Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Luke
    • By MSE Luke 20th May 16, 4:40 PM
    • 253Posts
    • 63Thanks
    MSE Luke
    Quote, misquotes & the truth about my appearance in the ‘Stronger In Europe’ leaflet
    • #1
    • 20th May 16, 4:40 PM
    Quote, misquotes & the truth about my appearance in the ‘Stronger In Europe’ leaflet 20th May 16 at 4:40 PM
    This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.





    Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
Page 1
    • WatlingA5
    • By WatlingA5 21st May 16, 9:18 AM
    • 136 Posts
    • 52 Thanks
    WatlingA5
    • #2
    • 21st May 16, 9:18 AM
    • #2
    • 21st May 16, 9:18 AM
    In his blog Martin says the programme is no longer on ITV's hub, but the debate section can be found on YouTube:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G6RDy4eKw
    • footyguy
    • By footyguy 21st May 16, 2:18 PM
    • 3,878 Posts
    • 1,540 Thanks
    footyguy
    • #3
    • 21st May 16, 2:18 PM
    • #3
    • 21st May 16, 2:18 PM
    ... Now can you spot the difference between what it says and what I actually said. It is identical in every way but one…


    Got it yet?


    OK here goes…
    Yes, it’s missing the phrase “The quote is accurate”....
    Did you see the "..." in the original version posted on Euro Guido ?
    That indicates something was edited out
    You'll see something similar at the start and end of the above quotation
    (and I endeavour to do that on all of my posts)

    I thought it was well known what it signifies, especially to a journalist such as yourself.
    I can only presume Euro Guido took the easy option, and acceded to to your complaint, rather than waste time attempting to explain it to you.

    Perhaps I should have taken a lesson out of Euro Guido's book too?

    Btw, on a similar note, the inclusion of square brackets "[" and "]" within a quote usually also signifies something has been added (or sometimes modified) to what was actually said, in order to clarify matters to the reader.
    Last edited by footyguy; 21-05-2016 at 2:22 PM.
    • footyguy
    • By footyguy 21st May 16, 2:31 PM
    • 3,878 Posts
    • 1,540 Thanks
    footyguy
    • #4
    • 21st May 16, 2:31 PM
    • #4
    • 21st May 16, 2:31 PM
    As you "do not back either side", do I take it you will not be exercising your democratic right on 23rd June?

    What would be the outcome if we all did this?

    Presumably the status quo would be maintained. i.e we will REMAIN in the EU ?



    To coin a phrase from the late Hughie Green:
    "It's make your mind up time, Folks!"
    Last edited by footyguy; 21-05-2016 at 2:45 PM.
    • WatlingA5
    • By WatlingA5 22nd May 16, 8:52 AM
    • 136 Posts
    • 52 Thanks
    WatlingA5
    • #5
    • 22nd May 16, 8:52 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd May 16, 8:52 AM
    I've been searching for info on that, and have not found any yet.

    Logic suggests that if you don't vote you are, by default, not in favour of leaving. So if only 50 per cent of voters add their cross, and even if the vote is 80-20 in favour of leaving, it still means the majority of the population could be considered to be not in favour of leaving. But how often does logic apply in politics..?

    If anyone has the answer, please let us know
    Last edited by WatlingA5; 22-05-2016 at 9:03 AM. Reason: Qualifying a statement
    • footyguy
    • By footyguy 22nd May 16, 11:47 AM
    • 3,878 Posts
    • 1,540 Thanks
    footyguy
    • #6
    • 22nd May 16, 11:47 AM
    • #6
    • 22nd May 16, 11:47 AM
    I've been searching for info on that, and have not found any yet.

    Logic suggests that if you don't vote you are, by default, not in favour of leaving. So if only 50 per cent of voters add their cross, and even if the vote is 80-20 in favour of leaving, it still means the majority of the population could be considered to be not in favour of leaving. But how often does logic apply in politics..?

    If anyone has the answer, please let us know
    Originally posted by WatlingA5
    I believe the referendum works on a straight forward majority vote of those that express a preference.

    But, despite all the debates over the actual wording, it is essentially a vote on whether or not to leave.

    So if no-one 'backs either side' then we will REMAIN in the EU.But if just one person votes to LEAVE, and the other 60million + of us don't 'back either side', then the outcome is we will LEAVE

    Hence:
    "It's make your mind up time, Folks!"

