***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 13 *****
==============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 10 May 16 at 10:17
|
>>>>I neglected to acknowledge your no doubt sincere effort.
>>Don't patronise me
Two way street there, Manatee.
Notwithstanding, I'd be interested to hear your response to the point I was trying to make in relation to the thread title. Are you still holding out for some facts, or will you decide to abstain, or make your mind up based on your feelings about which is the best answer to the referendum question?
|
>> Two way street there, Manatee.
Unintended, I thought I had been abrupt or unappreciative earlier. Misunderstanding is easy of course.
>>
>> Notwithstanding, I'd be interested to hear your response to the point I was trying to
>> make in relation to the thread title. Are you still holding out for some facts,
>> or will you decide to abstain, or make your mind up based on your feelings
>> about which is the best answer to the referendum question?
My default position is no change to our direction of travel, i.e. in. In the same way as 'not in' was the perceived default in 1975. I voted for a change then.
I think that the opportunity to change now merits proper consideration. I am using the time between now and 23rd June to decide whether to vote for change again.
I don't think, as I might have caused you to infer, that anybody can spreadsheet his or her way to the right answer. It is very much about feelings, trust, and the fundamental question of whether we want to continue with (increasingly) shared sovereignty and customs-free trade arrangements with 27 (and in due course more) countries with differing priorities, or whether we should take back what we have ceded, lose some of the undoubted benefits, and try - hope - to balance that with the potentially more tailored relationships that Britain could develop with the rest of the world.
Cameron has supposedly got an agreement that Britain will not be forced into "ever closer union". I don't think enough attention has been paid to what this means. Once you go beyond the customs-free movements of goods and cross border services, it becomes difficult - starting of course with completely free movement of people and its consequences - not to become 'more closely united'.
The idea that Britain can be a half member doesn't work for me (and apparently not for e.g. Norway, either), so the choice is between leaving, and, ultimately, full political union at the highest level. Anybody who really hates the idea of that should probably vote leave.
Cameron (and others) know very well that a choice presented in those terms would have only one result. So we have the fudge.
It is true that Britain will always have the nuclear option of leaving even if we stay in now, and the almost complete removal of lesser opt-outs is designed to strengthen the glue of political union. This is sensible, from the point of view of making the relationship work - a bit like marriage vows, sensible people will work quite hard to avoid the pain and cost of divorce. What we are being sold is a half-marriage, when no such thing exists.
For what it's worth, I think either direction could succeed - as with many decisions, including I suppose divorce which I have never tried, happiness depends on what you do afterwards.
As to facts - well, no, I am not holding out or seriously expecting any now. My frustration in that area is that the ragbag of opinions, half-truths, and lies from both sides is presented as such, when it clearly isn't.
|
Hmm, I think Britain is very much a half-member, and is doing well with that situation, which has evolved rather been an intended policy.
I think we have played our hands very well over the last 40 years or so, and there's no reason to think we won't continue doing so. I can't imagine that the UK electorate would ever tolerate full political union, and when that time comes that may well be a matter of regret to me - I find it perfectly plausible that that outcome will be in our interests long term. I would expect a referendum, I would expect a "leave" vote at that time.
But that isn't the question this time - a leave vote now would be jumping the gun in my opinion.
|
>> a leave vote now would be jumping
>> the gun in my opinion.
Maybe. I tend to favour the doctrine of the first loss is the least loss, although I do not apply it to marriage!
|
Nicely, temperately put, both of you. I agree, there is no truly right answer we can reach by analysis alone - although analysis is a useful tool for eliminating the demonstrably wrong answers we're getting from some parties.
Manatee's divorce analogy is an interesting one, although I'm thinking of it from the other end of the process. There's a school of thought that says we can have all the benefits of marriage without the long term commitment, and another that says the true benefit is the long-term commitment. In international terms, our commitment means that we look to the rest of the world like caring, involved partners, not self-centred fair-weather friends.
|
>> our commitment means that we look to
>> the rest of the world like caring, involved partners, not self-centred fair-weather friends.
