***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 17 *****
==============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 27 May 16 at 16:48
|
Damn right I should never have left Huddersfield either.
Although I won't be going back.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 May 16 at 01:33
|
The European Environment Agency, in association with Prime Minister David Cameron, is now warning that the south-east of England could be submerged by water in the event of Brexit.
A spokesperson for the prime minister said:
"If Britain leaves the European Union, all of the would-be migrants camped out in Calais would jump into the English Channel. This would raise sea-levels putting the south-east of England at risk of a water-level rise of 10 metres. Kent would disappear."
The Archbishop of Canterbury added:
"Given that Brexit would destroy our forestry industry, there would not be enough wood left in an isolated Britain to rebuild Noah's Ark. The people and the animals would be forced to make small boats out of twigs.
"We would be unable to march forth two-by-two."
Number 10 estimates that 25 million people would drown within one week of Brexit.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 May 16 at 01:33
|
|
I could not agree with you more.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 May 16 at 01:33
|
There was an interesting article in today's Times (sorry, can't link to it). President of EU Claude Junckers was saying that even if Austria had elected a right wing president (as they nearly did), the EU would just block anything that they (or another) right wing government tried to do.
Now, I know the Austrian President is mostly ceremonial, but he could have called elections which might have ended up with a right wing government. Regardless of one's views of a right wing government in Austria, if they were democratically elected, who the hell are the EU to say "we're going to block you"?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 May 16 at 01:34
|
>> There was an interesting article in today's Times
Appears to be a Times 'scoop' and not reported elsewhere.
I don't see how EU could meddle in Austria's internal politics. However with one Commissioner and representation in EU Parliament proportionate to their smallish population any attempt to 'throw their weight around' in EU decision making would probably be doomed to fail.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 May 16 at 01:34
|
>> >> There was an interesting article in today's Times
>>
>> Appears to be a Times 'scoop' and not reported elsewhere.
>>
>> I don't see how EU could meddle in Austria's internal politics. However with one Commissioner
>> and representation in EU Parliament proportionate to their smallish population any attempt to 'throw their
>> weight around' in EU decision making would probably be doomed to fail.
>>
The story is repeated in The Sun today (don't ask me how I know!).
|
>>Britain is as great as it's ever been. It's still bigger than Brittany, which is all the name ever meant. You did know that, didn't you?
I was always under the impression it was named after Brittany Spears.
(*_*)
|
"Britain is as great as it's ever been"
Not sure where this originated, but it came from my SiL in Kiama; seems this is the Aussie view of the UK........
The Royal Navy is proud to announce its new fleet of Type 45 destroyers
Having initially named the first two ships HMS Daring and HMS Dauntless, the
Naming Committee has, after intensive pressure from Brussels, renamed them
HMS Cautious and HMS Prudence.
The next five ships are to be HMS Empathy, HMS Circumspect, HMS Nervous, HMS
Timorous and HMS Apologist.
Costing £850 million each, they comply with the very latest employment,
equality, health & safety and human rights laws.
The Royal Navy fully expects any future enemy to be jolly decent and to
comply with the same high standards of behaviour.
The new user-friendly crow's nest has excellent wheelchair access.
Live ammunition has been replaced with paintballs to reduce the risk of
anyone getting hurt and to cut down on the number of compensation claims.
Stress counsellors and lawyers will be on board, as will a full sympathetic
industrial tribunal.
The crew will be 50/50 men and women, and will contain the correct balance
of race, gender, sexuality and disability.
Sailors will only work a maximum of 37hrs per week as per Brussels Rules on
Working Hours, even in wartime.
All the vessels are equipped with a maternity ward, a creche and a gay
disco.
Tobacco will be banned throughout the ship, but recreational cannabis will
be allowed in wardrooms and messes.
The Royal Navy is eager to shed its traditional reputation for; "Rum, sodomy
and the lash"; so out has gone the rum ration, replaced by sparkling water.
Sodomy remains, now extended to include all ratings under 18. The lash will
still be available on request.
Saluting of officers is now considered elitist and has been replaced by
"Hello Sailor".
All information on notice boards will be in 37 different languages and
Braille.
