Canny lass

Statement 3: You say: “Our government will resume the right to deport miscreants on its own terms”. “The future though is that either the RoI will at some point leave the EU as it economically disintegrates” We cannot see into the future. We do not know what “will” happen. With any eventual Brexit we must wait to see what is negotiated. Maybe, just maybe, it might be a condition of Brexit that we cannot deport anyone. We do not know what will be resumed of the old system or the old rights? We can only ‘speculate’ on what ‘may’ happen. Therefore your statement is totally fallacious. As Previously said, what will happen in the “future” is not known to anyone. We can only speculate on what might happen in the future. A statement such as the above, beginning “The future though is” has no credibility as opposed to a more accurate ‘The future though may be’. We cannot with certainty know what will happen in the future, therefore your statement is totally fallacious. The same argument is valid for economic disintegration of the EU. It hasn’t occurred yet and may never occur. We do not know. To be continued after the Midsummer holiday. Till then may I wish you all EN RIKTIGT TREVLIG MIDSOMMARAFTON! May all your EU dreams come true.

Statement 2: In relation to the figure of 2 million UK citizens in the EU you say: “his figure on the latter is in fact a whopping 700,000 too high” “The chief lie here is that UK citizens in the EU work there; the vast majority are retired and do no such thing” Also of interest is your statement: “I prefer to believe the properly audited UN figure rather than the UK government one” First, let’s look at the question of the figures related to UK citizens in the EU. According to the UN Population Division (I believe the same source used by yourself) there are indeed 1.2 million British people living in the EU and they do say that this figure contrasts with the government’s preference for using the larger figure of two million, the figure used by Dougan. They also say that the discrepancy “may result from different approaches being used to count those who spend only part of their time in the EU”. This you forgot to mention. What about the worker/pensioner ratio? According to the same source, data on the total number of British working in EU countries is unavailable since many countries do not collect this. However, using DWP pensions as a measuring stick, and knowing that “there are around 400,000 pensioners in receipt of DWP pension living in Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Cyprus, the Netherlands and Germany”, the UN has, by deducting those 400,000 pensioners from the said 1.2 million been able to calculate that around 800,000 are workers and their dependents. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354). So much for the figures. Are we comparing the same two groups of people here? The UN is counting workers and pensioners. What is Dougan counting? Let’s have a look at what he says: “What do we do with the 2 million or so UK nationals currently living, working, studying in the rest of the EU?” Professor Dougan, unlike the UN, includes students in his group. So, effectively we are comparing two different groups. Of course, even I do not believe there are 800,000 students from Britain studying in the EU but never the less given that the number and compositions of the groups differ, I must ask why they are being compared at all. And then there is the question of the “lie”. Do UK citizens work in the EU? Has Dougan said that the majority work? Is it correct that “the vast majority are retired? The answers are simple. Yes, UK citizens work in the EU. Both UN and Dougan have said so. The UN has even given a “properly audited” figure of 800,000 workers and their dependents, so clearly it must be true. Is it correct as you claim, that the “vast majority are retired”? Not according to the “properly audited” figures released by the UN and cited above.. Therefore, your statement that “his figure on the latter is in fact a whopping 700,000 too high” is totally fallacious. Even the UN do not agree with you. Equally, your statement “The chief lie here is that UK citizens in the EU work there; the vast majority are retired and do no such thing”is also totally fallacious.