    Over the last 100 years, our forefathers fought at least for the right for us to decide (and about 1.5m paid the ultimate sacrifice at that time). I would say it is the least we can now do in rememberance of all those involved, is to stand up and be counted.
    • VT82
    • By VT82 23rd May 16, 9:07 AM
    • 922 Posts
    • 745 Thanks
    VT82
    • #7
    • 23rd May 16, 9:07 AM
    • #7
    • 23rd May 16, 9:07 AM
    As you "do not back either side", do I take it you will not be exercising your democratic right on 23rd June?
    Originally posted by footyguy
    Martin can have a view one way or another, and choose to vote accordingly, without necessarily choosing to endorse one of the campaigns. I know I wish some of those luvvies who signed the open letter last week had done so!

    But Martin, we really need your help in giving us some unbiased info please.

    I always go to the polls when we are given the chance. If it's a valid election, I will vote. If it's a waste of time election, I will spoil my ballot (hello PCC elections).

    For this referendum, I know it's super important, and I want to vote, but I really don't know which way to vote. The amount of hyperbole coming out of both camps is ridiculous. Could really do with some unbiased views on both options, and Martin is someone I would trust more than most.
    • wozearly
    • By wozearly 23rd May 16, 9:45 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 209 Thanks
    wozearly
    • #8
    • 23rd May 16, 9:45 PM
    • #8
    • 23rd May 16, 9:45 PM
    I've been searching for info on that, and have not found any yet.

    Logic suggests that if you don't vote you are, by default, not in favour of leaving. So if only 50 per cent of voters add their cross, and even if the vote is 80-20 in favour of leaving, it still means the majority of the population could be considered to be not in favour of leaving. But how often does logic apply in politics..?

    If anyone has the answer, please let us know
    Originally posted by WatlingA5
    It's a bit cheeky to appropriate the non-voters to one side of the argument or the other, as we don't know their reasons for abstaining. All we know is that they exercised their right not to vote.

    As a counter example, if the question was flipped around to be "Do you think we should stay in the EU?", would that suggest not voting was actually implicit support for yes?

    If there is no lower limit on turnout to make the vote binding (which there isn't in this case), the only rational way to handle it in a way that both sides consider reasonable is to assess the votes of people who did vote and disregard all non-voters and spoiled ballots. Which is what they'll do.

    In the incredibly unlikely event that turned out to be a dead 50-50 split, I imagine somewhere in a referendum document full of legalese it would indicate that the status quo would continue to apply (in this case, Remain).
    • wozearly
    • By wozearly 23rd May 16, 10:00 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 209 Thanks
    wozearly
    • #9
    • 23rd May 16, 10:00 PM
    • #9
    • 23rd May 16, 10:00 PM
    For this referendum, I know it's super important, and I want to vote, but I really don't know which way to vote. The amount of hyperbole coming out of both camps is ridiculous.
    Originally posted by VT82
    No different to any election, really.

    The difficulty is that for both sides lots remains unknown. The EU is currently going through an incredibly difficult period economically and politically (as, arguably, is the UK) with the fallout of the 2008 global recession and the ongoing mass migration crisis likely to continue for the forseeable future. On the surface, that makes leaving look remarkably sensible, but as no country has ever left before there isn't exactly a template to follow for what that might look like.

    Leaving the EU is more likely to lead to some short-term negative economic effects (which may be minor or major and, of course, might not happen at all), if only from the uncertainty that would follow, but with the potential for significant long-term losses, long-term benefits, or no major change.

    Staying in the EU is less likely to see a short-term hit (although there's no reason there couldn't be one), but has the potential for significant long-term losses, long-term benefits or no major change.

    In the absence of any clear facts pointing the direction to one way or the other, both sides are resorting to the tactic of increasingly severe rhetoric and dodgy statistics to try to sway undecided voters to their cause.

    That we've already seen references to world war three and comparisons with Hitler, that suggests it would be highly optimistic to hope for a more reasoned debate for the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately.
    • VT82
    • By VT82 24th May 16, 9:18 AM
    • 922 Posts
    • 745 Thanks
    VT82
    That sums up exactly what I feel about the whole debate. Too many unknowns to have an informed debate, so resorting to nonsense and scare tactics. I voted for this government, and don't really have a problem with them, but this referendum is just one big mess.