Crew members will now no longer have to ask permission to grow beards and/or
moustaches. This applies equally to female crew.
The MoD is inviting suggestions for a "non-specific" flag because the White
Ensign may offend minorities.
The Union Jack must never be seen.
The newly re-named HMS Cautious will be commissioned shortly by Captain Hook
from the Finsbury Park Mosque who will break a petrol bomb over the hull.
She will gently slide into the sea as the Royal Marines Band plays "In the
Navy" by the Village People.
Her first deployment will be to escort boatloads of illegal immigrants to
ports on England's south coast.
The Prime Minister said, "Our ships reflect the very latest in modern
thinking and they will always be able to comply with any new legislation
from Brussels."
His final words were, "Britannia waives the rules."
|
|
Many a true word spoken in jest, sadly. Which is why I used a small g. (Wilhelm please note)
|
|
Got bored after the first two or three, HW. Seems to have been generated by some 'PC Gone Mad' computer program. Ho ho yawn.
|
"Got bored "
Bored is fine - I'm just delighted that you weren't offended.
;-)
|
>> "Got bored "
>>
>> Bored is fine - I'm just delighted that you weren't offended.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
Unusual!
|
|
You really are a tiresome little man, Rog.
|
>> Not sure where this originated, (but it came from my SiL in Kiama; seems this
>> is the Aussie view of the UK)........
.....Rupert Murdoch........
|
|
I used to get those sort of emails, as unfunny as ever i see. Thankfully I developed a knack of spotting them from email the titles, that way i can delete them and not have to waste time reading them.
|
Out of interest, how many people here who are telling us we'll be much worse off out of the EU than in were of the same opinion if we didn't join the Euro?
Or is that something they'd rather forget?
|
I always thought joining the Euro was a bad idea and voted UKIP at the time to register my opinion.
However, I've always thought us better off inside the big tent, even if we don't use the communal toilet block, and don't see the contradiction you're trying to imply.
We now have the best of both worlds. Where's the problem?
|
>>Where's the problem?
High-powered vacuum cleaners . Toasters, kettles, and hair dryers to follow. 60w peach-coloured light bulbs.
[Don't mention the war bananas]
:}
|
>> 60w peach-coloured bulbs.
I have seen the light.
|
Keep spouting the Euro-myths, Dog. Foil hats are available in a certain kind of gentleman's outfitter, and I'm sure you already have your shotgun and your three-month stash of canned food.
Incidentally, in 1999 I'd have liked us to join the euro. The UK's presence would have added some ballast and possibly mitigated some of the recent problems. I accept that political enthusiasm (to include Italy and Greece) unwisely overcame economic prudence at that time, and we're clearly not going to join now, which is probably a good thing.
|
|
You're beginning to get on my tits Will. There's one forum poster who's posts I absolutely ignore, and I'm thinking of adding another :) .. Lighten up FFS!
|
|
I'll let you know if that upsets me, Dog. But I will call you out for parroting disinformation. If this is a serious debate, that kind of nonsense has no place in it.
|
There was a smiley after Dogs post.......or did you miss that? *tut*
Pat
|
"we're clearly not going to join now, which is probably a good thing."
I imagine that 20/20 hindsight must be terribly frustrating if you aren't very good at making sensible decisions.
|
|
Reading the whole of what I wrote might be helpful before making snide comments. I was in favour in 1999 of joining a euro with those countries whose economies qualified. That wasn't how the euro turned out, and so I wouldn't be in favour of joining it in its present form. No hindsight required.
|
>> "Britain is as great as it's ever been"..................
............
>> His final words were, "Britannia waives the rules."
>>
Many a true word spoken in jest.
|
>> >> His final words were, "Britannia waives the rules."
>> >>
>> Many a true word spoken in jest.