>>
If a friend was to take the 'p' and leave you disadvantaged, you'd have to walk away at some point.... and if it got to that, it wouldn't be 'self centred' or 'fair weather', would it?
|
|
S'pose so. But that's a matter of definition on which you and I are never going to agree.
|
I have always assumed I'm IN because I've travelled extensively across Europe for both business and leisure in the last decade, met, shared good times and made lasting friendships with people, and enjoyed the border and hassle free travel across the Union. I am all for free movement of people. I have no problem with it. I'm pro-immigration. All that good stuff. To be honest, I'm not even that averse to closer political integration, as long as the people making the decisions are elected freely and fairly.
But the more research I have done, the more I have serious reservations about the EU as an organisation.
I understand that EU laws are approved by directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. But it also seems to be the case that the laws themselves are drafted and proposed the European Commission which is a wholly unelected body. This implies that an unelected body gets to ultimately choose what actually gets proposed to the elected body, in what format, and how many times. And I have no idea who these people are, what they stand for, and what their interests are.
I understand that the Parliament can block, or propose amendments to legislation from the Commission if it disagrees, and that a formal process exists for negotiation and reworking, but that's only half the question. My understanding is that the Parliament is wholly reliant on the Commission for "input" if you like. Which means there's recipe for all manner of fiddling, blocking and self-interest by any number of "persons unknown" long before any elected person even gets to read it. In this context, it's not so much about what the elected Parliament sees, but what it doesn't get to see.
I also have a very hard time understanding the trade negotiation argument. Some say we are free to negotiate our own trade agreements with non-EU countries, whereas others say we are bound by whatever the EU as a collective has negotiated. Whichever is the case, I can't see how a manufacturing and export-led economy like Germany's can possibly want the same thing as a service and financial sector-led economy like the UK's.
As I said, my argument isn't about borders, immigration, Johnny Foreigner meddling in our affairs, or any of the commonly touted arguments of the out campaign, but it's about whether an In vote would be seen as an endorsement of the EU's shortcomings, and signal the end of any hope of reform. Cameron's tour to seek support for reform was an absolute joke, and achieved nothing. Part of me thinks we need to leave in order to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it's another round of British whinging that can be safely ignored. Another part says we don't fix something by walking out, and that being at the table is the only way to drive the changes we need to see. But then how much influence do we have, if we are being brutally honest? I honestly don't know.
That's a bit of a brain dump there, and in no particular order. I really, honestly don't know which way to vote.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 5 May 16 at 12:02
|
...the European Commission which is a wholly unelected body.
Not wholly, in that the Commissioners are appointed by directly-elected national governments. In that sense they're more accountable to the electorate than the UK civil servants who draft the legislation for our parliament to approve. The 'unelected bureaucrats' formula is mostly a dog-whistle for the xenophobes.
|
>> ...the European Commission which is a wholly unelected body.
>>
>> Not wholly, in that the Commissioners are appointed by directly-elected national governments. In that sense
>> they're more accountable to the electorate than the UK civil servants who draft the legislation
>> for our parliament to approve. The 'unelected bureaucrats' formula is mostly a dog-whistle for the
>> xenophobes.
>>
Thank you, and again an example of the misinformation that exists out there.
This whole thing is a minefield.
|
>> Not wholly, in that the Commissioners are appointed by directly-elected national governments. In that sense
>> they're more accountable to the electorate than the UK civil servants who draft the legislation
>> for our parliament to approve.
A good example of a half-truth, repeated here no doubt in good faith.
The 'Commission" is sometimes used to mean the many thousands of EU officials and staff, which is what it is.
It is also used sometimes used to refer to the 28 Commissioners, who essentially tell the Commission what to do.
As these Commissioners are proposed (not appointed) by elected governments, there is some connection with democracy. The European Parliament then votes them in (or not). That is democratic from the EU end of the telescope, but less so from the point of view of a single country, whose MEPs are in a minority.
A major weakness in the argument that every country gets the same number of Commissioners (1) so its representation is not at all proportionate.
