AIBU to ask if Lord Owen is right about TTIP?

[SpringingIntoAction]

Is former Labour Minister and SDP politician, Lord David Owen right to think that TTIP will be detrimental to the NHS?

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/06/brexit-is-necessary-to-protect-nhs-from-ttip-says-david-owen

I read the link - it reports plenty of findings, but I don't see a single argument in it!

Oh bloody hell. I'll go C &P the particular arguments used in this study. Give me a minute.

MyHovercraft

Your memory must be shorter than mine

'Brexiters think dirty foreigners will bow down and grovel in their prescence'

Why did you feel the need to bring up race card? Or are you going to back track and suggest you were 'talking about Europeans' ?

Quite obvious what you were suggesting.

Cheers, ItsAll, I was about to do the same.

This is the sample polled, and purpose of the research, in case anyone is interested:
The poll was designed following: discussions with experts, analysis of campaign messages, 4 small focus groups with swing voters to proof the content for comprehension. 2,282 people responded to the online survey, which was in the field between 4 March and 11 March 2016.

The aim of the research was to improve our understanding of the referendum debate, and specifically to understand the power of the arguments being used on each side, and their impact on working class voters (sample of 1,015 respondents in social classes C2DE) and Labour Party supporters (sample of 547 who think of themselves as being Labour)

From: www.fabians.org.uk/publications/argument-or-organisations-the-battle-over-membership-of-the-european-union/

Some of the argument used in this particular study are listed below. The study was conducted through means of a debate so some of the arguments are not as neatly summarised as those below. The study is an interesting and lead, and has references.

Immigration and Borders

Remain.
Migrants from other EU countries
help us tackle skills shortages
across British industries, fill
job vacancies in the NHS and
contribute to our economy –
fuelling economic growth

Leave.
We must curb the flow of migrants
from the EU. EU migrants can
often deprive British citizens of
jobs in the low-skilled end of
the labour market. Furthermore,
migration accounts for one third
of the deficit in social housing
and undoubtedly puts pressure
onpublic services as awhole

Security

Remain.
Whether it is implementing
sanctions against Russia, sharing
intelligence about terrorists or
arresting criminals using the
European Arrest Warrant, there
is strength innumbers. Leaving
Europe would threaten our safety.
Weare stronger and more
secure as part of Europe than on
ourown.

Leave.
Our membership of the European
Union makes it harder for us to
deal with criminals and track
terrorists. TheEuropean Court
of Justice ties up our police and
courts in red tape and human
rights law. Border-free Europe
makes it so much easier for
terrorists to reach the English
Channel without passing through
asingle border control.

Global Influence

Remain.
In today’s complex world, the UK
has more control over its destiny
by staying inside organisations
like the EU. Being part of
Europe means we have stronger
leadership on the world stage,
enabling us to shape the future.

Leave.
Leaving the EU would give us
greater influence on aglobal
level. Thegovernment would also
be free to push for new global
trade deals, and reinforce its
links with the Commonwealth.
As anEnglish speaking nation,
amajor economy with vast
resources in research and
innovation, and with aproud
past it would be better to exercise
our voice on aglobal level than
be anincreasingly smaller voice
within the EU.

It is worth noting that this study is not about the merit or accuracy if the arguments, more how people respond to them.

"sounds like the Regressive Left. The People's Republic of Islington well represented here, I see."

The Queens Park People's Front actually dear.

I'm going to have to phrase this carefully, as I really don't mean to be patronising...

I can understand how the "leave" arguments might sound compelling to the average person, who probably isn't that familiar with what the EU is and how it works. Personally, I don't find them compelling at all because I think they are ignoring or dismissing some pretty major issues.

I think that if the "remain" side wants to win, the people who do understand how it works need to find a way of explaining these issues to voters in layman's terms.

The problem with that is that it is a very difficult thing to do without sounding aloof and patronising, and also there are a significant number of people in the Brexit camp who do not want to listen to any arguments for "remain" no matter how compelling they might be. They have made their minds up, and will not be swayed.

My real concern is that the "remain" camp are failing to make their case convincingly enough, which means "leave" will win, and then at some point in the future people who voted "leave" and realise it's not the utopia they were promised will be saying, "no one ever told us this would happen!"

I think those are actual questions polled on, reflecting the actual language used.

Because the report says things like "Given Remain’s failure to find a coherent narrative on immigration, and the emotive language used by Leave, it is not surprising that Leave’s arguments perform so much better."(p16)

And goes on to talk about how Remain could argue their case better.

A very interesting report! Explicitly highlights that, for the working class groups surveyed, immigration and fear are major factors.

think that if the "remain" side wants to win, the people who do understand how it works need to find a way of explaining these issues to voters in layman's terms.

Indeed. From a quick reading of the study it would also appear that hownthe argument is framed is very important. No one wants to be seen as unpatriotic for example.

Hovercraft

Cheers, you have given me a good laugh. Play the well worn and misguided all Brexiters are racist card and then when you are called on it use the old 'I'm not, you are' playground riposte.

Totally predictable.

Keep 'em coming!

From my point of view, I feel both British and European - both are a part of my cultural identity and I don't see why anyone should feel they have to be more one or the other. I may go and live abroad (as my OH is from another country) and if we do vote for Brexit I am more likely to leave, tbh. But I would never want to see the UK or British people in a bad way. My worry is that if we vote for Brexit, it will not give "leave" voters the dream they are hoping for, and people will feel they were tricked and conned.

Those arguments aren't accurate and there is an obvious emphasis on the benefits of leaving.

For example the ones on global influence and trade are fairly fanciful, also it fails to acknowledge the "migrants in social housing " argument does not specifically apply to EU immigrants but to all migration, non EU migration is higher than that of the EU and leaving the EU would do nothing to stop noin EU immigration.

Hardly compelling arguments I'd say...

Compelling does not equal accurate.

It could be argued that "vote leave and get rid of all the benefit claiming, job stealing, murdering rapists" is a far more compelling argument than "10% [invented for illustration] of NHS staff are EU citizens"

This is what the whole point of the study HelpfulChap referred to. Its purpose is not to examine the veracity of the various arguments, but to explore how the Labour Party should be framing it's arguments in order to influence people to vote "Remain".

But the agruments aren't accurate Itsall...

hoped you had found a source for these mysterious "Convincing Brexit Arguments"

One could argue that the arguments are convincing because they are emotive, rather than because they are accurate.

Just been to have a look at a couple of things and the "social housing" argument is rubbish too. The LFS has 6.7% of all social housing is let to foriegn nationals.

So what the study shows is that if you tell people untruths and they believe you it will change the way they vote.

One could argue that the arguments are convincing because they are emotive, rather than because they are accurate.

Yes, I would tend to agree.

So what the study shows is that if you tell people untruths and they believe you it will change the way they vote.

Yes. Any Scottish person will recognise this tactic all too well.

Are some of you not embarrassed that you're unable to form an opinion by reading and watching a variety of media matter (over the course of years) and drawing your own conclusions, but rather accept only the prose of others?

And yet you are the ones who call others ignorant. The irony klaxon is deafening.

Correct.

The vast majority of people vote with their hearts not their heads.

Of Course! Cause the SNP's economic plan wasn't based on North Sea oil at all, Scotland would be in massive economic trouble right now if it had voted yes.