    What I really want to know from the government is...

    'If we were not in the EU, would we want to join it given the opportunity?'

    If yes, then we should of course choose to stay. If not, we should choose to leave. Yes, leaving will have short term consequences that could last 1 year/3 years/10 years. But we won't get another chance to vote on this for 30 years, and by this point, the short term consequences of leaving would be long forgotten about. You shouldn't let the impact over the immediate short term stop you making the choice that could be the right one for the long term.

    But of course governments are always short term in nature, only worrying about the next election result.

    This sounds like I want the Leave campaign to win, but I don't, all I want to know is 'If we were not in the EU, would we want to join it given the opportunity?'
    • wozearly
    • By wozearly 24th May 16, 9:28 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 209 Thanks
    wozearly
    That sums up exactly what I feel about the whole debate. Too many unknowns to have an informed debate, so resorting to nonsense and scare tactics. I voted for this government, and don't really have a problem with them, but this referendum is just one big mess.

    What I really want to know from the government is...

    'If we were not in the EU, would we want to join it given the opportunity?'

    If yes, then we should of course choose to stay. If not, we should choose to leave. Yes, leaving will have short term consequences that could last 1 year/3 years/10 years. But we won't get another chance to vote on this for 30 years, and by this point, the short term consequences of leaving would be long forgotten about. You shouldn't let the impact over the immediate short term stop you making the choice that could be the right one for the long term.

    But of course governments are always short term in nature, only worrying about the next election result.

    This sounds like I want the Leave campaign to win, but I don't, all I want to know is 'If we were not in the EU, would we want to join it given the opportunity?'
    Originally posted by VT82
    I didn't vote for this government, but I don't take any particular pleasure from watching them engage in a very public civil war...

    I'm not convinced there's a great deal of clarity about the long-term view. People aren't, as a general rule, very good at long-term predictions. Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" comment the year before World War II began, Gordon Brown stating he'd "abolished boom and bust" shortly before a socking great global recession, Blockbuster's management team dismissing the opportunity to buy Netflix (which later annihilated them from the market), Alex Salmond confidently predicting oil revenues would make Scotland richer on its own shortly before the global oil price tanked for the longest period in recent history, George Osborne having to revise budget forecasts every quarter as the OBR re-corrects its previous assumptions...

    The short answer is that no-one really knows for sure, and any predictions could easily be overtaken by events.

    When you refer to "the government", if you mean the part spearheaded by David Cameron and George Osborne, then their view was always in favour of Remain - the referendum wasn't proposed because Cameron believed it was a good idea, or because the negotiations he was seeking were critical (how often have they been mentioned in the campaign to date?). It was a short-term political judgement for the election which has, in entirely predictable fashion given the Conservative party's tortured history with the EU, come back to haunt him with a vengeance.

    Of course, if by "the government" you mean the part spearheaded by Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Gove, their view was always in favour of Leave - and are pushing this opportunity for all it's worth.

    So even "the government" wouldn't give a single answer to that question.


    For my own thoughts, if we weren't in the EU we probably wouldn't be looking to join it right now, because it's not having its finest hour. But there are reasons we pushed so hard to join it, which I imagine would resurface again in the future. The more evidently widespread public support for leaving is still a relatively recent phenomenon - not that this makes it the wrong choice, of course.

    It's also worth noting that EU border countries have consistently sought and, over time, achieved EU membership. The union has steadily grown over time, with no countries (to date) having left it - not that this makes it the right choice, of course.

    The economics are a bit different for a comparatively poorer new joiner compared to one its richer members, so it's not necessarily a perfect comparison - countries like Norway and Switzerland have politely stayed out of the EU but negotiated access to the common market, albeit at the cost of concessions such as freedom of movement to live and work which the Leave campaign is targeting as a key thing to scrap.

    There's almost certainly not a right or wrong answer - much like the discussions in the Scottish independence referendum, there are advantages and disadvantages to being a smaller independent national unit, and advantages and disadvantages to being part of a broader coalition of nations with elements of centralised government.