To argue that the Commission members being appointed (actually proposed) by the member states means they are more democratic when drafting legislation than the UK civil service is simply wrong. The legislation is drafted by the Commission in the sense of the officials and staff, under direction from the Commissioners (1 per country) rather than under the direction of an elected government as with UK legislation.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 5 May 16 at 13:57
|
|
You could see an IN vote as a mandate to get in there and change the bits we don't like. Particularly if it's a narrow "IN". We would have allies in that endeavour, many member states are dissatisfied with the status quo.
|
What does seem clear to me is that the EU isn't going to go away if we leave. We will still need to deal with it, negotiate with it, follow a number of its rules if we want to trade with it, and probably continue to pay something in to it (as Norway does).
The Out campaign seems to skate over this.
|
|
Makes one wonder what their real motivations are when such a glaringly obvious flaw in their argument can not be answered.
|
You mean the motivations for a referendum? Surely that's just to appease Joe Public who bleats about not having any say in how things are run. Then when it comes to it apathy reigns.
People always seem to think they know better and can see what's wrong with the world. What they often don't get is the "bigger picture". I don't think anyone at all could possibly get that, even those who's job it is (I include politicians in that), and people will vote based on complete lack of understanding and knowledge (apart from those on this forum of course... :-) ) and will vote according to their particular flavour of misconception, or personalities, or their degree of some sort of -ism.
We really should just let the politicians and their advisers do what they think is right rather than insisting on having our say. Despite everything, I do quite trust our democratic processes.
|
>>We really should just let the politicians and their advisers do what they think is right rather than insisting on having our say.
I think they need to stop fooling themselves (unless they're actually right). My hope is that this referendum will be a close decision but still an IN.
That should provide a barrier against the potential for future further integration. if the politicians believe there is a substantial part of the electorate which would vote against them in elections because of their stance on Europe, then they are likely to be a great deal more careful.
As Manatee says, its not so much what the EU now is which is a concern, it is what it might become if left to run unrestrained.
|
|
Problem with a close vote is that there will be another in five years or less...
|
I don't see that as a problem;
A series of referendums delivering a "so far, so good, but be careful" verdict every 5 years would seem a good way of preventing "scope creep".
|
|
In fact the more I think about it, the more I think the alternatives should have been "OUT" or "IN, but another referendum in 5 years".
|
>> What does seem clear to me is that the EU isn't going to go away
>> if we leave.
>>
I wouldn't be too sure about that. There is growing disquiet about the EU in other countries too and Britain leaving might add fuel to their fire. My ideal would be Britain out, the EU in it's present form to collapse and reform as a trading block rather than a federal state - which is the ultimate goal of the committed Europhiles.
|
>>My ideal would be Britain out, the EU in it's present form to collapse and reform as a trading block rather than a federal stat
And there is certainly some value/attraction to that.
But what if we leave and it doesn't?
|
>> >>
>> But what if we leave and it doesn't?
>>
Even worse, what if we stay and not only it doesn't but it becomes even more of a federal state?
|
>>Even worse, what if we stay and not only it doesn't but it becomes even more of a federal state?
Absolutely.
And that is the real worry. As I said a bit above, it is not what it is now which is a concern, but what it could become.
Seems to me that a marginal IN now with the threat of future referendums if they overstep the mark is the best way to manage that and yet still reap the advantages.
|
>>>>
>> Seems to me that a marginal IN now with the threat of future referendums if
>> they overstep the mark is the best way to manage that and yet still reap
>> the advantages.
>>
>>
>>
I can see a future referendum being an absolute no-no. We will be told we had our choice and took it, and each little notch of the ratchet that takes us further down the road to a federal state will on it's own not be enough to trigger another one. There will come a point somewhere down the line where we really won't be able to leave - we are in the Last Chance Saloon.
|
Perhaps.
However we are in between the utter garbage turned out by the fanatical Outers, the equally s***e rubbish from the fantatical Inners neither of which have any clue about reality and the damned issues, they are just concerned with their own myopic and blinkered views.
Trying to find rational opinions in a field where no facts exist is nigh on impossible.
