***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 8 *****
=============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 4 Apr 16 at 10:31
|
>>Meanwhile in la-la land Bromp is still trying to imply that anyone proposing 'controlled' >>immigration is automatically 'anti-immigration'.
You're making stuff up. It was just the irony that got me. Anything else is your inference not my implication.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 28 Mar 16 at 09:45
|
|
Re-arrange the words hole, digging, stop. :-)
|
>> Re-arrange the words hole, digging, stop. :-)
Now coming from you, THAT is irony.
|
Yes - there are claims and counter claims galore.
We on the GO side call it fighting fear with fire!
For me and yes, I know the results will probably not impact me much at my age, but the overwhelming reason for me to vote "Leave" is to ensure that this country does not become a region in the Federal Republic of Europe.
Others may see our country being part of a EU Super State as a good thing: it is a strong dislike of the monolithic and political European Union which motivates me.
Last edited by: Roger. on Mon 28 Mar 16 at 10:31
|
>> Yes - there are claims and counter claims galore.
>> We on the GO side call it fighting fear with fire!
seems more to be one load of spin with another load of it.
|
|
It never worked for USSR or Yugoslavia - it'll never work for us!
|
The electoral commission has until 14 April to decide which organisations will be designated 'lead' for both in an out campaigns. These will be the outfits that get official recognition and funding.
Pretty clear that Britain Stronger in Europe will get the 'In' gig but there's a bunfight between at least two organisations for 'Out'. Vote Leave has the backing of establishment outers including Bojo, Gove and IDS. Grassroots Out is backed by UKIP and quite a bit of money. Could be interesting to watch the battle and aftermath:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/31/eu-referendum-leave-remain-campaigns-electoral-commission
|
Not heard much about UKIP - that may be deliberate as its name is probably unhelpful.
Is UKIP still in self-destruct mode? Last I heard, Suzanne Wotsit was daggers drawn with Farage, who also said his only MP, Carswell, was "irrelevant". Unbelievable timing.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/04/douglas-carswell-is-irrelevant-says-nigel-farage_n_9381620.html
Farage also says "you know what" which puts him firmly in the pillock camp:)
|
"Good enough for me."
Nah - sorry, Tony, but anyone who doesn't want to stay in the EU is a racist, xenophobic scumbag.
|
You've got it back to front;
Racist, xenophobic scumbags don't want to stay in the EU.
Of course others want out as well, being an RCS isn't compulsory, just a common feature.
Look here for example, what proportion of the Outs would you reckon to be RCSs? For sure its not all, but its a long way from none.
Still, as I recall you weren't even sure what the words meant and wanted me to look them up for you.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 31 Mar 16 at 14:55
|
>>Look here for example, what proportion of the Outs would you reckon to be RCSs? For sure its not all, but its a long way from none.
<<
I would say we have none on here.
Pat
|
>> Obviously you would.
I'm not going to suggest you have never seen any, but maybe you have forgotten or put out of your mind what real arbitrary, visceral, nasty, racism is like. I don't recall seeing it here (my hearing isn't good enough to pick up dog whistles).
Real example - when a Ugandan Asian couple took on the shop here 20+ years ago, a resident indigene went in and said "we don't want your type here, and I won't be coming in again". At least she was honest I suppose.
The 'crowd' that frequents one of my local pubs consists mainly of middle class, university educated and fairly well off people wouldn't do that but the racism is shocking on occasions and well beyond being a bit non-PC. These are mostly community-minded, friendly people that I can get on fine with in other situations.
They mostly seem to be innies*, as seems typical of their social group, so I'm not convinced that even your inverted version of Haywain's statement has much merit.
There is no marker for racism, other than racism, and it is surely offensive to suggest there is; akin to racism in fact. To say that a UKIP member, outie or DM reader is probably racist is no better than saying a Romanian will probably pick your pocket, is it?
Whether you agree or not, I don't think there is much point constantly playing this card and it certainly doesn't illuminate the subject or help rational discussion.
*based largely on the perceived risk of leaving, I think.
|
"There is no marker for racism, other than racism,....."
A bit like 'scumbag', then? You can use it to mean anything.
|
>> I would say we have none on here.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Most on here who are abused as racist are clearly not although their politics and beliefs are fairly far to the right
There are two or three who post regularly who have much more extreme views and seem to me to be rather unpleasant characters.
|
"Still, as I recall you weren't even sure what the words meant and wanted me to look them up for you."