Am I missing something, or is this a terrible punchline? I thought the received wisdom amongst the Daily Express classes was that the rest of the EU waived the rules and only Britain were mug enough to enforce them, rant rant, etc etc, immigrants, it's a disgrace, wasn't like this in the 50s, immigrants, you could leave your door unlocked all day, grovel grovel Your Highness, didn't fight and die in two World Wars, immigrants etc etc?
|
>> Am I missing something,
Yes. I was referring to the entire post from the point of view of someone who knows how the Navy has changed.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 25 May 16 at 15:34
|
Oh right. I didn't bother myself, looked like the usual old unamusing verbal diarrhoea from the outset.
|
>> Oh right. I didn't bother myself, looked like the usual old unamusing verbal diarrhoea from
>> the outset.
>>
That's OK, I tend to not bother wit stuff I know nothing about too.
|
|
You're quite right, I know nothing about misguided, hackneyed attempts at humour based on xenophobic attitudes and prejudices.
|
>> order-order.com/2016/05/25/eu-plots-europe-wide-tax-id-numbers/
>>
"UKIP’s Steven Woolfe says:
“If we stay in the EU, we will be forced to pay a European tax."
What a load of old shi-ite. Of course, it's the other side who are "scaremongering".
(Mind you, I don't think the idea of a pan-EU tax ID is too bad in principle - to help individual, autonomous, national Revenue Services to cross check potential cheaters. Sounds reasonable, if you look at it reasonably without trying to find some hidden Great Trick or Conspiracy.)
|
Some questions to the Brexiters
1. How do you visualise that the land border between the UK and the EU will be Policed and how and who will pay for it ?
2. What if there is a no vote across the UK and Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland vote significantly against it ?
3. And what is the difference between an immigrant and an ex-pat ?
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 25 May 16 at 18:43
|
1/ What land border?
2/ So what, it's the overall majority that counts. In any case, there will not be a leave vote if the other three regions are significantly against it. If this part of Wales is anything to go by any difference either way will reflect the rest of the country.
3/ Not an issue that matters.
|
|
I think the land border under discussion is the one between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland.
|
|
Aha, forgot that one. As the RoI is heavily dependent on trade with the UK I should think they'll have little choice but to share the burden.
|
More or less impossible to secure, as was clearly evidenced during the "troubles". Or perhaps some fencing contractor from Newry would get the job of a lifetime...
"Listen here Mr McChesney, you'll never guess what we've just been asked to quote for while you were out for your lunch, are we busy for the next few months?"
;-)
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 25 May 16 at 20:02
|
The land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic !!
|
|
Switzerland has land borders with a number of EU countries, and life goes on. The only thing they seem to check is whether you have a motorway vignette stuck to the windscreen.
|
>> Switzerland has land borders with a number of EU countries, and life goes on.
Switzerland is part of Schengen.
|
Ha ha, you couldn't make this up, one Brexiteer doesn't know we've got a land border with the EU despite the O' in his screen name, and another one doesn't know that Switzerland is in Schengen.
Hopeless. Maybe you chaps need to gen up on your facts before placing your X.
Oh, and an ex-Pat is the term for a former husband of a female lorry driver.
|
|
For the purpose of clarity Eire is not in the Schengen area either.
|
|
Neither are we but it doesn't stop the Brexit camp banging on about millions of unvetted people having unfettered access to the UK if we stay in the EU. They seem to think we're in both Schengen and the Euro.
|
>> For the purpose of clarity Eire is not in the Schengen area either.
>>
For the purposes of clarity - and the avoidance of confusion:-
The use of the word 'Eire' is obsolete. It has been used to refer to the island of Ireland.
Perhaps what you mean is 'The Republic of Ireland'.
|
>>
Oh, and an ex-Pat is the term for a former husband of a female lorry driver<<
.....bringing humour back into Brexit:)
Pat
|
Never a problem, Pat. The Brexiteers give us plenty to laugh at.
};---)
|
>>3. And what is the difference between an immigrant and an ex-pat ?
I think I'm an ex-pat because I am not permanently moved to another country, just in them quite a lot. Seems to me there is something permanent about being an immigrant.
|
I always thought an ex pat was someone British leaving the country, an immigrant someone arriving. Something like that anyway.
Although isn't ex-pat mainly used in the UK, do other English speaking countries use that word?
|
Nothing wrong with the word immigrant I am one.I don't know what Ex pat means.A Brit living abroad is a immigrant.Unless you have a passport of the country you reside in and then you become their nationality in law.