Well, you did ask! First let me say that we do not know where this lecture takes place. I know nothing of your academic background but from my own I can see that the lecture follows the accepted academic protocol of: · Brief presentation of oneself related to field of academic studies · Outline the framework of the lecture · Give the lecture · Summarize the salient points of the lecture · Thanks to participants · Invitation to question · Questions Should the speaker be a guest in another institution the preceding protocol is amended slightly to include: · An introduction of the speaker by the chair (before the speaker presents himself) · Thanks from the chair (to guest speakers, after the speakers thanks to participants) · Invitation to question - from the chair · Questions I can, therefore, make an educated guess that the speaker is not in his own university and that he is a guest speaker in some other institution. This I can do because there has clearly been an introduction. We hear Dougan thank the chair in his opening remarks: “Thanks very much Dana for the introduction”. (00.07) We at no point hear this introduction but it appears to have occurred. This information will have some bearing on the following discussion. Having said that, I now propose to go, as requested, through those statements which I find to be fallacious. Statement 1: You say: “He’s […] lecturing to an obviously receptive audience where no questioning is permitted” Let us first discuss the receptivity of the audience. From the visual and auditory evidence available in this video, we cannot even determine the presence of an audience. Therefore we cannot possibly judge the receptivity of the audience. We do not see an audience. We hear applause at the end of the lecture (24.33) but we cannot with certainty claim that it is real applause or where it comes from. We do not know where this video recording was made. It may, for all we know have been made in a studio with a few props and the addition of handclapping as an audio-effect. We simply do not know anything about the audience. Therefore your statement as to its receptivity is totally fallacious. Moving on to “no questioning is permitted. Again, we do not see any questioning and we do not hear any questioning. The lack of visual and auditory evidence does not, however, demonstrate that questioning was not permitted. There is strong evidence to suggest that questions were permitted, assuming of course that there was a live audience. Referring to his not going into the details of, for example, immigration and the impact of leaving on the higher education sector, Dougan clearly states “they might well come up in questions, but if they don’t do feel free to contact me by e-mail, or just arrange to meet up”. (24.16) That we do not see or hear questions, is not evidence that questions were not permitted. ‘Questions’ is an integral part of any formal academic lecture. An academic lecture is usually one hour minus the usual ‘academic quarter’ which tradition most often demands. This leaves 45 minutes to give the lecture – including questions. I can, therefore deduce, allowing a generous 5 minutes for thanks from the chair and invitation to question, that approximately 15 minutes was available for just questions. Whether or not there were any questions asked, we do not know. The video recording did not continue past the end of the professor’s talk. All we can say with certainty is that questions were permitted. Therefore your statement is totally fallacious.

It looks interesting but it'll have to wait until Saturday. Fully occupied here at the minute and on Friday it's Midsummer Eve - Biggest holiday in the Swedish calender. But I promise I'll get round to it.

That's not a bad idea, but even no-votes are counted and they do say something about what you, the voter, feels.

I always thought that funding went into the university not the pocket of the professor, I have no idea whether or not you are an academic.I know that you appear to be well educated when it comes to computers but everything is relative. As I know nothing about them I would probably be impressed by the knowledge of a 10 year-old with a basic interest in the subject. Does your education really have a place in this discussion? "Just because they present as they do doesn't mean that what they say is any less valid". No it does not. Equally it does not say that it is valid at all. What it does say is that if two newspapers report the same story giving contradictory 'facts', then one of them must be lying or at very least angling the facts. I don't believe that 'fertilizing' their offerings is restricted to any one political persuasion, unfortunately. The "popular conception of a mirrored dichotomy between left and right is well clear of reality". That's not what research is saying.

Where to begin! It's a big job but I'll tackle it this evening and get back to you tomorrow. What argument?

I'm not decrying your use of adjectives. I'm advising you that adjectives can reveal a lot about the writer. I'm also advising you on on how to conceal your apparent subjectivity and at the same time gain credibility. If you'd been a publishing company I'd have sent you a big bill for the service! The next part has me beat. Give me an example so that I can fathom out what you mean about using an adjective without attaching it to anything specific - anything which can be counter argued. You can test any of my ideas. I'd welcome it!

I make no pretence to be dispassionate about "things". I'm very passionate about a lot of things. Seeing that people hear both sides of the story is one of them. Believe me 3g, had you been passionately expounding home-spun left-wing philosophies in the same subjective fashion, I would have been shouting equally loudly about the philosophies of the right-wing - just to encourage people to think for themselves rather than follow the flock.

Most universities in Britain are EU funded.

Oops! Got that quote twice for some reason! As far as I can see: EU law EU Constitutional law Single market EU Welfare Law Relationship between EU law and National courts EUs constitutional framework after the Lisbon Treaty and so on, and so on and so on .... What will happen to this experience when we Brexit? (when we Brexit? I don't think the referendum has taken place yet. Surely you mean IF we Brexit) Nothing will happen to it. You can't take a person's experiences from them. Even without the UK there will still be an EU so that knowledge can still be useful.

