The only way to get the EU to take the UK seriously is to vote to leave

[SpringingIntoAction]

Cameron tells us repeatedly that he wants to remain in a reformed EU.

Many others across the political divides also acknowledge the need for the EU to reform itself.

Some say that's why we need to remain in the EU - to change it from within.

I think the EU's refusal to engage with Cameron's plea for his EU reforms and the failure of his 'special deal' to achieve anything like the changes he originally said he wanted, show the EU is unwilling/incapable of reform.

I think the only way to get the EU to start taking our demands for reform seriously is to vote to leave.

They need to start imagining what the EU would be like without one of its largest funders - the UK. We do that by voting to leave.

How many are there now and how many fewer is acceptable? Not even the government knows, so I don't. Therefore, I don't know the answer to either question. But I'd introduce a selection process for future arrivals.

What will you do with the ones who are already here who don't pass the chalalala test? Incentives to move back to the EU if they aren't entirely self-supporting? That's my personal opinion BTW, I don't represent Brexit on that one.

"The REMAIN argument seems to rely very heavily on EU-funded research that surprisingly?"

The LSE study came from a group that receives less than 5% of its funding from the EU, its not exactly paying for bias. You claim this every time the evidence points against your arguments. In the past you've accused the BBC of bias for recieving funding when actually its less than 0.05% of the entire BBC budget.

Love the fact that you use data when it fits your agenda but not when it doesn't and then decry it further by denigrating the people that provide it.

More pseudo intellectual bollocks then eh? Well done spring, well done.

You're not really a challenge are you?

Organisations funded to be pro EU according to spring:

OECD, London School of Economics, IMF, IEA, PWC, CBI, Oxford University, UCL, the BBC, IFS, SSMT, HSBC blah blah blah.

An article by James Delingpole discussing this David vs Goliath vote

www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/13/go-back-canada-mark-carney/

Yes because that's impartial and informative, great example of the exit side's debate.

Do you really believe this: " that’s what the forthcoming EU referendum is really about: the battle between a remote, anti-democratic elite and us the people."

So Farage and Boris are men of the people?

This " elite" narrative is the one peddled by Trump too (another "outsider"), it's a way of getting those who feel they have been let down by the system onside, whilst simultaneously not really representing them at all, and once in power ignoring them.

Lurked -

Many people feel it is a David vs Goliath battle - they feel disenfranchised by politicians and especially so by the bureaucrats of the Brussels gravy train. Is the EU reformable - I don't think so - it is only going to get more unwieldy as more and more countries join over the next 5, 10, 15 years. It is a political project, not a trading group.

www.spearswms.com/52636-2/

Listen to radio phone ins on this subject - this morning on LBC one man said he'd been persuaded to vote leave by Christine Lagarde's warning that house prices will fall if we leave. He hopes this means he can get onto the housing ladder...everyone is coming at this from their own perspective. Some care about sovereignty, some care about the short term economy, others the long term economy, others want to stick it to the Tories as they will be in a huge mess if Brexit ends up winning.

Talking to "the man/woman" on the street, there is the feeling of David vs Goliath. Is Boris a man of the people?? Well despite his background, he manages to connect with people, he has charisma, and the fact UKIP gained 4million votes at the last election and have made strides in the recent council elections, I suppose Farage is a man to some people!!

Whatever happens I think it's great that this is being talked about and people are forming points of view, whichever side they are on.

FWIW I think remain will win.

It's not really David and Goliath when you have four daily newspapers batting for your side though is it? Who have been promoting an anti EU stance for decades. Lbc and Nick Ferrari especially seem to have a problem brexit agenda. You have the high profile ex mayor of London and many other fairly high profile politicians.
Yet it fits the narrative of the brexiters to portray it thus.

It's the same as Trump pretending to be an outsider, you can portray it like that to appeal to people, doesn't make it true.

Also it gives the leave campaign the ability to dismiss the independent analysis.

it's not just the politicians - look at who owns the pro-Brexit press:

The Sun - billionnaire Rupert Murchoch
The Daily Mail - billionnaire Viscount Rothermere
Telegraph - billionnaires Barclay brothers
Daily Express - billionnaire Richard Desmond

Men of the people? With the working-class's best interest at heart? Hmm...

Very could piece about Trump and Johnson and their "post truth" method. Its very interesting :)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician

Cameron, Osborne and Juncker seem pretty "post truth" to me.

Definitely on to something. DH and I were just having a similar conversation earlier - it doesn't seem to matter anymore that politicians speak blatant untruths, no one holds them accountable and the public doesn't seem to care. Very strange.

I also just watched John Oliver's last show about scientific studies, and I think it all ties together. Scientific research has been so distorted and misused in the media, now people think it's all basically bullshit and experts don't actually know anything. It allows people to just dismiss any findings they don't want to believe, and that's how they can blissfully continue thinking that vaccinations cause autism (or that immigration causes all our economic woes).

I don't know, Osborne's use of the treasury predictions have been pretty much confirmed by lots of others, all of you Brexiters also misquote and represent Juncker.

Cameron? Well see the whole leaving the EU will cause war thing is how the "post truth" things works, its been repeated in different ways by people who want to ridicule it.

Here: Read the text of the speech:

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-uks-strength-and-security-in-the-eu-9-may-2016

He certainly never said that it risks decending into war as implied by the Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/08/cameron-brexit-will-increase-risk-of-europe-descending-into-war/

Or by the Mail or by anyone else. He said:

"The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries."