I have no say in the referendum after living in the UK for 49 years.No British passport so still a immigrant.>:)
|
>> Nothing wrong with the word immigrant I am one.I don't know what Ex pat means
I lived in Tenerife for 3 years, so yes, I was an immigrant, although I prefer the term expat :)
My Canadian friend lives in Malaga and calls herself an immigrant. No I said, your an ex pat, but she wouldn't 'ave it.
Living in Cornwall for the last 19 years I've been referred to as an incomer, an outsider, a foreigner, and even an unnatural!! (Haha!) bring it :o) if they annoy me too much, they'll find a ex Millwall supporter just below the surface.
= Live and let live.
|
= Live and let live
So I guess then Dog, that you're ok with uncontrolled migration to the UK from the EU ?
|
>>So I guess then Dog, that you're ok with uncontrolled migration to the UK from the EU ?
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
But stay away from Kernow!
|
>>Although isn't ex-pat mainly used in the UK, do other English speaking countries use that word?
No, it is used globally, and not just by English speakers.
And whilst it doesn't seem to be strict, the division does seem to be your feeling of permanence in the country you are in.
Of course, the word "immigrant" is mostly seen to have negative connotations in the UK;
much more so than other places.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 26 May 16 at 01:24
|
|
Lots of the so called "immigrants" I've come across in recent years are here to work to make money and then return home. So maybe they're not immigrants at all !
|
|
I know you're going to think this a tale, but there really was a farm worker once called Patrick near where we used to live, who had "had the operation" and now lives as "Patricia". In the pub he was know as "ex-Pat" Pleasant enough person who seemed to take it all well enough though. Still liked a pint and a cheroot.
|
Roger
If you bothered to read the article you have posted:
Most of the Leave arguments are shot full of holes:
A Norway Agreement - as postulated - will mean the UK will pay the EU for market access.
the UK will still adopt many EC laws.
Now Brexit states CATEGORICALLY we will save ALL our EC contributions . And ALL EC laws..
Now you are saying Brexit lie.
|
>> Roger
>>
>> If you bothered to read the article you have posted:
I did.
>>
>> Most of the Leave arguments are shot full of holes:
No they are not.
Your opinion v my opinion.
>>
>> A Norway Agreement - as postulated - will mean the UK will pay the EU
>> for market access.
>> the UK will still adopt many EC laws.
>>
>> Now Brexit states CATEGORICALLY we will save ALL our EC contributions . And ALL EC
>> laws..
>>
>> Now you are saying Brexit lie.
No, it's just one scenario of a possible UK arrangement, not necessarily the only one.
The ONS speaks:-
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/population-surge-to-change-the-face-of-england-forever/
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 26 May 16 at 09:49
|
So tell us which deal we WILL have, as the other side can tell us which deal we will have if we remain - i.e. the perfectly advantageous one we already have.
Otherwise, go away.
|
|
Just to be clear, the 'change the face of England' soundbite is from Chris Grayling, a Brexiter, not from the ONS. More misrepresentation from Rog, I'm afraid.
|
Cameron promised before the last election to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands. It was pointed out at the time that this was impossible. It is now at 330,000.
Much like Blairs' non-existent WMD, If he can't be trusted on migration, how can he be trusted on anything. Therein lies the problem with modern politics on both sides of the fence.
Still at least we can get rid of him at the next election if we so choose. Not a choice that we have with the EU.
|
The big problem with Brexit is - as Roger have clearly demonstrated- those advocating it have no idea - like NONE - what our future will look like if we leave.
They give us a forecast - and then tell us it's "one of a series of options".
Sorry but that is just unacceptable. Choose what you want to achieve and you might do it. Wave around a range of options and it's just BS. Since Brexit has had years to make a choice, and they still have no defined option, it is clear they don't think any one is achievable. Or they have not got a clue. Or they are obsessives who ONLY want to leave and hang the consequences.
Not the way to run a campaign. Perhaps they want to lose?
Last edited by: madf on Thu 26 May 16 at 11:40
|
>> they are obsessives who ONLY want to leave and hang the consequences.