Ultimately I believe there is little wrong with the current status. Out seems a more negative position to me, and further in is equally unattractive.
So I'd like us to take the course which is most likely to have us holding just where we are or thereabouts.
For me, that would be a marginal IN vote from a very high turnout referendum.
|
|
At this moment you all forum members are convinsing me to VOTE LEAVE.
|
|
Fluffy - you are my HERO! ;-0
|
Trying to find rational opinions in a field where no facts exist is nigh on impossible.
And that is crux of the whole matter. The subject sees loads of opinions quoted as facts by the various groups, most of whom are about as far from being a qualified source as it's possible to get. It is certainly ridiculously easy to find facts directly at loggerheads with each other.
I think those who predict a close result are the only ones who are right in this whole mess. While the interest in the issue would suggest a reasonable turnout, I do wonder if it will be low because no proper disinterested information was available.
|
I voted today.
Did any of you other forum members.
|
>> I voted today.
>>
>> Did any of you other forum members.
Surely it's too early for postal votes in the referendum? Do you mean voting in today's local etc elections?
In which case I refer you to my earlier question about what elections are taking place in Fluffyville?
|
>> I voted today.
I voted last week and put the envelope in the post.
|
I voted today...I wasn't going to, but my walk to the chemist took me past the voting station.
Sadly, I had my sunglasses on and not my bi-focals so just took a stab at ' my ' candidate ! I think I got it right.
|
>> www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/05/watch-shocking-video-reveals-secretive-ttip-process-inside-european-parliament/
We're far more likely to be saved from TTIP or something similar by a French veto in EU than by our own politicos given their liking for an arslikhan relationship with US.
|
>>
>> >>
>> Sadly, I had my sunglasses on and not my bi-focals so just took a stab
>> at ' my ' candidate ! I think I got it right.
>>
I left my reading glasses in the car and couldn't see the ballot papers properly. I voted Lib Dem in the local election as I had a chat with the candidate last week and liked what he had to say on local issues, couldn't care less about the police and crime czar so I ignored that. The paper for the Welsh Assembly was printed black on grey and in the polling booth the only party I could make out were the Monster Raving Loonies so I thought "What the hell" and stuck my cross next to their candidate.
They can't be any worse than the Labour lot we have in Wales at the moment.
|
We only had a vote for the Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner. We both voted for our UKIP candidate.
|
It was the same where I live but I was surprised and not pleased to read the political persuasions of the candidates in the bumf sent round a couple of weeks ago.
Surely politics should have no place in a persons ability to be a PCC?
Pat
|
>>Surely politics should have no place in a persons ability to be a PCC?
So true, but whenever a vote is required the usual machinery kicks in and the various vested interests put forward 'their man/woman' who is undoubtedly the bestest and most impartialest, etc.
As an aside, as of 4.20am, Labour are in 3rd place behind the Conservatives up here (about halfway through the results).
Tee hee hee.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 6 May 16 at 04:27
|
I know, I've been watching it since 1.30am.....as usual but less boring than snooker!
Pat
|
If this potential POTUS says leave then surely we should stay.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36219612
|
>> www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/britons-set-out-for-historic-vote-on-europe-before-realising-theyve-got-the-wrong-day-20160505108564
>>
In all seriousness, this appears to be what has actually happened in North Wales, with them returning some UKIP assembly members.
Jesus wept.
I did my duty yesterday, but sadly 62% of people in my ward didn't bother and the Tory was returned, but with a reduced majority. Blasted safe seat FPTP nonsense.
|
>> I did my duty yesterday, but sadly 62% of people in my ward didn't bother
>> and the Tory was returned, but with a reduced majority. Blasted safe seat FPTP nonsense.
>>
You must have had some council elections going on as well? 38% turnout would be a miracle for a PCC election on its own.
|
|
Oh yeah, that was the council election. LAB hold. Sigh.
|
>> In all seriousness, this appears to be what has actually happened in North Wales, with
>> them returning some UKIP assembly members.
>>
>> Jesus wept.
