folks are inclined to bash the BBC anyway - I thought not and I thought so!

The point that is proven,is just how biased the BBC is. It's not about bashing the BBC,it's wanting impartial reporting from an organisation that used to be respected throughout the world,sadly those years are long gone.

OK cool. In that case can the Mods please retitle the thread, " A discussion about BBC bias and Global Warming and other things not directly related to Brexit"!

[Orac]

Have we all of a sudden moved away from discussing Brexit and on to a discussion of whether BBC is impartial on it's views of global warming! Regardless, the BBC is just one piece of the communications services that serve the UK populous, it seems tedious to continue to debate attributes of the the BBC unless there is an over riding point to be made and/or, folks are inclined to bash the BBC anyway - I thought not and I thought so!

The point that is proven,is just how biased the BBC is. It's not about bashing the BBC,it's wanting impartial reporting from an organisation that used to be respected throughout the world,sadly those years are long gone.

OK cool. In that case can the Mods please retitle the thread, " A discussion about BBC bias and Global Warming and other things not directly related to Brexit"!

Maybe Brexit will save us from the threat of European climate change and BBC are keeping this information from us?

[Grouse]

Heseltine on Der Dicke

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-boris-johnson-lord-heseltine-brexit-vote-leave-eu-comments-hitler-obscene-harming-a7035121.html

[Grouse]

73% probability of remain

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0Y80ID?irpc=932

?

[Jip99]

Have we all of a sudden moved away from discussing Brexit and on to a discussion of whether BBC is impartial on it's views of global warming! Regardless, the BBC is just one piece of the communications services that serve the UK populous, it seems tedious to continue to debate attributes of the the BBC unless there is an over riding point to be made and/or, folks are inclined to bash the BBC anyway - I thought not and I thought so!

The point that is proven,is just how biased the BBC is. It's not about bashing the BBC,it's wanting impartial reporting from an organisation that used to be respected throughout the world,sadly those years are long gone.

OK cool. In that case can the Mods please retitle the thread, " A discussion about BBC bias and Global Warming and other things not directly related to Brexit"!

The BBC were OK here:-

BBC News

42 mins ·

Does staying in the EU really guarantee women's rights?

Judge for yourself: http://bbc.in/22g36im

[Grouse]

Have we all of a sudden moved away from discussing Brexit and on to a discussion of whether BBC is impartial on it's views of global warming! Regardless, the BBC is just one piece of the communications services that serve the UK populous, it seems tedious to continue to debate attributes of the the BBC unless there is an over riding point to be made and/or, folks are inclined to bash the BBC anyway - I thought not and I thought so!

The point that is proven,is just how biased the BBC is. It's not about bashing the BBC,it's wanting impartial reporting from an organisation that used to be respected throughout the world,sadly those years are long gone.

OK cool. In that case can the Mods please retitle the thread, " A discussion about BBC bias and Global Warming and other things not directly related to Brexit"!

The BBC were OK here:-

BBC News

42 mins ·

Does staying in the EU really guarantee women's rights?

Judge for yourself: http://bbc.in/22g36im

Sorry, I don't get the point....

[chiang mai]

Did you miss this part ?

It was not disclosed by the BBC accounts as an EU grant, merely classed as other funding. It took an FOI to prise the informstion out of them.

So somebody asked and they told them, that's not concealment. And I strongly suggest that somebody who is anti-BBC is trying to make mischief out of this since the author concludes that "the BBC is uneasy about the public being aware of it's financial arrangements". I put it to you that an alternative conclusion is that a paltry grant from a source such as the EU is, in the minds of accountants and the context of 3.7 billion, totally unremarkable and of no concern. It also strikes me that it's become fashionable over time to treat the BBC as we do banks and to bash them at the slightest possible hint of impropriety, guilty until proven innocent or similar.

The fact remains that a grant of 750 thousand per year for four years is peanuts when compared to 3.5 BILLION, operative words being grant, thousands, billions and peanuts.

Change tack, when it suits you.

Well done.

The BBC is funded by the public and its accounts should be open to the public. It should not be taking an FOI to drag information from them.

The amount is immaterial, the intent speaks volumes.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671271/BBC-poll-watchdog-Remain-campaign-Leave-Brexit-News-watch

You should read the article, not just the headline!

Much of it is rehashed, where they have deliberately looked at programmes from only select dates and in such a way as to provide an unfair and unrepresentative picture of the BBCs referendum coverage"

.

The BBC provides clear and impartial information about the different sides of the argument and will ensure that its coverage is balanced across the duration of the campaign.

We dont accept this so-called analysis, which comes from a group with a clear agenda".

This article is based on News-watch.

Of course they're picking certain dates. Dates when the BBC has been anything but impartial. Throughout this campaign and before,it has shown a complete bias to the remain group. Remember when they were Forced to make a public apology to UKIP over the make up of the BBC Question time audiences.