I was merely trying to get you to tell us, in your own words, if you were using the old definition of 'racist' which was about 'race' - or the new definition which includes culture and religion.
The social engineers have changed the meaning of another word, as I'm sure you're aware.
|
Benn makes the point about the democratic deficit that people seem determined not to accept.
The legislative measures are put forward by the non-elected commission. The fact that they are voted on by the parliament seems enough for determined innies, but that is not a British parliament; the UK has IIRC 8% of the votes, which to me means there is no question that we are not an independent nation.
We can have a separate debate about whether that is good or bad of course, but it's no good pretending we can be in, and independent.
|
>> tinyurl.com/jy2cobo
>>
>> Good enough for me.
>>
Seriously? Someone who is dead, and therefore doesn't have access to nor knowledge of the current situation? Their out of date view trumps all?
Seriously?
Seems to me Benn's words simply chime with what you already think on the subject.
|
>> Seriously? Someone who is dead, and therefore doesn't have access to nor knowledge of the
>> current situation? Their out of date view trumps all?
Oh... since Tony Benn's death, has the EU suddenly become democratic?
Have I missed it?
Would you be so kind as to point me in the direction of something that I could read to enlighten me, please?
... or is it the case that a wise man's words have resonated with me.. and they are as valid now as they were when he spoke them?
|
I imagine Tony Benn is unaware of the renegotiation which David Cameron led, and of the other unfolding matters involving Europe at this time.
If the words of a long dead "wise" man are "enough" for you to make your mind up, you are quite obviously not looking at the whole situation in the round, and are simply clinging to a cherished belief without taking account of realities and practicalities.
|
>> I imagine Tony Benn is unaware of the renegotiation which David Cameron led, and of
>> the other unfolding matters involving Europe at this time.
.... and that changed what?
You seem unable to grasp the point being made.
|
Oh don't worry about that, I get it OK. You are twittering on about democratic deficit as a conclusive reason to leave the EU, and remain governed by the UK Government alone, which encompasses a similar (my opinion, debatable I know, we've been around the buoy on here a few times) degree of democratic deficit. Your stance appears to be "Four legs good, two legs bad".
The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that Tony Benn is dead and his pronouncements on the subject are less valid than most as the do not encompass the latest developments regarding our relationship with the EU.
But if they're "enough" for you, that's up to you of course, however don't expect people won't tell you that by believing Benn's arguments are "enough", i.e. conclusive, you're being a little blinkered.
|
>> Oh don't worry about that, I get it OK.
I really don't think you do.
You keep going on about a 'dead man'.
I'll have one last go. A prominent left wing politician, now deceased, made some comments about the undemocratic nature of the EU and that was why he didn't like it.
I think he was and is correct, despite the fact that politically he was at the other end of the spectrum to me.
He was correct then when he was alive and he is correct now he is no longer with us, because the EU is the same institution with the same ways as it was when he was about. O.k. there's been some minor tinkering with some small elements of the system that affects us as a country, but the basics of it are all there exactly as it was when he made his speech.
You don't have to agree with me... but that's why I think like I do and think he was/is right.
I find it ironic that you suggest I'm blinkered, but cannot grasp this point.
|
Benn didn't like the EU because being part of it prevented some of his political beliefs, extensive State ownership, control of the banks, control of the all finance.
Yet on the other hand he approved pif its institutions, like the ECHR.
So he EU beliefs are for completely different reasons to yours. Thats the anachronism.
The dead thing is relevant. Society has changed since his death, the world situation has changed since his death. All of these things were changing during his life, yet he refused to consider them, so in effect he was dead to the idea of the EU long before his real death.
The strange thing is you are opposed to the EU for reasons that don't actually exist. I dont suppose you could actually point to anything about "EU control of the UK" that is actually harmful to us, or even true when examined closely.
|
>> So he EU beliefs are for completely different reasons to yours. Thats the anachronism.
>>
He stated in the You Tube video that he didn't like the unelected element of the EU...and neither do I.
>> The strange thing is you are opposed to the EU for reasons that don't actually
>> exist.
Well they do to me...and plenty like me.
I dont suppose you could actually point to anything about "EU control of the
>> UK" that is actually harmful to us, or even true when examined closely.