Maybe they actually wanted a UKIP representative?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 6 May 16 at 12:45
|
Possible, I concede. Nowt so queer as folks.
But I prefer my theory, it's far more amusing.
|
Folk don't have to be confused to do that. I can well imagine people knowing that it is the PCC election and still feeling they are supporting Brexit by voting for UKIP.
No different to electors throwing out perfectly good local councillors in protest at the government of the day.
I wouldn't vote that way, but as you say - queer. Or a thinking deficit.
|
M, for the sake of clarity I'm not talking about the PCC election here either. It's a complete irrelevance and I have no interest in it whatsoever.
What I was highlighting is that UKIP has won seats in the Welsh Assembly for the first time, in North Wales.
|
|
Yes sorry, my carelessness, point stands:)
|
>> What I was highlighting is that UKIP has won seats in the Welsh Assembly for
>> the first time, in North Wales.
The joys pf proportional representation, they're 'top ups' from the party list. Is Mark Reckless one of them?
|
>> Is Mark Reckless one of them?
The answer to that is yes. Another is Neil Hamilton. Both effectively appointed to the Assembly by Nige.
|
>> The answer to that is yes. Another is Neil Hamilton. Both effectively appointed to the
>> Assembly by Nige.
>>
Both of whom have been elected under FPTP also, again showing it is no barrier to the flying fruitcake.
|
Despite returning representatives with whom I violently disagree in this case, I violently believe in PR. That's how democracy is supposed to work, people's voices are supposed to be heard in the administration, whether I agree with them or not.
This is infinitely preferable to the FPTP nonsense in local councils and Westminster (well, one house of Westminster, we don't have any kind of say in the other house). The only council or parliament which I elect to, which has a voice in it which I voted for, is the European Parliament, as we have a LibDem MEP in my region. The only time in the UK I've ever had a national government or local council with any representation from people I voted for was 2010-2015 under the coalition, and 2010-2011 when Reading council was under a Tory-LibDem coalition.
I don't fear fruitbats like UKIP being represented in council or parliament, they just make big enough fools of themselves to put those of us without dried fruit in our brains off even further and push them in to the real obscurity they deserve.
Of course, if you just want unchallenged Labour/Tory administrations interminably, FPTP suits. It is an enemy of democracy, and as we can see from the stable and successful coalition from 2010-2015 and the failed Labour administration which preceded it, it (FPTP) is no guarantor of stability nor economic success. Both systems will equally produce rubbish governance, but at least in the case of PR it'll give us the rubbish we asked for.
|
I'm in favour of PR too Al.
The appointment of place men like Reckless and Hamilton is an unfortunate defect of the list system used in the devolved assemblies.
|
>> I'm in favour of PR too Al.
>>
>> The appointment of place men like Reckless and Hamilton is an unfortunate defect of the
>> list system used in the devolved assemblies.
If they have been elected, they are entitled to be there.
More trouble here on the parish council. There was a resignation, and the council were assuming they could co-opt. But the chairman has treated public opinion with such contempt previously that there was an immediate petition for an election. There are only two candidates, one is probably the person they intended to co-opt, and another.
At the last meeting, three councillors' immediate reaction was "waste of money". So much for democracy.
|
>> In all seriousness, this appears to be what has actually happened in North Wales, with
>> them returning some UKIP assembly members.
>>
>> Jesus wept.
Are people not allowed to vote for who they want?
|
>>If they have been elected, they are entitled to be there.
Exactly. You cannot judge the quality of a system by how much it gives you what you want.
This country voted for Thatcher. She had a right to govern. Eventually she didn't. Lots of people didn't like her and what she did. Tough s***. She was elected. Ditto Blair. Ditto Cameron.
Don't take that to mean I particularly approve of the system, but it is our system and none of those three broke it.
I wouldn't vote for UKIP. Which is my right. Some people will, which is their right. If enough people vote for UKIP, UKIP will get in. Which, however I might not like it, is how the system must work.
I may think the voters are geniuses or planks, but this vilification of someone because you don't like the fact that others voted for them is quite silly.