This is just one of many examples.

They're intelligent people. What do you expect them to do?

Completely agree,unfortunately Chang Mia thinks otherwise.

Exactly how you get from, me suggesting you read the entire article and not just the headline, to, I don't think (in your mind) they're intelligent people, is about as mysterious as the (non-existent) calculations showing how Brexit would be economically positive for the UK!

[SgtRock]

It is time for people to stop listening to the white noise surrounding Brexit.

As I have already pointed out on this thread. It is what is not being said that is more important than what is being said.

The financial predicament of the EZ is much worse that people realise,

The European commission has avoided handing a propaganda weapon to those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU by delaying a decision on disciplinary action against Spain and Portugal for breaking budget rules until after the EU referendum.

Brussels said the postponement of possible action, which could include fines, was due to the general election in Spain on 26 June, three days after the referendum on Britain’s EU membership.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/18/european-commission-spain-portugal-budget-deficits-pierre-moscovici

Do not say that '' Nobody told me ''

In the event of a remain vote, the directives will be flowing thick and fast for 2020. This has to be concluded before France and Germany's Parliamentary elections in 2017.

Edited May 19, 2016 by SgtRock

[SgtRock]

The AfD give a fairly accurate description of why a Brexit would be very bad for the EU.

In the words of the party leader, Frauke Petry: “A British exit from the EU would be fatal because the British are often the voice of reason ... and bring with them a healthy corrective to the madness of the expansion project. If Britain left, we’d also lose a net contributor to the budget [and Germany] would have to shoulder the financial loss to the EU.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/18/brexeunt-stage-left-europeans-hoping-britain-votes-brexit

[sandyf]

A UK exit from the European Union could wipe thousands of pounds off house values over the next three years, estate agents have claimed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36323010

[chiang mai]

I just can't see a Brexit having any meaningful impact on house prices to be honest, it's a supply and demand scenario which will not be corrected even if 50% of EU national residents of the UK went back home, which they wont.

[sandyf]

Of course we are all aware that only one viewpoint means anything and global voices are sticking their nose in where it is not wanted.

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg says that a Brexit vote on 23 June could hit UK-EU trade and leave British-based "employees worse off".

Mr Bloomberg's name also appears on a letter, signed by a number of the major multinationals investing in the UK, warning of Brexit dangers.

This letter, which features firms such as Airbus, Microsoft, Cisco, Hitachi, Mars, and IBM warns that leaving the EU could "materially affect future investment decisions" by companies such as theirs.

It goes on to say that "if there is one thing we as investors don't like, it is economic uncertainty", and concludes that "as investors, it is therefore very much in our interest that Britain stays in the EU."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36327456

[SgtRock]

A UK exit from the European Union could wipe thousands of pounds off house values over the next three years, estate agents have claimed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36323010

Fantastic.

Great news for those that currently cannot get near the housing market.

Although personally, I think it is right up there with Osborne's '' Every household in the UK will be worse of by £ 4300 '' in the event of a Brexit.

A lot of pensioners are going to resort to committing Hari Kari trying to survive on about £ 2000 a year.

[Jip99]

I just can't see a Brexit having any meaningful impact on house prices to be honest, it's a supply and demand scenario which will not be corrected even if 50% of EU national residents of the UK went back home, which they wont.

I agree, The inherent demand is so strong that it makes the "could fall" claims meaningless.

Any exodus of expats (which there won't be) would only add to that demand.

[sandyf]

I just can't see a Brexit having any meaningful impact on house prices to be honest, it's a supply and demand scenario which will not be corrected even if 50% of EU national residents of the UK went back home, which they wont.

The report is based on a reduction in the number of migrant workers coming into the country. You would be perfectly correct if you believe that in the event of a brexit there will be no reduction in migrant workers.

You are probably right as if the UK leaves the EU the only viable trade option is as a member of EFTA which would entail free labour movement.

[SgtRock]

Of course we are all aware that only one viewpoint means anything and global voices are sticking their nose in where it is not wanted.

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg says that a Brexit vote on 23 June could hit UK-EU trade and leave British-based "employees worse off".

Mr Bloomberg's name also appears on a letter, signed by a number of the major multinationals investing in the UK, warning of Brexit dangers.

This letter, which features firms such as Airbus, Microsoft, Cisco, Hitachi, Mars, and IBM warns that leaving the EU could "materially affect future investment decisions" by companies such as theirs.

It goes on to say that "if there is one thing we as investors don't like, it is economic uncertainty", and concludes that "as investors, it is therefore very much in our interest that Britain stays in the EU."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36327456

Airbus had this to say 3 days ago.

Airbus chief executive Fabrice Bregier has said he has "no intention" of pulling manufacturing out of the UK if the country votes to leave the European Union (EU).