>>
Lack of ability to whack some exorbitant trade tariffs on Chinese steel imports?
|
Now you see thats a case in point, We on our own can't and wont ever because we need them to pay for Hinkley point and various other "projects" We have sold out to the Chinese.
I was hoping the EU would force us to do it.
But clearly they haven't or can't.
So if thats the best case you can come up with, your "reasons" cabinet is more than a little bare. As I knew it was.
|
>> Now you see thats a case in point, We on our own can't and wont
>> ever because we need them to pay for Hinkley point and various other "projects" We
>> have sold out to the Chinese.
The point is not whether we would. The point is we are not allowed to even if we wanted to.
>> So if thats the best case you can come up with, your "reasons" cabinet is
>> more than a little bare. As I knew it was.
To state the glaringly obvious, that is a brief, topical reason that's on a lot of people's minds at present.
It does though in fact cover the principle of what I am saying. Our hands are tied and we have to ask the EU first... I don't like that, I want us to make those decisions.
|
|
To state the glaringly obvious, its poor example. You don't have any glaringly obvious examples of the the things you dont like. Its all "assumed" No actually just badly informed.
|
>> To state the glaringly obvious, its poor example.
In your opinion.
>> Its all "assumed" No actually just badly informed.
>>
Really... so are you saying that if this country wished to put high tariffs on Chinese steel.. it could do just that?
|
>> Really... so are you saying that if this country wished to put high tariffs on
>> Chinese steel.. it could do just that?
>>
Zero,
I can't find your post that replied to mine.
I've looked on the internet and cannot find anything that says the UK can put tariffs on a product from elsewhere, outside of the EU mechanisms.
Have you got anything you can add?
|
>> but cannot grasp this point.
Why do you keep saying this? It's quite clear I grasp what you're saying perfectly well. I just happen to disagree with you and am debating it.
Telling me I can't grasp it is tantamount to saying "my view is the truth and until you agree with me you don't understand". Which is, quite apparently, rolloxes.
|
>> Why do you keep saying this?
Because you say you grasp my point.... then immediately write something which shows you don't.
>> It's quite clear I grasp what you're saying perfectly
>> well.
Not to me it isn't. Communication is a two way thing, what you say and what I receive and vice versa.
>> I just happen to disagree with you and am debating it.
I don't have a problem with that.
>> Telling me I can't grasp it is tantamount to saying "my view is the truth
>> and until you agree with me you don't understand". Which is, quite apparently, rolloxes.
There's a few on here like that, but that does not include me.
I'll try again to make the simple point I was making: You suggested that Tony Benn's viewpoint was not overly relevant because he'd been dead a while and that there'd been changes within the EU since he'd died.
I disagree, because I think any changes to the EU have been pifflingly small and in any case are utterly irrelevant because they haven't changed any of the areas that I have concerns about.... the basics of it are the same i.e. the undemocratic nature and the fairly small part we have to play in the whole governance of it.
|
We simply disagree, WP. Nobody has failed to grasp anything. What we have both failed to do is convince the other party with our argument.
C'est la vie.
|
>>>> A prominent left wing politician, now deceased, made some comments
>> about the undemocratic nature of the EU and that was why he didn't like it.
So "four legs good, two legs bad" again. Don't like undemocratic aspects of EU, perfectly happy with undemocratic aspects of the UK. There's a word for that.
The EU should be reformed and the undemocratic aspects addressed, as I believe to be the case in the UK also. It is in our interests to try to do this from within. We are not alone inside the EU in disapproving of certain aspects and many countries would like to see reform, however they're not powerful enough and need us to lead it.
Bob the Builder: "What's going to work? TEAMWORK!"
|
>> So "four legs good, two legs bad" again.
I don't understand what that means
.... despite looking it up.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 10:17
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
"The original commandments are:
1.Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2.Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3.No animal shall wear clothes.
4.No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5.No animal shall drink alcohol.
6.No animal shall kill any other animal.
7.All animals are equal.
These commandments are also distilled into the maxim "Four legs good, two legs bad!" which is primarily used by the sheep on the farm, often to disrupt discussions and disagreements between animals on the nature of Animalism."
It seems to me you view the UK as "four legs" and the EU as "two legs". I'm saying it's not as simple as that - both have benefits and drawbacks.
|
|
Cheers for explaining the legs reference, I was baffled by it as well.
|
>> "Four legs good, two legs bad!"
