Bahtatboy

Is that likely to part of the referendum? I think the populace are as much focussed on immigration as one anything else.

Millhouse

wow.

iano

The Eurosceptic press will be hugely significant in affecting the outcome. In addition to the Mail, there's the Telegraph, Star, Sun, Times and of course the Express. All editorial is of course driven by the proprietors, many of whom don't even live in Europe, so you have to question the motives. Anti monopoly laws, the EU 'socialism' aspect ?

All I hope is, their readers question the rhetoric rather than take it as gospel. Fat chance of that happening though, the issue is far too complex. Murdoch et al know it too.

DXBtoDOH

Ah, yes, blame it on the press. Always blame it on the press Why? Because you can always find your villain in the press. There's always a newspaper or two that's guaranteed to get your heart racing and steam erupting from your ears. It's easier to blame the press for misleading an uneducated populace than to face the prospect that perhaps a well-informed populace has made a decision different from what you wanted.

iano

Why ? Because of the Eurosceptic press habit of misreporting the facts and spin.

There's a shedload of examples that have entered popular mythology, from the permitted shape of bananas to hairnets for fishermen.

Keep fantasy in the comics where it belongs, this is far too important an issue for all that nonsense.

No surprise that the group most likely to vote to remain in the EU is the 18-24 age group, informed more widely online, and those most affected by the outcome of this referendum. We owe it to them to be as 'well-informed' as possible.

DXBtoDOH

Subjective, no?

You're making an assumption that online sources aren't as biased or rubbish as print media sources. I'd argue that online sources are even worse as there tends to be less verification, fewer cites and far more self-promotional clickbait than your typical broadsheet.

If the 18-24 group are more sensible because they rely on "online" for apparently less biased media sources then why do the online polls consistently show leads for BREXIT as opposed to, say, the phone polls, which show leads for remain. As you know, only older fuddy duddies have landlines anymore.

Good god, I remember being 18-24. Thought I knew everything. Boy, I must have been so arrogant

Inselaffen

the "Surinder Singh" route

Novocastrian

Which is, apparently, about to be blocked as part of Cameron's current negotiations with the EU.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...draft-eu-rules

iano

That's sort of my point. A newspaper should report objectively, i.e purely the facts and only be subjective, or show bias in the editorial or a dedicated opinion page (as with the US). There is clarity on what is reported fact and what is opinion.

As an example, after the Tusk letter, the response to Cameron's reform proposals, the Eurosceptic red tops were full of wartime imagery, fuelling the entrenched views of (some) older citizens i.e once again we're appeasing the 'hun', don't we ever learn kind of thing. It's a distortion of the truth, as the letter is merely a compromise proposal for negotiation with all 28 member nations in mind.

Didn't say 18-24 age group are sensible, arrogant or know everything, but certain they are a lot less suggestible than many to pictures of Captain Mainwaring or Neville Chamberlain on the front pages.

captainflack

With all due respect, no it isn't.

Of course we can negotiate our own trade treaties. It's just that as a market with 50 million people you're not going to get the same terms as you get if you're 300 million people, and the world's largest single market. The US has already indicated it has no interest in doing a special deal with the UK, so we'd get standard WTO terms.

The 'out' campaign should be realistic and honest about this; accept that trade will take a hit, but emphasize what changes they think will make up for this. But by insisting we'd be able to trade on better or equal terms, they just lose any credibility.

captainflack

It isn't being blocked completely. They're proposing clarifying it to stop it being used as a loophole to bypass national immigration rules, but it would not affect people who legitimately move and live in another EU country have have residence established there (e.g. me and the wife who've been living here few years now).

Moses2013

Always interesting to read about the Brexit. I just think that we aren't really qualified to vote (including some politicians).
The problems are already there and you can't avoid them by locking the door. I'm not an expert, but I can see many international companies leave the UK and it won't make Britain a better place.

People on benefits will remain on benefits + a few more and the world is not getting safer. I don't have kids, but maybe the children should decide.

captainflack

Yes they are, but the referendum is solely about leaving the EU. Indeed, some of those who propose leaving suggest Switzerland or Norway as examples of successful nations outside the EU (both have single market access and freedom of movement), so it's clear even among those who want out, some at least appear to accept freedom of movement (though it could be they simply don't really understand the status of Switzerland and Norway).

There is no requirement for David Cameron to hold a second referendum to approve whatever deal he cuts with the EU if Britain does vote to leave, and he's made clear that he will not hold one.

You could argue that this will be conning the public, and I'd certainly say it would go against the spirit if there was an out vote. But the 'outers' have a lot of faith in the supremacy of the British parliament, and the principle that they will accept laws they don't agree with as long as they're made by 'us', so it would be rather hypocritical to then not accept the decision of the sovereign British parliament...

shiva

the level of confusion and self denial here is staggering

BritInFinland

I don't know if that is true or not, but it should be possible to prove or disprove it. Just look at the trade treaties negotiated by some non-EU countries and compare them to the equivalent trade treaties negotiated by the EU. That should show if the EU is really able to negotiate better terms or not. Has anyone seen such a study? A factual comparison like that would be a lot more convincing either way than the current unsupported claim & counter-claim situation we seem to have.