***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Read and post all your EU referendum news in here !
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 10:28
|
It will not surprise you that (a) I do not expect Mr. Cameron to achieve any meaningful adjustments to the EU project, (b) I do expect him to present his failed negotiations "a success for the UK", (c) I expect that the referendum will not be couched in simple "In"/ "Out" terms, (d) I expect that he will do his best to ensure that all EU citizens, (whatever their nationality) who are resident in the UK, are able to vote - no guesses how THAT will go.
I voted NO in the 1975 referendum as I had taken the trouble to see that the so-called free trade agreement, as outlined in the Treaty of Berlin, WAS a blueprint for the ever encroaching plan for a European Super State.
I will vote NO if we do get a referendum.
|
>> I will vote NO if we do get a referendum.
>>
If the country votes yes, then what?
|
Then the Euro-Federalists will have won and this country will become a region of Greater Europe.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 25 May 15 at 01:12
|
>> Then the Euro-Federalists will have won and this country will become a region of Greater
>> Europe.
And even if we take that as a truth how will my or your life be significantly different from in a post EU UK?
|
>> And even if we take that as a truth how will my or your life
>> be significantly different from in a post EU UK?
And that of course is the 64,000 dollar question.
Impossible to answer because it won't be the UK that decides, will it?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 25 May 15 at 01:12
|
>> Impossible to answer because it won't be the UK that decides, will it?
And the same applies if we 'come out'. The terms of trade between a 'brexited' UK and the EU are not in our hands. Neither are those of our wider trade treaties - why are UKIP and it's adherents along with mainstream Tories so quiet about TTIP?
|
Even though the CBI says we should stay in;)
The premise they are hoping we will accept is that the CBI view must be the right one. But why wouldn't the country's biggest employers vote for an oversupply of cheap labour?
The big employers of the kind that make up the CBI only account for about 10% of the economy, I think I saw reported somewhere. Maybe they also find the extra compliance obligations easier to deal with than many smaller businesses.
I think UK will stay in, regardless. Too many vested interests.
|
>> I think UK will stay in, regardless. Too many vested interests.
>>
Coincidence Scotland ran for independence a year earlier ? Testing the water.
The electorate don't have the stomach for the unknown, period.
|
>> But why wouldn't the country's biggest employers vote for an oversupply of cheap labour?
I don't see a problem with that, even if proven true. We live in a global economy, the work will gravitate to where the labour is cheapest and the workers hungriest and thirstiest.
I shall be voting YES (stay in EU) because to me the disadvantages of being IN are smaller and quantifiable, whereas the advantages of being OUT are speculative and unquantified.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Sun 24 May 15 at 21:25
|
|
The vote is just eyewash. We're in Europe and always were. A no vote -unlikely - will simply be bulldozed.
|
>> (d) I expect that he will do his best to ensure that all EU citizens, (whatever their nationality) who are resident in the UK, are able to vote - no guesses how THAT will go.
Wrong.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32872211
That's how confident he is of a Yes/In vote.
|
|
Don't think that is the issue. Suppose the in/out vote was 'out' for UK citizens but turned into 'in' by non UK citizens and EU folks. To say Cameron would never hear the end of it is an understatement. Even a suggestion of that scenario would stick like unpleasant stuff to a manually operated earth-moving implement.
|
|
Essentially same franchise as a general election leading to the oddity that while EU citizens resident in UK cannot vote their Commonwealth countrparts can.
|
|
You mean it's odd for this referendum or the elections in general?
|
>> You mean it's odd for this referendum or the elections in general?
Both. It's particularly so though in the referendum where Commonwealth citizens can vote on something that has no bearing on them whatsoever while even long term resident EU nationals upon who's rights the outcome may bear directly cannot.
|
It is utterly ridiculous that someone from the Republic of Ireland has the right to vote in a UK election of any kind. The Make up of a UK parliament has nothing to do with those South of the Border even if they are living in the UK.
Voting of any kind* should be restricted to British Nationals.
That applies to referenda. Specially this one.
*Local elections are different, anyone on the register paying council tax should be eligible.
|
>> It is utterly ridiculous that someone from the Republic of Ireland has the right to
>> vote in a UK election of any kind. The Make up of a UK parliament
>> has nothing to do with those South of the Border even if they are living
>> in the UK.
>>
>>
I can see your point, but it works both ways. British people who are resident in the Irish Republic can vote in Irish elections. I believe the same applies to Malta and Cyprus and it was part of a "Lets stay friends" agreement when those countries became independent.
|
UK citizens have only been able to vote in Irish lower house elections since 1984. This was in belated reciprocity of the right to vote given to Irish citizens in the UK in the Ireland Act of 1949.