The pigs with their superior intelligence take over the farm, and eventually start walking upright on their hind legs. They change the slogan to 'Four legs good, two legs better', and become indistinguishable from the cruel exploitative humans.
|
"The pigs with their superior intelligence take over the farm, and eventually start walking upright on their hind legs. They change the slogan to 'Four legs good, two legs better', and become indistinguishable from the cruel exploitative humans."
The book is a satire on the hypocrisy of left-wing dogma - I can't really understand why Alano is quoting from it. There's a fine example of a Labour man getting onto his hind legs in another thread about the £480K expenses fraud by Peter Skinner - Labour ex MEP.
|
The book is a satire on the excesses of the Soviet Union and a cry to disabuse the world of the notion that the USSR was in any way Socialist by the real definition of the word.
I'm quoting from it because it provides a pertinent allegory to Westpig's assertions. He's allowed to agree with Tony Benn, I'm allowed to quote Orwell. OK?
I've tried to explain a thousand times that in many regards I am in no way a left winger (former member of Tory party, voted UKIP once, despise Labour and have never voted for them in any form of election etc etc etc). Still, a man see what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 14:15
|
"Still, a man see what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
As a chap who clearly appreciates good music, may I suggest that you go and see The Hot Club of Cowtown who are currently doing a short UK tour. They will be appearing at the Anvil, Basingstoke, on 15th April - I think that's the nearest that they get to you.
|
|
Thanks for the tip, never heard of them. Will investigate.
|
>> The book is a satire on the hypocrisy of left-wing dogma - I can't really
>> understand why Alano is quoting from it.
Animal Farm is allegorical account of the USSR from revolution to Stalin.
It was not a criticism of 'the left' in general; Orwell remained a democratic socialist until his death.
|
>> 7.All animals are equal.
The pigs also change this commandment to 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'.
I thought it brilliant stuff at the time. It was anti-Soviet propaganda of course.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 14:06
|
Perhaps the (greatest) film (of all time), Withnail and I, can provide another commentary:
"Marwood: Give me a Valium, I'm getting the FEAR!
Danny: [very calmly] You have done something to your brain. You have made it high. If I lay 10 mls of diazepam on you, it will do something else to your brain. You will make it low. Why trust one drug and not the other? That's politics, innit?
Marwood: I'm gonna eat some sugar.
[he goes to the kitchen]
Danny: I recommend you smoke some more grass."
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 15:19
|
|
Outers: Farage, Galloway and Benn. Can't believe you want to associate with them, least of all the last. Oh yes, and Boris, who has thrown his reputation to tatters to be in with a chance of PM. A charming bunch.
|
>> Outers: Farage, Galloway and Benn. Can't believe you want to associate with them, least of
>> all the last. Oh yes, and Boris, who has thrown his reputation to tatters to
>> be in with a chance of PM. A charming bunch.
A pathetic one as well. It's astonishing the two main Brexit outfits have not submerged their differences in a coalition. A jointly agreed programme would have a far greater chance of success.
|
>> A charming bunch.
Tony Benn was indeed charming, and so is Boris Johnson. Even George Galloway has a twinkle in his eye that isn't entirely malevolent.
Not quite sure about Nigel Farage though.
Why do people want politicians to be Pollyannaish? They'd be utterly useless if they were. Politics is a very rough profession.
|
>> Outers: Farage, Galloway and Benn. Can't believe you want to associate with them, least of
>> all the last.
Eh?
So if I think someone talks sense, I should ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist... because that person is not my cup of tea or has talked what I think is cobblers on another subject.
I'll take as I find, thank you.... and will give credit where credit is due.
|
>>So if I think someone talks sense, I should ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist
Not at all my point, as I'm sure you know. It just seems odd to disagree with almost everything a chap stands for, except his position on one particular - and very important - point.
|
We would like the truth from politicians be it good or bad.Of course this country will survive if it decided to leave the E.U.
If it would be a advantage for us and the economy that is another question.Experts in economy will tell us controversial opinions which the majority of people will find hard to understand.
Immigration is in the mind, what we think of other races and how we can or try to live together.It is a inpossible subject once somebody's mind is set and difficult to change.
|
>>We would like the truth from politicians be it good or bad.