    As very few reliable facts have surfaced despite a long lead-in time for both sides to marshall their arguments, you may ultimately have to vote as your conscience dictates...
    Last edited by wozearly; 24-05-2016 at 9:31 PM.
    • drape
    • By drape 25th May 16, 8:11 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    drape
    To Be in or Not to be in - that is the question
    I am just a small business man who has a company and as such each year I have to produce audited accounts that have to be "signed off" by auditors. The EU also have to produce audited accounts each year however it is my understanding that for the past 12 years the auditors have REFUSED to sign off the accounts and thus attest to the accuracy of those accounts. Those auditors have serious misgivings as to the completeness and honesty of the figures. Please note, if I failed to get my accounts audited, even for one year, my Company would be suspended from trading and if the state of affairs continued for a second year we would be struck off and closed down. Why is it that the EU is allowed to continue with complete waste of our hard earned money - I have no doubt whatsoever that the whole EU Operation is riddled with people lining their pockets at our expense and the sooner we rid ourselves of this festering pit of profligacy the better.
    • Majestic1919
    • By Majestic1919 25th May 16, 9:09 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    Majestic1919
    Nobody voted to join the EU
    I was able to vote on whether we should join a trading agreement with the EU. That is all.

    Nobody was asked whether we wanted to join something that would dictate our laws and take away our Sovereignty. This has all been done by stealth and should be looked at as the massive con that it is. There is nothing democratic about an organisation that cheats its way into taking control.

    Paying billions into a club that does not produce accounts should set alarm bells ringing.

    Being told that all and sundry can enter this country and be housed ahead of your own children or grandchildren should make you think beyond tomorrow.

    The EU is for big businesses and the wealthy. If you are working hard and managing to make ends meet, they have control of your life.

    Not being told by the majority of the political parties or the media about what is really happening across Europe is absolutely disgraceful.
    Austerity is hitting many countries again and it will cost us even more to stay in and prop up others. The Chancellor is not telling the truth about austerity if we leave. Our (your) contribution to the slush fund will increase if we stay. It will have to, to keep others afloat. More austerity is coming our way whatever the vote - a fact that is already out there, produced by people with far greater insight than the disingenuous George Osborne.

    I am surprised that people who use this site haven't investigated for themselves, as there is so much information available from credible sources all over the internet. Open your eyes and don't rely on what you are being told to think.

    Members of my family and millions of others paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom from dictators.
    The EU is a dictatorship and the ordinary citizens of many European countries have already found this to their cost - and not just in monetary terms.
    • mykingfu
    • By mykingfu 25th May 16, 11:16 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mykingfu
    Leave is the only smart option.
    I would guess that of the people voting to stay in Europe, around 90% are doing so on the strength of the lies/propaganda/speculation of the government figures often touted on BBC News etc.
    The "leave" campaign produces hard facts and many very good reasons why we should leave the EU, yet almost every "stay" argument is speculation or opinion, mainly based around the economy - when listening to their "arguments" watch out for words like "could", "possibly", "indicate" and "suggest". Being that nobody truly KNOWS how finance will be affected and given the lack of any real facts, anybody should be able to conclude that the stay arguments are extremely weak.
    And even if the scaremongering figures produced by the remain campaign did happen to be close to actual figures after the event, I would like to think that the £18 BILLION (£350 Million a week!) we pay each year towards EU membership would make up for it, as well as the right to protect our own borders, right to have an accountable government, right to make our own laws, right to keep our NHS, and right to control our own trade.

    This will be our last opportunity EVER to leave the EU, so don't waste it because of the hype. Lets take back control.
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 25th May 16, 1:21 PM
    • 11,512 Posts
    • 11,165 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    In the incredibly unlikely event that turned out to be a dead 50-50 split, I imagine somewhere in a referendum document full of legalese it would indicate that the status quo would continue to apply (in this case, Remain).
    Originally posted by wozearly
    There would be a few recounts.
    But the general principle in this country is if the result of an election is tied then the winner is decided by a coin toss / drawing of lots / etc.
    • winplease
    • By winplease 25th May 16, 1:26 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 112 Thanks
    winplease
    Whichever 'side' provides the info, count how many times the word 'could' is used. Nobody knows. Awaiting the judgement of Solomon, or should that be Martin? (Plus membership or not will not be the only factor to affecting future UK prosperity).
    • footyguy
    • By footyguy 25th May 16, 1:44 PM
    • 3,878 Posts
    • 1,540 Thanks
    footyguy
    ...
    What I really want to know from the government is...