If you want something and think its important, then get off your butt and vote for/against it. If the majority disagree with you. Tough. If you want the system changed, campaign for it. Maybe you'll get it and maybe you won't.
The current system works for me. Two Houses, Royal Family FPTP etc. etc. And looking back in history there are many occasions when it hasn't done what I wanted, but its usually done what the country wanted.
For many years I heard how The Sun newspaper had the highest circulation in Europe, but I virtually never met anybody who admitted buying it.
Various PMs seem to generate the same effect.
|
Bromp, FPTP all but annihilated your party in Scotland at the Gen Election.
Without PR they would similarly have been destroyed in Holyrood (managing to keep 3 of their existing 15 FPTP MSPs, but keeping 21 out of 24 'list' ones).
Don't dare take umbrage at some UKIP bozos getting in on the same card.
|
The Conservative and Unionist Party came second in Scotland with 31 seats.
The Conservative Party even won Edinburgh Central for the constituency part of the Scottish elections.
|
Conservatives win in Scotland because they haven't got the B to vote Labour.
We don't want independence so we vote Tory.Scots and Tories? Humbug.
|
|
The Conservatives even won Aberdeenshire West in the constituency part of the Scottish elections.
|
>> Don't dare take umbrage at some UKIP bozos getting in on the same card.
First of all, as a believer in Croslandite mixed economy socialism 'my' party, in a Scots context might be SNP rather than Labour.
That aside, I wasn't taking umbrage at the kippers taking seats in Wales. Rather I pointed out that it was a consequence of the PR to which I share Al's commitment.
My other point was that a downside of the 'list' system used for PR in UK assemblies is the patronage it puts in hand of those selecting the list. Neil Hamilton at least has some Welsh Heritage but his appointment and that of Mark Reckless as AM's is a disgrace.
|
>>Neil Hamilton at least has some Welsh Heritage but his appointment and that of Mark Reckless as AM's is a disgrace.
Apart from sounding like a racist rant...
FPTP has safe seats, and PR has safe list positions.
What's the problem?
|
>> What's the problem?
Patronage. Party place people can be parachuted into posts with no regard for their skills or suitability. Labour's attempts fifty years ago to find a home for Patrick Gordon-Walker is a case in point. Plenty others too - Alec Douglas-Home as PM was at least successful.
No racist rant re Hamilton. I'm just anticipating his speech for the defence.
|
>>Patronage. Party place people can be parachuted into posts with no regard for their skills or suitability
And this is peculiar to UKIP? Cronyism and 'parachuting-in against democracy' are everywhere.
Look at all the Lords parties have used in the past generation or so - Mandelson not least.
|
>> And this is peculiar to UKIP?
Where have I asserted that?
|
>>Where have I asserted that?
Your assertion was that for UKIP to do it was a disgrace.
|
>> Your assertion was that for UKIP to do it was a disgrace.
It's a disgrace that it's possible. Today's example is UKIP but as must be clear I feel same about Gordon-Walker, who was Labour, and all other examples.
|
>>It's a disgrace that it's possible. Today's example is UKIP but as must be clear I feel same about Gordon-Walker
Weak sauce - that was 50 years ago. You were quite explicit about the UKIP guys, out of a hundred of list AM/MSPs voted for yesterday.
Sure, they're bell-ends on the epic variety, but I'm also pretty sure a good chunk of the rest of the cushy positions given to party faithful from all sides are too.
So why them in particular?
|
>> So why them in particular?
Because we were already discussing UKIP and Reckless/Hamilton are current and egregious examples of the defect in PR by list.
If you want to introduce other cases, and I'm sure they exist, bring them on.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 7 May 16 at 09:07
|
That bloke who everyone said had a butler, shawn whatisname ?
Mind you is being voted in or chosen any basis for competence? Has there been any noticeable difference in how able they are?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 7 May 16 at 09:26
|
>> >>>>
>> My other point was that a downside of the 'list' system used for PR in
>> UK assemblies is the patronage it puts in hand of those selecting the list. Neil
>> Hamilton at least has some Welsh Heritage but his appointment and that of Mark Reckless
>> as AM's is a disgrace.