There was a call before this election by Conservative backbenchers to abolish this right at the end of 2014 but nothing became of it.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 25 May 15 at 19:52
|
>> Both. It's particularly so though in the referendum where Commonwealth citizens can vote on something
>> that has no bearing on them whatsoever while even long term resident EU nationals upon
>> who's rights the outcome may bear directly cannot.
>>
Don't the commonwealth citizens have to live in this country to vote though?
|
snipquote!!!!!!!!
>> That's how confident he is of a Yes/In vote.
>>
Yes - I was wrong on that point.
"UKIP Leader Nigel Farage: "UKIP welcome the plans for the EU referendum franchise which seems both sensible and reasonable. To have done anything different would have been absurd.
"The decision about the future of this country should be made by the people of this country, and the easiest way to to this is to use the Westminster franchise. The Government should be supported on this matter."
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 25 May 15 at 18:34
|
>
>> "UKIP Leader Nigel Farage: "
God, you are acting like Nigels ventriloquists dummy now.
|
>> >
>> >> "UKIP Leader Nigel Farage: "
>>
>> God, you are acting like Nigels ventriloquists dummy now.
>>
Nigel has fired - sorry resigned - all the other UKIP spokesmen in an act rather like ethnic cleansing. If you disagree that Nigel is perfect, you're out..
|
>> >
>> >> "UKIP Leader Nigel Farage: "
>>
>> God, you are acting like Nigels ventriloquists dummy now.
>>
Not really - it was just an easy cut & paste way to state UKIP's view on this element of the question.
It also has UKIP (unusually!) supporting a Government stance - that'll be a first!)
Lighten up Zero. :-)
|
>> Lighten up Zero. :-)
No chance- I now have this magnificent picture in my mind of you sat on Nigels knee with his hand up your ass.
|
The comments on this are worth reading for "Outs" amongst us - few here I guess!
Not surprising given the source but ....
www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/25/uk-commissioner-joins-eu-funded-fat-cats-to-oppose-brexit/
|
>> The comments on this are worth reading for "Outs" amongst us - few here I
>> guess!
>> Not surprising given the source but ....
>>
>> www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/25/uk-commissioner-joins-eu-funded-fat-cats-to-oppose-brexit/
>>
Some interesting loonies on that thread.
Tinfoil hats time.
|
snipquote for the lazy person!
>> Tinfoil hats time.
In YOUR opinion, madf!
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 26 May 15 at 01:31
|
|
He's not alone roger and madf and I are not usually in same camp politically.
|
A bit confused here which is easy for me.
What about my rights as a E.U.citizen who has lived here for a long time.People of this country? I'm not from another planet but can I have a vote please Sir or Madam.<:)
|
|
Do UK citizens resident in The Netherlands get a vote Dutchie?
|
>> A bit confused here which is easy for me.
>>
>> What about my rights as a E.U.citizen who has lived here for a long time.
We are voting about throwing you out or not. Of course you can't have a vote.
|
|
The continong will be well isolated when we have left them all to stew in their own juice. That'll learn 'em.
|
Firstly you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to form any opinion of your own regarding their propriety. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king; and thirdly you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil
Horatio Nelson - 1793
:o)
|
1956 though Zero, more than half a century.
You must have been too young but I was in my actual thirties back then. Believe me the stuff sounded as naff to us then as it does now. Barely out of the end-of-the-pier comedian era.
But
I do hope I will listen to the whole version if I can get it. Period charm, half an hour well spent unless you are modern and impatient.
You're allowed though.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 25 May 15 at 23:57
|
>> You're allowed though.
That looks grudging. Really I mean to thank you for posting that link.
|
|
"Fog in the Channel - Continent isolated"
|
>> We are voting about throwing you out or not. Of course you can't have a
>> vote.
Absolute balderdash.
There is no intention to "throw out" legal immigrants whose legality is currently established.
No retrospective legislation is envisaged.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 27 May 15 at 01:13
|
>> Absolute balderdash.
>> There is no intention to "throw out" legal immigrants whose legality is currently established.
>> No retrospective legislation is envisaged.
Envisaged/intend by whom? There is no certainty whatever as to position of EU migrants here or Brits in Europe in event of Brexit.
|
|
Why don't we just ask, going about it as nicely as possible of course, everyone who came to these islands after 43ad to go back to where they came from and leave Briton for the British.
|
>> Absolute balderdash.
>> There is no intention to "throw out" legal immigrants whose legality is currently established.
>> No retrospective legislation is envisaged.
Of course not. We need EU immigrants to keep wages low.
|
>>There is no intention to............