That's it, isn't it? Come on Brexiteers, own up.
|
"Or they are obsessives etc"
A fair description of the so-called Bremaniacs.
|
Yes of course, Haywain, those are the obsessives who agitated for this unnecessary neverendum, aren't they?
*eye roll smiley*
|
This really is becoming deja vu all over again on the Scottish referendum.
There is a small number on each side of the "debate" making wild forecasts, twisting "facts", and accusing the other side of fearmongering & the vast "silent" majority will make their feelings known on the day and we will carry on the same as we are.
In terms of major achievements, this referendum will change nothing.
Maybe a cynical view but all we have done in this debate, on this forum as well as in the real world outside, is to create a lot of noise and animosity. After the vote, when the verdict (IMHO) will be a vote to remain, we will not be any further forward than we were before.
|
>>we will not be any further forward than we were before.
I expect so.
In or out won't fix much though it might break some stuff.
|
>> In terms of major achievements, this referendum will change nothing.
Depending on the outcome, we might see a separate queue for British passport holders at the airports rather than all bundled together with EU passports queue.
It can save lot of time for British citizens while returning back to UK :)
No, conversely it won't affect much if British travellers have to queue with non EU travellers in other countries (while entering) as most crowd is from EU only. So faster in both ways.
|
|
All of these are only going to happen if we vote leave which, as I have already said, I do not believe is going to happen.
|
I have lunch today with Rafael Dochao who is the European Union Ambassador to Chile. He is Spanish.
Now, I know Chile is of no interest to you lot, but he will have an interesting perspective on Europe and the UK referendum I think.
So if there are one or two specific questions that any of you would like me to bring up, I am happy to do so.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 26 May 16 at 14:25
|
I have one. What actually is the point of tapas?
;-)
|
|
Something to eat while you wait for the recovery vehicle with the spare wheel to turn up.
|
>>What actually is the point of tapas?
My missus is a Spanish/French teacher - she told me that in Spain a small plate was often put over the top of your drink in bars to prevent wasps/flies getting in it.
Enterprising bar owners then used these little plates to plop a little bar snack on.
Obviously flies in your food are nowhere near as disturbing as one swimming in your beer!
|
"in Spain a small plate was often put over the top of your drink in bars to prevent wasps/flies getting in it."
ISTR hearing that before - it makes sense. It also explains why tapas doesn't work well when translated into English restaurants; from my observations, they don't seem to last very long.
|
Well, that was well worth the effort. Amongst all the many things that were discussed, most of which are obvious to the Ins and above the heads of the Outs, was one comment I thought worth sharing;
The Brits are increasingly being seen as a bunch of aggressive isolationists who do not have the wit to understand the advantages of the EU, even with its inherent disadvantages.
I expect Roger and Robin Dog must be very proud.
|
What else would you expect from a Spanish guy whose livelihood depends on the continued existence of the EU?
I'm in the remain camp, but your ambassador chap's opinion carries no more weight than Joe Bloggs.
|
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us! .
|
I disagree, Lygo. Well, assuming he's reporting a European consensus and not just his own views, it should be a concern to the Outies.
The Outie line is probably that it's no-one else's business what we decide. They'll then go on to insist that we can do our own trade deals with other countries and with the EU, so everything will be just fine.
But if those other countries - first the US publicly, now the EU too - are telling us that they find the UK uncooperative and hard to do business with, that doesn't bode well for the deals we'll need to replace what we lose if we leave.
What it does show is that the Outies need to go public with a single, agreed view on what they will put in place post-exit, how they will do it and what international allies they have (including Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin if they like) they have to help them make it all work. Otherwise an Out vote is a leap in the dark.
|
The British, well the English specifically ( sorry chaps but it's just the way it is ) as with the Americans, have this uncanny inability to recognise that the rest of the world isn't majorly keen on them and are naively astonished that this is the case when it is brought to their attention.
;-)
|
"this uncanny inability to recognise that the rest of the world isn't majorly keen on them"
True - very true ........... so why do they all want to come here?
|
>> but your ambassador chap's opinion carries no more weight than Joe Bloggs.
Depends what you mean by "weight". Insofar as we have to pay attention to it, then obviously little or none. In that its a valid representation of what he's seeing and hearing, I should think its pretty thought provoking.