>>
>> If the Welsh thought that they wouldn't have voted for them, they exercised their choice.
|
>> >> If the Welsh thought that they wouldn't have voted for them, they exercised their
>> choice.
Were the names Reckless or Hamilton on any ballot paper?
|
|
Did they know before that they would end up being selected before the election? Is that made clear?
|
|
The ballot paper would have said UKIP candidate.
|
Boris says ................ (I'm not sure I altogether Boris's soundness on Leave the EU, as I feel that he may be posturing for (a) The Tory leadership or (b) and more sneakily, having a second referendum if the Leave vote win, using it as a bargaining tool, rather than submitting our resignation).
Still - he talks a good talk................................
www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153653824951317?fref=nf
Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 8 May 16 at 13:48
|
and more sneakily, having a second referendum if the Leave vote win
And that of course is covered quite early on in the Politicians Primer, if you don't like the proffered answer to a question, rephrase it as you obviously were not asking the the right question.
|
|
I am more inclined to VOTE REMAIN than VOTE LEAVE at this moment.
|
What caused you to change your mind then? Did you not tell us that you were voting to leave?
What has happened in the last few day that has convinced you that staying in is the correct decision?
|
We need the jobs that the E.U. helps provide.
The BREXIT people worry me by saying we can leave the single market and still have a strong economy.
|
So you no longer believer what the BREXIT people are telling us about the economy Fluffy. Was there anything or anyone in particular that let you to that view?
|
>>Are people not allowed to vote for who they want?
Erm, of course. Did you not read my post about PR? Don't you think I understand that it would have given us many UKIP MPs in the last GE? Didn't you comprehend that my strong support for PR indicates that I wouldn't be unhappy with that situation, as I strongly believe we should get the representatives we vote for, whoever that might be, implying precisely that people are allowed to vote for exactly whom they damn well please? Are you really that thick or just wilfully trying to misrepresent me, again?
I would celebrate proportional representation for UKIP MPs, whilst still firmly opposing their beliefs and what they stand for, and even mocking those who choose to vote for them. You get that, right? I couldn't care less if PR delivered 50 UKIP MPs or 50 MPs from the Monster Raving Looney/Green Chicken Alliance. We'd have what we voted for. Good.
You know that doctrine of disagreeing with someone but firmly defending their right to say what they believe? Yes? I expect you believe in that too. There, we agree on something. Now please stop trying to twist my words.
Last edited by: Alanović on Mon 9 May 16 at 10:16
|
>> Now please stop trying to twist my words.
You wrote:
"In all seriousness, this appears to be what has actually happened in North Wales, with them returning some UKIP assembly members.
Jesus wept".
If you werent' criticising some people's voting choices, what were you doing then?
|
Someone forgot to check Govey's gag was tight enough.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36241812
Actually looks like he may have got loose a couple of weeks ago:
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0e88d1a-0624-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce.html#axzz484mCRG1X
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sun 8 May 16 at 15:51
|
Britain will move outside the EU’s single market and instead join “Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine†in a European free-trade zone if voters choose Brexit...
Double slivovitzes all round!
|
What about a free trade zone with parts of Africa.
Maybe Ethiopia or Botswana to name but a few.
|
|
Good thinking, Fluffs! Who needs Germany when there are three different Guineas to trade with?
|
>> Britain will move outside the EU’s single market and instead join “Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and
>> Ukraine†in a European free-trade zone if voters choose Brexit...
>>
>> Double slivovitzes all round!
>>
SlivovitzAs.
;-)
They've missed the biggest and best name off the list - Belarus.
|
A glitzy first night has been promised for Brexit: The Movie when the featurelength documentary enjoys its premiere at the Odeon in London’s Leicester Square on Wednesday night.
www.express.co.uk/news/politics/668346/brexit-movie-feature-length-documentary-film-EU-Europe-Britain-exit
|
>> order-order.com/2016/05/09/cameron-willing-to-risk-world-war-3-over-migrant-benefit-changes/
>>
>> LOL!