>>No retrospective legislation is envisaged.
Mm, now here's the thing; There will be a referendum coming up at some point. At that point, the voters will decide according to what is put in front of them. Until that point UKIP can only keep repeating how much they agree with the referendum - which is not newsworthy nor interesting.
Whether that final vote be Yes or no, UKIP is no longer relevant. I hope you enjoyed your 15 minutes of fame, because its gone.
Whatever your party intends or envisages may or may not be valid, but it won't be relevant.
Welcome to the world of a single-issue party.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 26 May 15 at 13:04
|
Or else you follow the SNP model and ignore the result if it does not suit continuing to campaign and hoping for the slightest hint of an excuse to call for another referendum till you get the result you want. Not a bad model for EU referenda in the past.
Cynical, Moi??
PS I still maintain that there is no way the UK population will vote to leave the EU.
|
|
My view is that the poor North will vote "out", whilst the affluent South will vote "in" and nothing will change. We will continue to be bullied by Brussels, pamper to their expensive tastes, and take it all with the "Stiff upper lip" as they kick us in the proverbials.
|
>> Or else you follow the SNP model and ignore the result if it does not
>> suit continuing to campaign and hoping for the slightest hint of an excuse to call
>> for another referendum till you get the result you want. Not a bad model for
>> EU referenda in the past.
>> Cynical, Moi??
>>
>> PS I still maintain that there is no way the UK population will vote to
>> leave the EU.
>>
>>
My estimate is 60:40 to stay in.
Are the British willing to take a giant leap in the dark? No
To be initially poorer, with a promise of maybe richer later? Err. no.
To support a campaign where one of the major supporters is - how shall I put it nicely? - a recruiter from the BNP - so successful the BNP no longer have a noticeable electoral presence compared to 2010 - a decline from 339 to 8 candidates.. tinyurl.com/n9n8cqp
" "Ukip has been used to co-opt the BNP's message. There's been a push in that direction by the power structure of this country to hurt our vote."
|
>>My estimate is 60:40 to stay in.
I'd agree.
However, I'd really like the opinion polls to say 48:52 to leave.
That mere possibility will be enough to scare everybody in to agreeing every concession feasible. And if they feared that the UK might even vaguely appear to be doing slightly better after its exit, even in only in the short term, the world would come crashing down onto the EU.
So it will be the European Parliament's worst nightmare if the UK vote to leave. Not because the UK leaving in and of itself will hurt, but because it will set a precedent which every other country will threaten every time they are faced with unpopular decisions.
Every country government will have to worry about the EU's popularity on every decision, for fear that they will be forced into a referendum.
The EU will forever have to worry about it's own popularity with the European electorate, and they've never had to do that before.
So if they think there is a real danger of an "Out" vote, they will change forever to avoid it rather than give in. If there is no chance of an "In" vote, they won't bother. If an "In" vote is inevitable, then they won't bother.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 26 May 15 at 15:02
|
|
When do we get to know the wording of the referendum? As one-time union boss and card Clive Jenkins put it, "Well, you don't mount a referendum unless it's going to give you the answer you want, do you?"
|
60-40 is a clear majority, but as Herself pointed out it can't be called a landslide. She's too polite to add that we are still 40% xenophobic.
Ignorance used to be bliss, but no longer thanks to the badly-harmonized accelerations in different fields of endeavour. Every person for him- or herself in the digital age.
|
I'm pretty convinced that if there had been an out vote the result would have been falsified or ignored.
I was looking forward to that. We hacks love to watch the politicos really earning their bread for a change. But the commonsense and moderation of my countrymen deprived me of that small pleasure.
|
I would be keen to know what counter-arguments Roger and other Eurosceptics would proffer in response to this article, which seems to be quite a measured and non-sensationalist view of the legal and practical impact of an EU-exit on movement of people.
Intra-EU Immigration control seems to be a central plank of the Eurosceptic argument, but taking emotion out of the argument, how would the practicalities work?
eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/what-would-happen-to-eu-nationals.html?m=1
To short-cut to the conclusion:
"Those advocating the exit of the UK from the EU as a solution to unwanted intra-EU immigration do not seem to have grasped the unpalatable nature of the alternatives even in the terms of their own anti-immigration agenda. Maintaining the benefits of free access to Europe for UK citizens will almost certainly involve accepting inward movement from the entire EU on terms which are similar to those existing today but accompanied by the loss of influence that an exit implies.
Alternatively, the UK can choose an isolationist position and apply domestic immigration controls to EU citizens. The price will be the loss of innumerable business, educational and cultural opportunities as movement from Europe becomes more difficult, and likely increased difficulties for UK citizens who may no longer take for granted their own privileged access to Europe for work, education, holidays or retirement."