Its kind of suggestive of a "Oh FFS then, just leave" from other Europeans. He was also pretty clear that he thought the UK should stay. He doesn't appear to be someone who supports the EU because of his job, more someone who has that job because of his opinions.
It did make me ponder this idea of how easy it will be to sign new trade agreements which will replace our EU agreements and everything will be ok - a view frequently put forward. I suspect that it would be a great deal more difficult than they insist and perhaps less favourable.
He did also comment on the meetings and negotiations which took place with Cameron and his crew. He commented that whilst some of the views were the UK vs the EU, there were several of the views where other countries were joining in and saying that they thought the UK was right and they thought the EU should change on that issue. Apparently different countries on different points. He wouldn't discuss which on what.
Which equally made me think about the often raised point of negotiating from within. It seemed to me reasonable to think that was actually quite a valid and realistic position, it just meant that the UK should be represented by politicians quite strong and forceful in their position. (which he thought Cameron was).
And that also made me think that we should stay in, but put a great deal more thought into who were elect or choose to represent us.
As with everything on this subject, it was opinions rather than facts, but it was interesting and, for me, thought provoking and a different perspective.
|
>> ...there were several of the views where other countries were joining in and saying that they thought the UK was right and they thought the EU should change on that issue
This is where I think Cameron may have added some value to the EU with his negotiations: he made it ok to openly question what the EU was doing, why they were doing it, and how they were paying for it - I expect other nations will start to pipe up with their own concerns, especially as their own 'isolationst'/far right/far left groups build support.
As with any empire, ultimately the EU will stand or fail on economic success - you can't have political success without the flow of funds to support it, and the aspirations of citizens.
The USSR found that out - China is at risk of finding that out.
|
I agreed with Lygonos, Cameron's/the UKs open challenging has prompted other places to not just continue to blindly follow, so some of the more "excessive excesses" may well be curbed.
Question Time had me smiling quite a few times last night with one side saying you can't possible know what will happen if we leave, then coming up with their own version in the next breath. The whooping and whistling from the audience sounded idiotic to me, like it was a football match or something. And the only person who I thought did their job properly (apart from the wonderful Dimblebum of course) was Interrupting Lady, who constantly interrupted. The bald bloke (am I allowed to say that or is it follicalist?) seemed a bit know-it-all and smug, no idea who he was but I got the impression he was full of earnest BS (unlike Millibean's mouth which is too full of teeth still!! :-) )
|
|
Steve Hilton (baldie). Looks like a bit of an entitled lycra lout to me. Bleh. Turncoat, too.
|
"Which equally made me think about the often raised point of negotiating from within. It seemed to me reasonable to think that was actually quite a valid and realistic position, it just meant that the UK should be represented by politicians quite strong and forceful in their position. (which he thought Cameron was)."
I am a narrow 'Out' at the moment but I found this point very interesting and if I felt this was a realistic option which could lead to meaningful change(not fudges) would change my position. Now I admit I have no facts or knowledge around this other than perhaps Press nonsense, but is there any evidence that we are able to achieve change from within - especially if it is not in line with the underlying socialist ethos of the EU and also the Franco/German position ?
|
>>s there any evidence that we are able to achieve change from within
No *evidence* as such, I don't think. All I have is that yesterday I was lunching with the EU Ambassador (very impressive) and the Belgian Ambassador (not impressive) and a couple of others and I have the opinions that they expressed. They struck me as honest, frank and truthful, but these are Ambassadors who are trained to deliver messages, so you have to take a view based on their professionalism and my perception - bearing in mind that rather a lot of wine will have impacted on us all and in any case this was a lunch, not a formal meeting so it wasn't like I could be aggressive or pushy.
Both were talking about the process / reaction to Cameron's approach. As I understand a document was issued to the EU by the UK detailing what the UK wanted and thought. The EU assigned a working group to study that document consisting of representatives of each Country. That working group then reported back to the Heads of State.
Within both the working group and the report back to the HoS were issues where the reaction was disagreement with the UK and it was combative, issues that there was little concern about and a bunch of other issues where one or more other countries said that they not only agreed with the UK's position, but that they wanted that change/concession themselves - though not all countries agreed or took the same stance on all issues.