Speaking to the BBC at the Paris Airshow, Mr Bregier said the aircraft manufacturer was committed to its 16,000 employees based in the UK.

He added Airbus had no plans to relocate its British factories.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33146011

Who to believe. A former Mayor of New York or the Chief Executive of Airbus.

[Caps]

Of course we are all aware that only one viewpoint means anything and global voices are sticking their nose in where it is not wanted.

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg says that a Brexit vote on 23 June could hit UK-EU trade and leave British-based "employees worse off".

Mr Bloomberg's name also appears on a letter, signed by a number of the major multinationals investing in the UK, warning of Brexit dangers.

This letter, which features firms such as Airbus, Microsoft, Cisco, Hitachi, Mars, and IBM warns that leaving the EU could "materially affect future investment decisions" by companies such as theirs.

It goes on to say that "if there is one thing we as investors don't like, it is economic uncertainty", and concludes that "as investors, it is therefore very much in our interest that Britain stays in the EU."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36327456

Wow

The yanks have spoken again...must be true then. All the more reason to leave.

[Orac]

I just can't see a Brexit having any meaningful impact on house prices to be honest, it's a supply and demand scenario which will not be corrected even if 50% of EU national residents of the UK went back home, which they wont.

The report is based on a reduction in the number of migrant workers coming into the country. You would be perfectly correct if you believe that in the event of a brexit there will be no reduction in migrant workers.

You are probably right as if the UK leaves the EU the only viable trade option is as a member of EFTA which would entail free labour movement.

If there is a fall in the value of the pound, which many predict in the short term if there is a brexit, it might put pressure on the BoE to increase interest rates which would have a knock on effect on mortgages.

[SgtRock]

Talking about Bloombergs not knowing their @rse from their elbow.

From yesterday.

The pound jumped to a new two-week high against the euro and reversed its drop against the dollar after the poll was published. It appreciated 0.7 percent to 77.70 pence per euro as of 12:35 p.m. London time. The U.K. currency rose 0.4 percent to $1.4527, reversing a drop of as much as 0.4 percent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/u-k-campaign-to-stay-in-eu-posts-biggest-poll-lead-in-3-months

Utter garbage.

The £ spiked against the $ and euro at the end of April before falling away again.

https://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/

[Grouse]

The AfD give a fairly accurate description of why a Brexit would be very bad for the EU.

In the words of the party leader, Frauke Petry: A British exit from the EU would be fatal because the British are often the voice of reason ... and bring with them a healthy corrective to the madness of the expansion project. If Britain left, wed also lose a net contributor to the budget [and Germany] would have to shoulder the financial loss to the EU.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/18/brexeunt-stage-left-europeans-hoping-britain-votes-brexit

So much for us having no influence!

[Grouse]

Of course we are all aware that only one viewpoint means anything and global voices are sticking their nose in where it is not wanted.

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg says that a Brexit vote on 23 June could hit UK-EU trade and leave British-based "employees worse off".

Mr Bloomberg's name also appears on a letter, signed by a number of the major multinationals investing in the UK, warning of Brexit dangers.

This letter, which features firms such as Airbus, Microsoft, Cisco, Hitachi, Mars, and IBM warns that leaving the EU could "materially affect future investment decisions" by companies such as theirs.

It goes on to say that "if there is one thing we as investors don't like, it is economic uncertainty", and concludes that "as investors, it is therefore very much in our interest that Britain stays in the EU."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36327456

ALL input welcome. We should consider the effect on inward investment.

[Grouse]

Of course we are all aware that only one viewpoint means anything and global voices are sticking their nose in where it is not wanted.

Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg says that a Brexit vote on 23 June could hit UK-EU trade and leave British-based "employees worse off".

Mr Bloomberg's name also appears on a letter, signed by a number of the major multinationals investing in the UK, warning of Brexit dangers.

This letter, which features firms such as Airbus, Microsoft, Cisco, Hitachi, Mars, and IBM warns that leaving the EU could "materially affect future investment decisions" by companies such as theirs.

It goes on to say that "if there is one thing we as investors don't like, it is economic uncertainty", and concludes that "as investors, it is therefore very much in our interest that Britain stays in the EU."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36327456

Airbus had this to say 3 days ago.

Airbus chief executive Fabrice Bregier has said he has "no intention" of pulling manufacturing out of the UK if the country votes to leave the European Union (EU).

Speaking to the BBC at the Paris Airshow, Mr Bregier said the aircraft manufacturer was committed to its 16,000 employees based in the UK.

He added Airbus had no plans to relocate its British factories.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33146011

Who to believe. A former Mayor of New York or the Chief Executive of Airbus.

But what about future inward investment? They most likely would not walk from existing investment but future new investment? Let's think rationally about this....