Last edited by: DP on Tue 26 May 15 at 15:35
|
I see the SNP are at it again.
Nicola Sturgeon was saying this morning that even if the UK as a whole vote to leave the EU the result should not stand if a majority in any one region vote to stay in.
|
|
She is only making a noise so that people don't forget she exists. (Attention seeking)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 26 May 15 at 16:53
|
|
What have you done to to your font ON.? Need a magnifier to read your posts
|
>> What have you done to to your font ON.? Need a magnifier to read your
>> posts
>>
Not me gov.
I am using an Android tablet, don't know how to change the font on it. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 26 May 15 at 17:48
|
Nothing different with ON's font from where I'm sitting.
Maybe a visit to Specsavers CG?
Pat
|
|
It has reverted to normal now. Last couple of post by ON have appeared inn very small font on my android phone. How odd.
|
>> Last couple of post by ON have appeared inn very small font
Not still celebrating Norwich's win, are you? Perhaps peering at your phone through the bottom of your glass?
|
|
IME too fonts on this site occasionally behave oddly on android phones. In my case it's the poster's name in the title of each entry that gets out of kilter.
|
>> Not me gov.
>>
>> I am using an Android tablet, don't know how to change the font on it.
>> :-)
>>
Found it in the settings, I have small, normal, large, and huge options. I am on normal.
|
>> I see the SNP are at it again.
>>
>> Nicola Sturgeon was saying this morning that even if the UK as a whole vote
>> to leave the EU the result should not stand if a majority in any one
>> region vote to stay in.
She'll have trouble doing that,the results are not regionalised.
|
>> She'll have trouble doing that,the results are not regionalised.
That proposition is at best a matter for debate as the referendum has yet to be legislated for. FWIW the referendum on electoral reform was counted and declared at constituency level as was the Scots independence plebescite. Regional results were declared in the 1975 Common Market vote tinyurl.com/nac75qy
And the constituent nations of the UK might cavil at being described as regions. Were Scotland ejected from the EU on English votes, after being told voting against independence was necessary to stay in then IMHO Ms Sturgeon would be quite justified in re-opening the question.
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 26 May 15 at 19:35
|
|
The one region to vote against membership in 1975 was the Western Isles. Given the amount of EU funding that's gone in on roads and ferries to and betwixt Barra and Butt over the last 40 yrs I doubt they'd vote out now!
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 26 May 15 at 19:35
|
The SNP are stuffed.
If they left, they would go broke or have to cut spending - a LOT. Scottish educational standards are falling rapidly .
And at a time of collapsing oil prices, there may be an oil workers' strike...
So they may huff and puff and that nice Mr Cameron will be very pleasant - but at the end of it they have no bargaining power with a UK Government they have been vociferously rude about...
|
>> The SNP are stuffed.
>>
They are clever enough to know that they are on thin ice. They will toe any line to save their skins while loudly blaming London for any effect on Scotland.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 26 May 15 at 20:48
|
>> It will not surprise you that (a) I do not expect Mr. Cameron to achieve
>> any meaningful adjustments to the EU project, (b) I do expect him to present his
>> failed negotiations "a success for the UK", (c) I expect that the referendum will not
>> be couched in simple "In"/ "Out" terms, (d) I expect that he will do his
>> best to ensure that all EU citizens, (whatever their nationality) who are resident in the
>> UK, are able
Another one of your predictions blown away Roger
"Voters will be asked ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? when they go to the polls for the in/out referendum, it has been confirmed."
Do you want to revise your remaining two.?
|
>> >>
>> "Voters will be asked ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?
>> when they go to the polls for the in/out referendum, it has been confirmed."
>>
>>
>>
One of the reasons the question is set like that is because in a survey carried out last year a percentage of those asked did not know whether or not the UK was actually a member of the EU at present.
The only saving grace being those types are probably too stupid to use a pencil.
|
>> Another one of your predictions blown away Roger
>>
>> "Voters will be asked ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?
>> when they go to the polls for the in/out referendum, it has been confirmed."
>>
>>
>> Do you want to revise your remaining two.?
No - and this one is not so even handed as it first might appear!
Mr Cameron has given the upper hand – the ‘Yes’ box on the ballot papers – to those who want Britain’s relationship with the EU to remain unchanged.
The ‘out’ campaigners were hoping to get the positive answer on their side, with a question such as, “Do you want Britain to leave the EU?†or even “Should Britain return to being a sovereign democracy, outside of the European political union?â€
Critics have also pointed out that in Britain’s last two referenda, on the Alternative Vote system and on Scottish Independence, Mr Cameron handed the ‘Yes’ answer to the opposite team: those campaigning in favour of electoral reform, and those campaign in favour of Scottish independence respectively.