Their opinion was that this meeting would not have taken place if the UK had not pushed the issue, and that the EU as a whole was likely to be changed / improved because of this, although the UK would not get all that it wanted.
Also, they seemed to believe that Cameron was a strong and forceful bloke, but that he was not annoyingly aggressive.
Clearly this is all subjective and hearsay, so form your own opinion.
Personally I was heartened, felt that the negotiate from within stance had more credibility than perhaps I thought before, and felt that EU change was more possible than I had thought.
To the degree that it moved me off the fence somewhat, but did emphasise to me how we need to choose the *right* politicians to represent us in the EU. The MEPs are important, and need to be more accountable and their activities need to be more visible. Or perhaps I just need to pay more attention.
|
>> The Brits are increasingly being seen as a bunch of aggressive isolationists who do not
>> have the wit to understand the advantages of the EU, even with its inherent disadvantages.
Well that's one view of course.
From another perspective, it could easily be:
'they do have the wit to understand the EU's inherent disadvantages and having weighed them with the advantages, think that a common market type arrangement is a good idea, but a US of E type arrangement is not a good idea'.
Let's face it, if someone's argument is to ridicule an opponent, only go for the extreme's in a discussion to try to portray the opposition as foolish or stupid...then they either don't have much of an argument, may under estimate their opponent or are showing the symptoms of what they accuse i.e. foolishness or stupidity.
|
|
Can you tell us what the Outies' post-exit proposition is, WP? What will an Out vote get us?
|
>> Can you tell us what the Outies' post-exit proposition is, WP? What will an Out
>> vote get us?
>>
And what will the in vote get us? Ever closer integration into a failing organisation, perhaps.
R4 played some clips from a debate in Scotland held last night and I was surprised by the number of teenagers interviewed who wanted out. I don't think the demographic divide is anywhere near what the remains (Who are getting increasingly hysterical and abusive) would like us to believe.
|
>> >> Ever closer integration into a failing organisation,
>> perhaps.
There's a veto for that.
But, of course, you're not interested in the facts.
|
>>>>
>> There's a veto for that.
>>
>> But, of course, you're not interested in the facts.
>>
I haven't heard any facts from the remains either, only some wild and fanciful economic predictions from people who have a history of nearly always being wrong in their predictions.
|
>> I haven't heard any facts from the remains either, only some wild and fanciful economic
>> predictions from people who have a history of nearly always being wrong in their predictions.
You weren't talking about the economic argument, you were talking about 'ever closer union', a favourite scare tactic of Outies. I was replying to that.
|
Really, RR? Ever-closer union is off the agenda for the time being - possibly indefinitely. (Ask Jean-Claude Juncker.) An In vote gets the (mostly) satisfactory status quo.
There's no hysteria on the Remain side, just a longstanding request to the Outies to agree amongst themselves what their side is actually offering and how they will achieve it - a question you, like WP, have again declined to answer.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 27 May 16 at 11:03
|
>> Can you tell us what the Outies' post-exit proposition is, WP?
No. I do not consider myself an 'Outie' as such.
I am a concerned UK resident who doesn't like: the increasing lack of sovereignty, the waste of the EU, the bureaucracy and the drifting direction of an US of E.... captained by faceless people who never say what they are truly thinking and hope by hiding things from the masses, that we won't notice.
I think all of that is not in the UK's interests.
I was a sort of waverer, because the safety net of 'in' i.e. ease of trade and business seemed sensible to retain... however, I see that as short termism.
When I balance them up, I will now vote 'out'.... because:
>> What will an Out
>> vote get us?
To specifically answer your question: I have no idea.
...but... whatever happens after the referendum if an 'out' vote won, I do not believe this country would suffer anything worse than the 2008 banking crash....i.e. we are still here, there is still an NHS, we still have a healthy balance of trade, we still have food in the shops...etc, etc....