That would be all journalists, in my opinion. Journalism is biased towards the political stance and economic status of the publication. Left-wing orientated publications select the facts to be published to suit left-wing readers. Right-wing publications select facts to suit the right-wing reader. That's why we always have different accounts of the same thing. Daily nationals use a language which is more formal, has longer words and a more complex sentence structure to appeal to the target group of readers. Tabloids, on the other hand use a language which resembles the spoken word,uses shorter words and a more simple sentence construction. BOTH manipulate syntax to make the reader believe what they want us to believe.

You are not unique in seeing the effects of EU on real people. We all have eyes and ears and we are all surrounded by real people. You seem to be surrounded by one type, but others may be surrounded by another type. Your interpretation of what you see among say, 100 000 people - I've no idea how many people you know - may just not be representative of what the rest of Britain or Europe are seeing. To put it another way, I feel very strongly about alcohol because I've seen its effect on real people. That does not make me the be all and end all on everything related to alcohol. There are those who know more about the effects of alcohol than me, having not just seen those effects but worked with, suffered from and studied those effects under a long period of time. Would you recommend that journalists are the best people to give advice on alcohol-related matters?

I'm afraid I can't quite follow your logic there.

The remark is true. Difference between you and I is that I think that propoganda machine has two or more facets. Oh, wait a minute! Are you admitting that BOTH sides are using propoganda? Well, that's a step in the right direction. There's hope for you yet, 3g. As for "the one on the Leave side is nothing like as massive as the EU one", I'm afraid I wouldn't know. More importantly I wonder how you know. Can you give me the source of that information (preferably not another newspaper) or ar you just putting into print your own subjective thoughts?

There is nothing cheap about any of my "shots". I have nothing specific in mind. I find the vast majority of your contributions to be totally subjective.You could do yourself a favour - and achieve better credibility - if you started to remove the plethora of adjectives, which give away your personal feelings, from your texts. On the misinformed side of the discussion, I find it amazing/ sickening/ disheartening that you can advocate arguments of a journalist paid to make money for his employer, while vehemently rejecting the work of a professor with 20 years in the field. Start reading some REAL literature!

At last! Some truly credible, sensible arguments for remaining. Just one question: This "ability to fly like an eagle" promise - is it the bird or is it Eddie? Only asking because I fly a lot and this could ultimately get me to come down on one side or the other. Just think what I'd save on air fares!

I have to agree with you on the voting. I'd rather submit a blank vote than not use my right at all. I think you forgot to mention subjective and misinformed, Eggy.

I have to agree with you on that one.

Smart answers: A teacher at West Australian (hand on heart, that's the way it was told to me) university reminded her students of tomorrow's final exam. "Now listen to me, I won't tolerate any excuses for you not being here tomorrow. I might consider a nuclear attack, a serious personal injury, illness, or a death in your family, but that's it. No other excuses whatsoever!" A smart-@rsed teenager at the back of the room raised his hand and asked "What if I come in tomorrow suffering from complete and utter sexual exhaustion?" The entire class was reduced to laughter and sniggering. When silence was restored the teacher smiled at the student, shook her head and sweetly said, "Well, I would expect you to write the exam with your other hand".

That's the most sensible contribution in this disussion to date. Well done! Politicians, on either side, won't be coming out of this looking as though their mission was to responsibly inform the public.

10.20 - 10.40 My sentiments exactly!

Magnificent turnout, Eggy! Round about the 1% mark, and they didn't even have to get off their backsides to vote! Let's hope it will be better on Thursday and that bad weather lack of appropriate clothing doesn't put a damper on the number going to the polling booth. Friday should be very interesting here! I can hear the excuses for why it went the way it did - regardless of the way it goes - as i write. I'm afraid this thread may have a very long life.

You tell me, Webbtrekker! A staggering 17 members (of well over 1000) have bothered themselves to vote in Eggy's poll!

No, they certainly don't! What are YOU doing to try and change that?