That the Prime Minister has chosen to deal Eurosceptics a blow this early into the Parliament is likely to be perceived by Tory backbenchers and Eurosceptic voters as a stitch-up in advance............
|
>> That the Prime Minister has chosen to deal Eurosceptics a blow this early into the
>> Parliament is likely to be perceived by Tory backbenchers and Eurosceptic voters as a stitch-up
>> in advance............
And your reply is called "getting your excuses in early"
|
or even “Should Britain return to being a sovereign democracy, outside of the European political union?â€
So you would like a nice loaded and factually incorrect question to replace the question that even your noble leader described as " a simple straightforward, unambiguous question. "
Bit nervous about the outcome?
|
UKIP doesn't have a political programme. A promise to take Britain out of the EU or common market or whatever when UKIP wins an election (!) isn't a programme or policy.
Nigel Farage must have noticed that. As leader of the right-wing fringe party's moderate or left faction he is in a quite challenging situation that he carries off well.
What a nightmare time politicians have. They must be mad to let themselves in for it.
|
You don't half spout some old b***** Roger.
Where did you copy this latest lot from?
|
We should let Scotland go. They can keep the oil.
But we will have the whiskey!
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Wed 27 May 15 at 08:42
|
There is no e in scotch whisky - the e is an irish concept.
8o)
|
I was speculating last night about this...it should not be disadvantageous for UK to make its own trade agreements than for it to be party to the the EU's. An independent UK would have two advantages in that respect
- it can be selective - so can reject agreements that are to its disadvantage (e.g. through imbalance of trade); and
- some countries may be happy to make a concession to one country (the UK) but not to the whole of the EU.
If UK cannot make the agreements it needs, as the 6th largest economy, then there's not much hope for most other nations either.
My instinct is that we could be better out, by a large margin, but that there is very little chance of that happening. Successful businesses don't like uncertainty, and change that competitors might deal with better; and too many political vested interests.
I don't worry about business leaving the UK. They might leave anyway. We would be in a position to make it worth their while to stay, if we wanted. But we don't seem to help ourselves as it is - Osborne's banking levy is a big factor in HSBC's relocation review, as is the PRA with its fines seemingly based on banks' ability to pay. They don't like the uncertainty of the referendum either, but I suspect they would like an EU Tobin tax even less.
But there isn't necessarily a right answer. We could come out and make a complete cock of the opportunity.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 29 May 15 at 11:11
|
The whole scenario is so complicated and confusing regarding the E.U that whatever the vote we will be none the wiser.
Of course the U.K. would be able to carry on without being tied in to the E.U.Why not, trade agreements can be changed.THe U.K would have the right to shut the border to any immigrant not welcome similar style to Australia.
We are not part of the Euro,keep the pound and I'm sure the States would look after the U.K regarding trade as a old friend.I don't know why Cameron is running around Europe at the moment.
The Dutch are sympathetic.The French will snigger.The Germans shaking their heads and the rest will follow whatever the Germans decide.>:)
|
What about Immigration from outside Europe claiming benefits would it affect them if Camerons law came into place?
All very complicated inside the E.U it wouldn't work.
|
The writer of the article clearly hasn't done much negotiating. Even if Cameron can't actually conceive of leaving, and is only trying to do the best deal he can, he's hardly going to say that to the people he is negotiating with. To negotiate anything, there has to be a point at which you would walk away, and sometimes it takes a lot of time to get the other side to believe that.
On the other hand, I don't understand why he is painting himself into a corner by making these statements publicly. It certainly makes them sound more authentic but it is a high risk approach for him.
The thing with negotiation though is that you give to get. You have to have something they want. I'm not sure that we have much, except that they want us to stay in. That potentially makes it into the worst kind of confrontation, something close to ultimatum, with nothing to offer as a face saver, nothing that the other side can present as a gain. I hope it isn't as simple as that, because if it is I'm not hopeful.
|
>> >>
>> The thing with negotiation though is that you give to get. You have to have
>> something they want. I'm not sure that we have much,
>>
We could offer them Russell Brand.
|
>> The thing with negotiation though is that you give to get. You have to have
>> something they want. I'm not sure that we have much, except that they want us
>> to stay in.
We are the world's 5th/6th* largest economy (*depending on what figures you look at), along with Germany and France we pay a lot in. The EU will not wish to lose a country that does that and is forecast to be Europe's largest economy.
|
>>The EU will not wish to lose a country that does that and is forecast to be Europe's largest economy.