But this was at the end of the section regarding security and how isonlationism has not worked in British interests. Also its a fairly well resepected point by modern historians that the EU's economic cooperation and intergration does reduce the chances of going to war.

But lets report it as "Cameron says leaving EU risks WW3" as some outlets have and Boris has implied. Whilst using our powerful media infulence to let people think that this was actually said, and then playing "David" to the remain campaign's "Goliath"..

Smoke and mirrors.

Definitely on to something. DH and I were just having a similar conversation earlier - it doesn't seem to matter anymore that politicians speak blatant untruths, no one holds them accountable and the public doesn't seem to care. Very strange.

This is so true.

Maybe it's because I'm old, or maybe it's because I've been doing a job for 25 years that requires me to be able to back up every statement I make on often difficult technical subjects - but I often despair about the lack of respect for evidence and facts these days. Maybe it's always been thus, but I don't ever remember it being this bad :(

And yes, I'm definitely targeting Cameron and Osborne for criticism here, as well as the leave campaign (although in fairness to the man who I consider the worst prime minister of my lifetime, I do I think Cameron's behaviour during the referendum campaign has been a notable improvement on his usual standards).

but I often despair about the lack of respect for evidence and facts these days I think that this is an inevitable outcome of a blurring of boundaries between expert/not expert and the shifts in power brought about by cultural changes linked to postmodernism. Wider knowledge from multiple sources such as social media/scientific blogs/open access journals has allowed people to realise how 'facts' work. Statistical analyses are only as good as the data categories which are selected for inclusion. This is why the accumulation of knowledge through research is such a long and laborious process, and why much scientific research suffers from difficulties of replication. In other words, two different studies will reach two different outcomes depending on how they've defined their data categories. This is inevitable in all science but particularly in the human sciences (e.g., economics). People have become attuned to this and don't trust data sources, not because of some possible malevolent/biased intent, but because of definitional issues.

I don't think that in most cases it's that complex fourmummy; I think a lot of the problem is presentational, and in particular to do with media misreporting of nuanced, technical issues that they do not understand.

Very often if you look at "scientific debates/ disagreements" you'll see that the research in question was in fact perfectly consistent and that any disagreement was down to misrepresentation. A great example of this is the misconception that scientists in the 1970s warned of global cooling: this is based on basic media misunderstanding/ misreporting of certain ideas that are in fact still widely accepted (that glacial meltwater is likely to contribute to a slowing of the currents that transfer heat from the tropics to Northern Europe - in fact there is evidence that this is now happening).

On the data points, it's fine to question it, but when it's replicated by different studies, like the economic data from brexit then it becomes more difficult to argue against.

Osborne's use of the treasury predictions have been pretty much confirmed by lots of others

The Project Fear claim that each household will be £4600 worse off after Brexit has been shown to be disingenuous.

all of you Brexiters also misquote and represent Juncker.

Not true at all. Juncker has repeatedly said quite openly that lies are the way forward for him in some cases.

Yes because that is gdp per capita, the overall economic impact conclusions have been validated.

The juncker quotes about lying? Still are misrepresented, although the secrecy element you all jump up.and down about is replicated in.our own country.

Most of Project Fear doesn't actually give facts to validate. It's all couched in "this could happen" when it may well not happen at all.

Most of Project Fear doesn't actually give facts to validate. It's all couched in "this could happen" when it may well not happen at all.

Plenty of absolute facts in Brexit the Movie - well worth spending a hor or so watching.

The average person cares not one jot what Christine Lagarde has to say about it all.
You'd have to explain to them who she is and then explain what the IMF was and then explain why the IMF is interested in this EU referendum and in some cases you'd have to explain what the EU was and what a referendum is.

These are the people with votes - the people that the elite sneer at and think they know what is best for them.

Project fear is what the brexiters shout when they have no valid argument back, its part of the "post truth" thing.

Making economic predictions based on several sets of parameters is not the same as guessing.

Its also ironic that they say "project fear" and then bring in the "ever closer union " point (which we have exemption from underinternational law) or the EU army, or TTIP or anything else that they state.

No Brexit team argument has been successfully put forward about us being better off under an exit situation. One scenario has us with a full free trade deal with the EU and bearing none of the costs, and the WTO one Gove highlighted last week has been analysed by several independent sources and shown to have us worse off.

Brexit the movie? Same us watching Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracies, far too many leaps of logic made in that.

The Project Fear claim that each household will be £4600 worse off after Brexit has been shown to be disingenuous

Well, starting your post with cries of "project fear" doesn't demonstrate much of a commitment to looking at the facts in an even-handed way. Is there any criticism of Brexit that you wouldn't decry as "project fear"? If not, then you need to ask yourself some hard questions.

I agree, as it happens, that the Treasury forecasts were misrepresented in some press reports - though it's sometimes hard to tell whether the misrepresentation was by the media (who frequently distort meaning by quoting selectively) or by Osborne himself.

But the forecasts themselves are much harder to argue with - they are in line with all other assessments done by credible economic forecasters.

Post truth is a good term I think.

Oh and "the people with votes who the elite sneer at", why does the Leave campaign keep misinforming them then? Hardly shows a great lot of respect for the "real" people.

But thats the whole point, distort the information, run the scare stories ( and yes the exit campaign do) and hope that the ordinary people vote for you. Same tactics as Trump uses.