Nobody knows what the truth is. The only thing that we do know is that US banks will transfer [many of] their London employees to Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin. And that cannot be good for Britain. The rest is just guessing.
Which is why the nation is divided 50:50, as it's just like tossing a coin. A completely pointless referendum.
>>Of course this country will survive if it decided to leave the E.U.
Of course it will still exist. But I don't want to be in a country that exists.
>>Immigration
Even outside the EU we will be likely to end up with free movement of people, so it will make no difference at all.
|
Agree with the majority of your points Mapmaker.But a referendum is how people feel about something.Nothing to do with logic.It could be a vote against this government because if we where out it will affect the Conservatives.
|
>> It just seems odd to
>> disagree with almost everything a chap stands for, except his position on one particular -
>> and very important - point.
Why?
I can't work out what's odd about it. If I agree with him on a particular point, then I agree with him on that point. What else am I to do, pretend that I don't?
|
"Can't believe you want to associate with them, least of all the last. Oh yes, and Boris, who has thrown his reputation to tatters to be in with a chance of PM. A charming bunch."
This in effect an "ad hominem" argument, which in any discussion worth its salt is reckoned to be a very poor and desperate ploy. It's an attempt to discredit your opponents by associating them with unpleasant personal characteristics instead of arguing rationally.
I want out of the EU - does that really prove that in some way I'm supporting/endorsing this "charming bunch" (most of whom, as it happens, I detest)? Come on!
Frankly, I'm surprised that Mapmaker has pulled that one.
|
>> This in effect an "ad hominem" argument, which in any discussion worth its salt is
>> reckoned to be a very poor and desperate ploy. It's an attempt to discredit your
>> opponents by associating them with unpleasant personal characteristics instead of arguing rationally.
Its valid to use their unpleasant characteristics to question the rationale for their choice, and therefore if their choice is a valid one.
As it happens they all have different reasons for their choice, all of which are personal, and probably nothing to do with logical financial and security reasons.
|
"Its valid to use their unpleasant characteristics to question the rationale for their choice, and therefore if their choice is a valid one."
Rubbish.
In a proper debate someone's personal characteristics, pleasant or otherwise, have no logical connection with their point of view.
Otherwise, we would have to say, "Galloway is a dodgy bloke. He wants out of the EU. The fact that he's dodgy means there's something wrong with his decision-making and therefore with wanting out of the EU."
Sorry - it doesn't hold up.
|
>> Otherwise, we would have to say, "Galloway is a dodgy bloke. He wants out of
>> the EU. The fact that he's dodgy means there's something wrong with his decision-making and
>> therefore with wanting out of the EU."
>>
>> Sorry - it doesn't hold up.
Holds up for me.
|
>> Holds up for me.
>>
What happens if someone you admire says something... that echoes what George Galloway's just said?
Do you like the idea for a moment, then change your mind?
|
>> >> Holds up for me.
>> >>
>>
>> What happens if someone you admire says something... that echoes what George Galloway's just said?
Something? No-one is going to disagree about everything all the time.
|
>> This in effect an "ad hominem" argument, which in any discussion worth its salt is
>> reckoned to be a very poor and desperate ploy. It's an attempt to discredit your
>> opponents by associating them with unpleasant personal characteristics instead of arguing rationally.
Not really. Ad hominem is about playing the man (or his motives, character and associates) rather than the ball.
This sub thread started with WP pleading Tony Benn in support of the anti EU case. However hard the Benn/Westpig 'alliance' bends my irony meter's end stop I'm not convinced that introducing other pro/anti figureheads into the debate introduces an ad-hominem aspect.
|
Not really. Ad hominem is about playing the man (or his motives, character and associates)
>> rather than the ball.
That's what happened up thread, seems to me anyway.
|
>> This in effect an "ad hominem" argument
Not even remotely. Galloway and Farage are widely regarded as unpleasant types. I continue to be surprised that anybody reasonably sane would wish to join a crusade led by them. An ad hominem argument might be to say that WP has no brains. (Just for clarity, I am not suggesting this.)
>>However hard the Benn/Westpig 'alliance' bends my irony meter's end stop
Succinctly put!
|
>> >>
>> Not even remotely. Galloway and Farage are widely regarded as unpleasant types. I continue to be surprised that anybody reasonably sane would wish to join a crusade led by them.
