unbeliever

It's not the same world as in in the '50s. The "food security" argument is no longer valid.

They practise agricultural protectionism. If we abolish that practise here completely, we'll get cheaper food for less money. I cite Norway as an example of the folly of protectionism, not the virtue of leaving the EU.

You should see somebody about your paranoia. I'm not even slightly kidding.

He was previously claiming that a conventional attack hit a rebel chemical store. Can't both be true. ---------- Post added 13-04-2017 at 18:43 ---------- That's a rather circular argument.

Fair enough.

How exactly does it mean that?

Norway engages in even more agricultural protectionism than the EU. The effect which increases the price of food in the EU is even greater in Norway. If we do the reverse, it will have the reverse effect. ---------- Post added 13-04-2017 at 17:01 ---------- Are you a supporter, in general or in the specific case of agriculture, of protectionism through state subsidies and tariffs?

That Putin and Assad, yes (just). But it's actually Putin and Assad vs the whole of Europe and the US and many others. So who would you believe. I don't like taking things on trust. But evidence has been presented which makes the Putin/Assad version of events extremely unlikely and the Assad/Putin supporters are asking us to believe that the western leaders and countless others are implicated in the falsification of that evidence. ---------- Post added 13-04-2017 at 16:52 ---------- Worse than Russia and Syria. How absolutely ridiculous.

It's all very well questioning the honestly of western leaders. There's plenty of precedent for them misleading us and getting caught so scepticism is healthy. But to suggest that the word of people like Putin and Assad is worthy of greater or even similar trust is so profoundly ridiculous I can only assume that those suggesting it are experiencing severe head trauma.

Nope. Farming will doubtless be reduced substantially over time. Manufacturing is not supported by tariffs to anything like the same extent, so that's a completely different matter. Still quoting the out of date OBR data from November in the hope of misleading people, I see.

We have deliberately constructed a food surplus. Farmers will have to exit the market but that's a small price to pay for a big drop in the price of food. ---------- Post added 13-04-2017 at 14:48 ---------- You realise that you're making exactly the same arguments which kept Norway out of full EU membership. Have you seen the price of food in Norway? ---------- Post added 13-04-2017 at 14:51 ---------- Why on earth would anybody, other than the farmers themselves, want to keep in place policies which enrich a small number of first world farmers at the expense of basically everybody else in the country, and the wider world.

They won't like it. But surely we can't put the interests of a couple of hundred thousand farmers ahead of tens of millions of people in the UK who buy food, or hundreds of millions of people outside the UK who would like to improve their meagre lot in life by selling the UK people food. I have a fair understanding of how this policy (CAP) came about in Europe, but it's long past time to bin it.

I never said it was a trade deal. I am making no reference to "Patrick Minford" or anything he has said or written. I said it was a bad thing which we should stop doing, and apart from the many other good reasons to stop doing, this would help us get trade deals.

We don't know exactly what happened, and by all means let there be an investigation. We do know that this hypothesis (accidental hit on a rebel chemical store) is false as it is inconsistent with the data already gathered.

This is obviously false. The EU imposes an average 22% tariff on agricultural products. If an independent UK phases these out, our food will get a lot cheaper and it will be far easier to get good trade deals with the developing world. As an added bonus we shall cease to be complicit in a massive tax on some of the world's poorest people.

The problem with that position is that you appear to be hinting at single market and customs union membership. This is Brexit in name only and enjoys minimal support amongst the demos. It has I suppose, some value as a compromise, but there is zero mandate for it and it will not settle anything.

I have data on this. It's linked from my signature. There's plenty more out there, if you don't like mine.

Quite so. Those supporting remain have of course not lost their freedom of speech. Were I a devoted remain supporter now, I would seek to elect a government in 2020 with a policy of re-entry into the EU.

Who cares? Parliament voted by overwhelming majorities both to hold the referendum and then to enact the result. All this overseen by a government with a manifesto commitment to hold the referendum and then to enact the result. The air is positively thick with democratic mandate. The could be none stronger.

Quite easily. The Scottish did only 2 years earlier. If fact in such matters the "devil you know" effect is usually strong in my view.

This isn't a formal debate. besides I've also been told using various other phrasing that I have not put forward an argument. I have to disagree that this has been demonstrated. I would agree that arguments have been put forward that sovereignty and democratic accountability are somehow preserved within the EU governance framework, but I disagree strongly with these as you know. ---------- Post added 13-04-2017 at 10:19 ---------- Also. Re: Flexo's signature. I really wish people would stop quoting OBR figures from November when we've had figures now for March which are quite different with regard to the supposed (read imaginary) Brexit "hole". Growth predictions are far higher now than in November, and only fractionally below the pre-referendum figures.

It was put to a general election. The party which won the general election did so with a manifesto promise to hold the referendum and abide by the result. This matter is awash with democracy and democratic mandates.

Well that's perfectly fine. It's one, quite reasonable, matter to say that you disagree with my arguments. It's quite another to be told I haven't made any. My primary concern is with sovereignty and democratic accountability. My secondary concern is with good governance because, for all its flaws, I think governance is better in the UK than in most of the EU. (Not all of the EU of course. We've a lot to learn from the Germans for example.) Policy issues are the tertiary concern to me. At the request of certain posters I have discussed policies I would change. But the primary and secondary concerns are of greater significance to my position on EU membership. Within my tertiary concern of policy I disagree with, the most pressing concern for me is energy policy. Agricultural subsidies and tariffs are the second priority within the overall area of policy which is my third priority as a whole.

Majority rule is democracy. Occasionally there are big binary questions and this is how we deal with them. besides if you look at the data linked from my signature, it's far less than half.

So you think that the loss of free movement is a greater threat to personal liberty than the weakening of democratic accountability in governance? P.S. I don't think there are going to be substantial reductions in the freedom of EU citizens to live and work in the UK and vice-versa. I certainly wouldn't support it.