To an extent.
What they *REALLY* do not want is the precedent.
|
>> What they *REALLY* do not want is the precedent.
Was just about to make same point. If any hacked off nation can just pull out then 'Community' loses most of its impact.
|
>> >> The thing with negotiation though is that you give to get. You have to
>> have
>> >> something they want. I'm not sure that we have much, except that they want
>> us
>> >> to stay in.
>>The EU will not wish to lose a country that does that and is forecast to be Europe's largest economy.
Well we agree on that. What else? It's always about people and their positions, not logic. How do they give the UK what it wants, make themselves look good, and avoid creating more problems by having to make the same concessions to other non-Eurozone members? I don't know - I haven't the background with the subject, but I have led enough contract negotiations to know that you can't always reason your way to a solution.
Neither is it a simple two party agreement. There are multiple parties involved, Cameron can't negotiate with "the EU" as a single entity. We have already heard that Poland will not agree to the withholding of in-work benefits from migrants for example.
Ultimately there is a point that represents the minimum UK will accept (we don't know what that is, and even Cameron doesn't yet because he doesn't know what he can get away with) and a point to which the EU consensus can be dragged. If there isn't a gap between those positions, then there is a deal to be done and all that is required is the right process to find it. It's amazing how often that part is cocked up when people don't know how to do it.
If there is no overlap, then subject to the plebiscite we leave.
It sounds like great fun, I wish I could be part of it, but I don't suppose they'll send for me.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 29 May 15 at 21:48
|
People keep banging on about trade agreements and the like. I doubt they matter.
As Manatee says up-thread somewhere, trade & business is quite capable of sorting out any Trade Agreements it likes, wants or needs, and the UK economy is equally quite big enough to stand on its own two feet.
What is more worthy of consideration is its impact on people.
Fairly obviously if its good for the people we should be in and if not, then not.
I don't mean the jingoistic idiots living 100 years ago who can't get beyond their Colonel Blinkinsop mentality; for the most part they're not capable of understanding the issues, and for the rest have no interest beyond their own Empire-based belief system.
I refer to the people who can see beyond that nonsense and actually decide if its good for them or not.
For me I do not believe that a European parliament can make rules which will socially fit the entire of Europe. And therefore they shouldn't try.
They should move back, and to a higher level, to oversee and advise rather than control and dictate.
I have no objection to being part of a European Community, I just have no wish to be controlled by one. It should be acceptable for a country's priorities to be its own well-being and that of its own citizens.
We should leave if we can't fix it. We should stay if we can.
|
>> The thing with negotiation though is that you give to get. You have to have
>> something they want. I'm not sure that we have much, except that they want us
>> to stay in.
They want our money, as one of the few net contributors to their Byzantine Empire.
Europhiles are always bleating on about the wonderful E.U. funded projects/subsidies (CAP for instance) we enjoy in the U.K.
Do they not realise it is our OWN money funding these?
We could choose for ourselves and use our own money directly, without funnelling it through the expense hungry, bureaucratically driven, EU, whose own accounts are, to say the least, intriguingly run.
Last edited by: Roger. on Fri 29 May 15 at 21:53
|
>>Europhiles are always bleating on about the wonderful E.U
Well you've got that well and truly balanced all on your own.
|
So another Eurosceptic politician has been attacked.
At the moment it’s just people who oppose EU domination who are being targeted. And you probably don’t really care about that. After all, they’re all racists aren’t they? It said so in the paper.
If they’d been paedophiles you could maybe let them off. I mean the media don’t seem to think it’s a big deal and there are no anti-EU racists involved so it’s probably just something and nothing. Probably all made up by anti-EU racists.
Of course, if you think about it, you’re not really sure how the desire for your country to be self-governing equates to racism but the media says it does so it must be right. It’s not as if most of the media are in the EU’s pocket, right? Right?
So, without having to go to the trouble of thinking about it, you can spray yourself with virtue by hating anyone labelled “racist†by the media and various other supporters of EU political domination.
Think it’s a bit odd that a trading union turned into a political federation without asking anyone’s permission? Racist!
Think it’s a bad idea to hand over political control to an unelected, unaccountable foreign power? Racist!
Think it might be a good idea to have some control of your own borders? Racist!
Think the EU’s warmongering on Russia’s western flank is a bad idea? Racist!
Think your country’s immigration policy should give a fair chance to the whole of the world instead of just Europeans? Racist!
So there you are, parachuted in to the moral high ground. A veritable paradigm of political virtue. You hate racists and the best part is you don’t even have to think about it. The media will tell you who to hate. Just point and shoot. Effortless righteousness.