    'If we were not in the EU, would we want to join it given the opportunity?'..
    Originally posted by VT82
    I think the government, or at least it's leaders in the form of the REMAIN campaign have already told us haven't they?
    (and the other half the government seem to support the LEAVE campaign anyway)

    As I understand it, if we were to LEAVE (or not join in your example) then the following will occur:

    1. World War 3
    2. Financial recession of the kind not seen in the UK since the 1920's (or some suggest the 1980's, but we were already in the EU then)
    3. £40bn in additional austerity cuts, hitting the NHS hard.
    4. Mass unemployment (about 0.5m more than today will be lost immediately, with another 0.5m at severe risk - if we REMAIN an extra 790,000 jobs will be created ... allegedly)
    33% of all international companies will also create fewer UK jobs.
    5. Huge falls in house prices (those wishing to buy presumably would welcome this?), but mortgage costs will rise anyway.
    6. Each family being £4000+ pa worse off
    7. A family holiday for 4 to Spain will cost £240 more
    8. Equal pay for women and other anti-discrimation laws being rescinded (but at least we'll be allowed to buy curved bananas again)


    As far as I can tell, voting to REMAIN (or join in your example) would result in:

    1. Mass immigration especially from the likes of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey. This will be in addition to the current mass immigation we are experiencing from the likes of Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia.
    2. This will lead to the almost complete failure of the NHS as it will be so overburdoned. (compared to us saving enough money to fund a new, fully staffed NHS hospital every week if we were to LEAVE)
    3. The European Court tearing up any agreement the UK currently has with the EU (in particular our opt-out clauses already negotiated)
    4. The European Courts having complete control on who may enter our country, and take over our own intelligence services.
    This will effectively be an open door for all the violent criminals in Europe to head to the UK
    5. We won't be able to deport dangerous terror suspects.


    I'm sure no one is lying to us, are they?

    So there's your decision. It looks like curtains for the NHS whichever way you vote.

    If you want to die quickly, vote to LEAVE and we'll all be killed off in World War 3

    Otherwise, vote REMAIN and prepare for a slow painful death, with no support from the NHS, dying in abject poverty surrounded by foreign terrorists and violent criminals
    (but at least your family holiday to Spain won't cost any more!)

    "It's make your mind up time, Folks!"

    (Anyone thinking of just emigrating?)
    Last edited by footyguy; 25-05-2016 at 1:51 PM.
    • BaldacchinoR
    • By BaldacchinoR 25th May 16, 2:31 PM
    • 123 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    BaldacchinoR
    I wonder how many UK residents are happy about other EU countries accepting migrants, especially from Iraq and Syria, as citizens of those EU countries, thus becoming eligible to live in the UK, and are confident that sufficient checks have been made that none of them are terrorists? I am not confident!
    • Patjan
    • By Patjan 25th May 16, 2:49 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    Patjan
    When Martin considers his report, hopefully he will comment on this statement of the European Court of Justice: "Every national court must apply Community law in its entirety and must accordingly set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior to or subsequent to the community rule". British judges have accepted that this means European law takes precedence over our Acts of Parliament.
    And hopefully Martin will also comment on the EU idea of democracy, where the supreme powers of state and government (such as ours) are in the hands of a small body of EU individuals, the Commissioners. They meet in secret and initiate legislative proposals, some of which are put to the Council of Ministers. They are neither democratically elected nor under the direct control of elected politicians. They make decisions by majority vote, and are not accountable to any other body. The Council of Ministers is the law making body of the EU, and also meets in secret, again taking decisions by majority vote. Any decision taken by this Council cannot be overturned by any democratically elected parliament.
    If I may end with my own comment: I would rather suffer some financial loss - if indeed that would really be the case if we left the EU - but regain our sovereignty and judicial independence, to decide how we, the electorate, wish our country to be governed.
    • MSE Martin
    • By MSE Martin 25th May 16, 3:39 PM
    • 8,109 Posts
    • 42,244 Thanks
    MSE Martin
    I'm well aware that there was ... to indicate that it was taken out.

    However to delete just that bit, the "the quote was accurate" bit, was my problem - there's no space issue ever other word was put in. The fact the quote was accurate was fundamental to what I was saying, to delete it was a material change to the sentiment.
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.

    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,873Posts Today

6,790Users online

Martin's Twitter