>>
They do seem to be getting ever more desperate with some of the crap they are coming out with ! Do they really think that anyone with half a brain would believe it ?
|
Perhaps you can help us there, Skip.
};---)
|
"They do seem to be getting ever more desperate with some of the crap they are coming out with"
I'm waiting for scare-me Dave to go up to Leicester and tell them that, in the event of an exit, they'll have to send Claudio back to Italy!
|
>>>>
>> I'm waiting for scare-me Dave to go up to Leicester and tell them that, in
>> the event of an exit, they'll have to send Claudio back to Italy!
>>
That's what happens when we end up with machine politicians, men and women who have known no existence outside of their little political bubble and have no idea of how ordinary people think or function.
No wonder Trump is doing so well across the pond, people are sick to death of what they've had to suffer for decades.
|
|
I am becoming confused which way to vote in the E.U. Referendum.
|
The E.U. Referendum debate has become farce.
The Conservatives are split asounder.
Labour has nothing to say.
What the hell is going on with this E.U. Referendum debate.
David Cameron is at war with Boris Johnson
I dread the next six weeks up to June 23rd.
|
>> They do seem to be getting ever more desperate with some of the crap they
>> are coming out with ! Do they really think that anyone with half a brain
>> would believe it ?
If Cameron had said what Guido and other spinners are suggesting you might well be right. In reality of course it was a much more nuanced commentary on the EU' influence in containing and resolving internal conflicts than any WW3 senario.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/09/the-guardian-view-on-the-eu-debate-david-cameron-makes-a-serious-case
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 9 May 16 at 23:26
|
Reading both links it seems to me it's the guardian that's putting it's own spin on what the pm said. There's little reference to exactly what he actually said it's just an opinion piece, and that's fine. Its suggesting how to support the in campaign. However it's unashamedly putting it's own spin on things.
The guido one seems to offer very little in the way of commentary at all. It just gives the key part of the text. In fact compared to the normal standard of roger's links, which from the ones I've read are crayoning drivel, it's not that bad.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 10 May 16 at 06:08
|
|
Why on earth is this thread so long? Can We have a new volume please?
|
No. Dave doesn't want it. Neither does Zero.
And broadband providers would prefer you upgraded to a faster connection to load this thread too.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 10 May 16 at 22:30
|
>> No. Dave doesn't want it.
I don't know why you keep singling me out, when you know full well there are 2 other moderators here too.
Perhaps none of us can be a***d to start a new volume.
|
|
Takes me Arthur Minnit to load this thread on my 5.5 Mbps connection, so I reads it on the latest for rum posts.
|
Loads very quickly on the PC at home.
If I loaded it onto my iphone - which I don't - it would take forever.
|
>> If I loaded it onto my iphone - which I don't - it would take forever.
I've told you a million times before not to exaggerate.
I've just tried it on my old iPhone4 with a 2mb Mi-Fi connection and it only took 22 seconds to load this thread.
|
|
How come some threads get split into volumes and some like this left?
|
|
I do not know why this thread has been left not to split.
|
|
I think the main reason was that it had run away with itself, and there was no natural break. Happy to lock it and start again if you want.
|
We will continue with this existing thread.
I am enjoying what is being written.
|
|
Reduces pollution on other threads - it's an EU directive I bet.
|
I am trying to create a conversation.
Thats all.
|
|
Don't you mean you enjoy trying to wind people up?
|
I try not to wind anyone up.
It is just what I write that is all.
|
|
What so you want to talk about then Fluffy?
|
|
He goes shy when challenged.
|
Three of my main interests are history, politics and economics.
These were part subjects in the Certificate of Higher Education that I passed when I was at Humberside Polytechnic.
|
We've had an awful lot of politics and economics Fluffy. Let's talk about history instead.
When would you have liked to live other than the present and why?
|
|
Doesn't like questions does he?
|
|
I think GC has it. Start a new thread by all means, this one has become unmanageably long. Locked.
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 -Volume 12 - Alanovich