So the EU’s inexorable march towards total control continues and you’re all for it. I mean sure, they’ve been taking more and more control, bit by bit, for decades but they've finished now haven't they? Haven't they?
Well, there are two things to think about here. If you can spare the time that is:
Firstly, what if we’re not coincidentally at the end of the EU’s programme of political takeover? What if we’re just at the present point on a course for our complete surrender of any meaningful right to self determination? What if your vote in the General Elections will eventually just determine who manages the country for a small group of people in Brussels that you've never heard of and can't remove?
Secondly, what if, once any chance of removing who governs you is gone, something YOU care about comes under attack? What if YOUR protests become the target of propaganda and undeserved smears?
What if things change and suddenly you find yourself unhappy with the situation? How will you affect the policies of those who govern you if you can’t remove them from power? Do you think the European Parliament is anything more than theatre?
So, the next time someone gets attacked in the street, or in a restaurant with their family, for being “racist†you might want to consider a couple of things:
Does opposing EU domination really make you a racist?
And how will you feel when someone supporting a cause YOU care about gets the target drawn on their back?
Will you have your views handed to you by the media or will you seek the truth and make your own mind up? The latter may take a little more effort but, with the very future of democracy at stake, it's kind of important.
(I wish I had written this, but credit goes to a person named Don McCarron , of whom I know no more than this)
|
|
A bit overwrought to my eye Rastaman.
|
|
What a load of frantic tripe.
|
>> What a load of frantic tripe.
Tsk. The voice of reason and moderation. The Rastaman is perfectly amenable to reason FMR. No need to antagonize him.
:o}
|
|
A little (not much, actually, here) hyperbole is OK when making a point, innit?
Last edited by: Roger. on Sat 30 May 15 at 21:56
|
|
So exactly who is this McCarron chap who you admire Roger? Rather difficult finding anything about him on the web. Rather mysterious really.
|
Oh, you can if you look harder............
www.thecommentator.com/article/2743/the_mind_of_a_facebook_troll
The mind of a Facebook troll
..... one Mr. Don McCarron .............
English Defence League, I believe. Or pig-ignorant-racists-t***s as they're also known.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 30 May 15 at 22:17
|
From the link which you quoted I can see that McCarron made a comment in a response to a Spectator article. This is the only comment from him which I can find.
In it he said " The EDL's stated purpose is to resist the spread of Islam in the UK. How can you call that "fascist"? And, as you are one of the increasing number of people using the word "Zionist" in the pejorative, perhaps you would define it for us?"
As far as I can see that does not mark him with the number of the Beast, or even as an EDL member.
As I said in the footnote to the original post, I knew nothing about McCarron apart from the words in the post, which struck a chord with me as the "racist" slur has been directed at those of us whose concerns are not those of the accusers.
Playing the "racist" card to silence opposition - rather proves the point made in the "rant".
|
>>Playing the "racist" card to silence opposition
What does that mean exactly?
If you are a racist and I say so. Is that playing the card?
So, if I don't want to "play the card", I presume that either you have to not be a racist or I have to not say so.
Isn't a whine of " you're playing the card" just a whimper of a last defense of a racist who hasn't got any other place to go?
Because be clear, I don't want racists artificially silenced, intimidated into silence or really silenced, I want them ground into the dirt, spat on and destroyed.
Racists are scum. That's why so many racists whine when they are accused of being one. They're ashamed.
|
>> Isn't a whine of " you're playing the card" just a whimper of a last
>> defense of a racist who hasn't got any other place to go?
It could be... or it could quite easily be the frustrated statement from someone decent who is fed up to the hind teeth of those people who shout racism at any slightest comment by others whenever race is a perfectly acceptable conversation piece.
|
>> >>Playing the "racist" card to silence opposition
>> Because be clear, I don't want racists artificially silenced, intimidated into silence or really silenced,
>> I want them ground into the dirt, spat on and destroyed.
>>
>> Racists are scum. That's why so many racists whine when they are accused of being
>> one. They're ashamed.
>>
Are you really a reincarnation of Matthew Hopkins, updated?
|
I never realised that Matthew Hopkins despised racists.
You live and you learn; I guess, I can understand why you and similar would like racists to be protected.
|
>> Matthew Hopkins
To save anyone else looking it up:
Matthew Hopkins (c. 1620 – 12 August 1647) was an English witch-hunter whose career flourished during the time of the English Civil War. He claimed to hold the office of Witchfinder General, although that title was never bestowed by Parliament.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins
|
>> Racists are scum.
Misleading shorthand FMR. This is a convoluted issue given the worldwide variation in social and political attitudes to the many forms of 'racism'.