...longer term, any trade would be a natural ebb and flow. If a German company wanted to sell us cars or a Scandinavian one a lorry... then they will do, we are an economically important nation and they are not going to let that drop, are they?... wider than that we'll negotiate our own deals, as we always used to.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 27 May 16 at 15:50
|
Thanks for being brave enough to answer, WP but you've highlighted the problem. You may not be an Outie but the people you're proposing to vote for are. And they have no idea what their solution will be, so how can you know what your vote actually means?
I'd take issue with your parallel with 2008. Then, we were essentially all in the same boat, with the same shortage of paddles. Countries worked together to get by because the alternative was too awful to contemplate. That's rather different from the UK voluntarily leaping overboard while waving two fingers in the direction of the lifebelts.
Meanwhile, of course we'll still be able to buy things, but if we no longer play nicely in the Single Market we will struggle to maintain a healthy two-way flow.
|
I don't think there are many on either side who could eloquently state what their future looks like, or at least what they'd like to to be like.
I don't think many people have much idea of the bigger picture anyway and most will vote according to their gut instinct rather than any particular expectation which they could articulate convincingly. (Their gut instinct will however be based on what they see and how they interpret stuff on popular media, not from informed debate. Plus the "follow the herd" instinct)
I also think there will be quite a bit of "tactical" (or call it disruptive if you like) voting against Cameron just because people can. I believe there's a lot of people who really don't care whether we are in or out so long as their own immediate needs are catered for.
|
>> Thanks for being brave enough to answer, WP but you've highlighted the problem. You may
>> not be an Outie but the people you're proposing to vote for are. And they
>> have no idea what their solution will be, so how can you know what your
>> vote actually means?
I am not voting for anyone? I'm voting for my country to disengage itself from a club that's fast heading down a path I disagree with. One that has a huge whiff of fingers in the till because the auditors won't sign off the books, one that has an under the table agenda that will only be discussed behind closed doors.
Let's put it another way. For me the line in the sand has been crossed, because of potential fiddling, waste, bureaucracy and the UK's lack of full sovereignty.
What would be your 'line in the sand'. Surely you wouldn't go with it all at all costs, whatever happened?
I would like my country to re-negotiate a deal like it used to have (Common Market) ... if not, so be it, we'll manage, even if there's some pain.
>> That's rather different from the UK voluntarily leaping
>> overboard while waving two fingers in the direction of the lifebelts.
So what? Trade is all about who wants what. If the Chinese want a Land Rover, they'll buy them...if a Brit wants a BMW, the Germans will find a way of selling them to us.
Look at how many German/French cars are driven around here and EU made lorries... they won't be pulling up the drawbridge will they? We are the 5th largest economy in the world and 2nd in the EU... do you think we'd shrivel and die, I don't?
>> Meanwhile, of course we'll still be able to buy things, but if we no longer
>> play nicely in the Single Market we will struggle to maintain a healthy two-way flow.
>>
I don't believe that. We but more from them than they do from us.
|
>>.then they either don't have much of an argument, may under estimate their opponent or are showing the symptoms of what they accuse i.e. foolishness or stupidity.
Or, I asked his view and he gave it to me honestly.
But if you find it more comforting to explain it a different way, then fill your boots.
|
>> Or, I asked his view and he gave it to me honestly.
>>
>> But if you find it more comforting to explain it a different way, then fill
>> your boots.
>>
No, I don't find it 'comforting'. I do find your point condescending though.
If anyone thinks mine (and plenty of others) viewpoint lacks the intelligence to work out what the issues are, then they are in denial.
Just because someone thinks differently and disagrees with you, that doesn't make them automatically stupid.
|
>>Now, I know Chile is of no interest to you lot, but he will have an interesting perspective on Europe and the UK referendum I think.
<<
Interesting it may be, relevant it certainly isn't.
The comment worth sharing confirms this.
Pat
|
>> Still at least we can get rid of him at the next election if we
>> so choose. Not a choice that we have with the EU.
>>
Still the total lack of understanding of UK and EU electoral systems, and the inevitable misleading soundbite which bears no relation to reality but conveniently fits an argument.
That's #Brexit.
BTW, if anyone here does Twitter, have a look as Nicholas Soames's timeline. Not what you might expect and very entertaining.
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 - Runfer D'Hills