Some people you or I might consider to be racists are nevertheless not really 'scum' as I understand the term. This is awkward but true.
Courage, mon Brave!
|
>> In it he said " The EDL's stated purpose is to resist the spread of
>> Islam in the UK. How can you call that "fascist"?
Lets substitute Judaism for Islam in that sentence. And when we've done that let mission creep turn 'resist spread' into 'roll back'.
Doesn't that sound just the tiniest bit like a fascist objective?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 Jun 15 at 10:22
|
>>
>> Doesn't that sound just the tiniest bit like a fascist objective?
>>
I think the main fascist objectives were to revive Italy's position as head of the Roman empire, and to incorporate Libya, Somalia and Abyssinia into that empire. They presumably realised that they would be gaining large numbers of people with different races and religions.
|
Roger, doesn't it bother you to be associated with people like McCarron and similar? Because his ranting to one side, he actually *is* a racist, and indefensibly so.
Or is that really what you are and in fact you support their beliefs and rants wholeheartedly?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 30 May 15 at 22:22
|
So, a frownie face.
Does the attributer of that frownie face have the courage to say why he or she was offended?
Or do you prefer to remain cowering under your rock?
|
>> So, a frownie face.
>>
>> Does the attributer of that frownie face have the courage to say why he or
>> she was offended?
>>
>> Or do you prefer to remain cowering under your rock?
>>
I've just given you a frownie for your intolerant post.. but unfortunately I didn't get there first.
|
Oh do stop it girls.
If you don't I'll start arguing myself. Then where will you be?
|
"Oh do stop it girls. "
Spoilsport, AC - I enjoy reading a raving sniffer in full-rant mode.
|
>> Spoilsport, AC - I enjoy reading a raving sniffer in full-rant mode.
Could you explain the term 'sniffer' please?
|
|
I wondered that too, is it a local term?
|
>> 'sniffer'
A term used by a racist to denigrate his accuser in the hope of defocusing attention from himself.
|
"Sniffer"
Is a 'racist-sniffer' - i.e. a person who sniffs out people who he delights in calling racists whilst knowing nothing about them. It's a sort of fixation. I didn't invent the term - someone else did on these pages a couple of months ago.
They frequently 'play the racist card' e.g. Sepp Blatter when accused of football skulduggery; the local traveller community when accused of leaving a mess. It is particularly useful for stopping arguments.
|
>> Is a 'racist-sniffer' - i.e. a person who sniffs out people who he delights in
>> calling racists whilst knowing nothing about them because their posts strongly suggest they're racist.
(a) Mark got there first
(b) Fixed that for you.
I don't need to have met and broken bread with an individual to recognise racism in their posts on this site.
|
"I don't need to have met and broken bread with an individual to recognise racism in their posts on this site."
Mmm - a highly-developed, super sniffer.
|
>>They frequently 'play the racist card' e.g. Sepp Blatter when accused of football
>>skulduggery; the local traveller community when accused of leaving a mess
Do what?
"the local traveller community" is not a race, a religion or even a colour. Its a group of appalling people largely judged by their b***** awful behaviour.
And Sepp Blatter? Do you mean Blatter accused other people of being racists or someone accused Blatter of being racist or something else entirely?
Generously I'll assume that you've got confused.
I frequently wonder why someone, and I don't mean anyone in particular, who holds racist views is perfectly content and comfortable to do so but is outraged by being called a racist. Strange how the accusation is seen as more offensive than the actually being.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 31 May 15 at 23:32
|
>>I've just given you a frownie for your intolerant post.
You'll have to be a bit more specific. I am *always* intolerant of racists, so I don't really know which post you're referring to.
|
>> You'll have to be a bit more specific. I am *always* intolerant of racists, so
>> I don't really know which post you're referring to.
>>
Ironic really.
Someone doesn't like intolerance.... so they deploy, wait for it.........gross intolerance.
|
>> Another thread wrecked.
>>
Yes - sorry about my part in responding unnecessarily personally.
Let's draw a line under this and resume E.U. discussions.
|
"Yes - sorry about my part"
Yes - and I've been a bit naughty in goading some of the more excitable Grauniadisti on here.
I can add that, looking through my political diary, back in May 1973 I was forcibly ejected from the National Front election office prior to the 24th May West Bromwich by-election; I had been 'causing a disturbance'. In fact, I was bundled out by none other than Martin Webster - at that time, leader of the NF. Quite a claim, eh - for a racist?
My protest couldn't have been very effective, though - Mr Webster went on to retain his deposit!
|
EU voting thread volume 1. - Roger.