>>
At least you've got the good guys on your side. That lying war criminal Tony Blair, the man with the blood of thousands on his hands who stirred the hornet's nest that unleashed much of the terrorism we face today is pro EU.
|
>> At least you've got the good guys on your side. That lying war criminal Tony
>> Blair, the man with the blood of thousands on his hands who stirred the hornet's
>> nest that unleashed much of the terrorism we face today is pro EU.
To be fair much of it existed in spades before he threw petrol on the flames. But agreed he wasn't exactly a fire fighter.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 18:25
|
He wasn't on his own. 95% of the Tory party voted in favour, and IDS spoke strongly for the invasion having been to see Bush minor. So, in total 16 Tories voted nay. Now, with hindsight one can argue that the valiant 16,
the 121 rebel Labs, and all of the 52 Libs were right, but at the time the groundswell favoured invasion.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 18:34
|
|
My point was that any major decision which divides the country will have it's share of nutters, disreputables and good guys on either side.
|
9/11 occurred before Iraq so the hornets nest had origins elsewhere. The impetus to recreate the Caliphate was rumbling for a long time, and became acute with cash from Saudi Arabia and brainwashing by salafists. Before Bush minor and Blair/IDS got involved. Don't think it's All the fault of the "West". The urge to recreate the Ottoman Empire and past "glory" is not an imposition from outside, but a yearning for a mythical state of grace, the Wahabi doctrine of
an unequal and retrograde tyranny. Our pals, the royals of SA.
|
>> Galloway and Farage are widely regarded as unpleasant types.
Galloway i'd agree with you... however, just because an 'unpleasant type' also likes something I like that doesn't mean i'd automatically change my view.
There's only two options here, 'in' or 'out'. There are unpleasant types on both sides.
Farage IMO is a different scenario. I'd shake his hand if I ever met him, because he has changed this country.
By refusing to be kowtowed, he has enabled a significant chunk of people to have their voice heard, instead of having it buried under a sea of political correctness... and he did it virtually single handedly.
|
"Galloway and Farage are widely regarded as unpleasant types. I continue to be surprised that anybody reasonably sane would wish to join a crusade led by them."
Because someone happens to share Galloway's and Farage's view on the EU, that does not mean anything else. It does not mean you support G and F. It does not mean you like them. It does not mean you are in some way demeaned or diminished by having one (and maybe only one) thing - an opinion on one point - in common with them.
If you don't like the reasoning behind the "ad hominem" argument, then perhaps an alternative description of what you're trying to do, Mapmaker, is to conduct a "smear" campaign by trying to attach the poor reputation of G and F to anyone who supports the "out" campaign.
Yes, I do dislike G and F on many levels, and yes, I do feel insulted by the above insinuations.
|
To say what amounts to "how can you be so silly as to agree with those idiots" sounds like a personal attack to me.
It certainly isn't an argument based on any kind of reasoning.
I'm not going to be more inclined than I would otherwise be to support Brexit just because it is propounded by Farage or Galloway, but that doesn't mean they could never be right, even if it is for the wrong reasons.
Exactly the same applies to Cameron and Osborne, mutatis mutandis.
|
|
Three million jobs are reliant on staying in the European Union.
|
>> Three million jobs are reliant on staying in the European Union.
>>
Fluffy, that is obviously your April Fool's jape.
|
>> Three million jobs are reliant on staying in the European Union.
Surely we don't have that many MEPS, hangers on and spongers in Brussels?
|
|
So you want to leave the European Union.
|
|
Fluffy, you are surely the most perceptive person I have yet to meet.
|
>> So you want to leave the European Union.
>>
It might surprise you to learn that one or two people do.
|
|
I believe the result of the referendum will be 51% to leave and 49% to remain in the European union.
|
>> I believe the result of the referendum will be 51% to leave and 49% to
>> remain in the European union.
I worry for same reason. An indecisive result just kicks the can not very far down the road.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 20:52
|
|
I think it will be a very narrow vote to stay in. And that in itself will not resolve this festering issue but inflame it.
|
|
The only reason we have the referendum is because the Tory party can never behave as a cohesive party or unit and the swivel eyed buffoons section need to be placated. (They wont of course). If Labour had got in none of this would be an issue. And lets not get carried that the tories got in in because they offered the referendum. They only got elected because no-one trusts labour with the purse strings.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 21:00
|
The Conservative Party disintegrated in the 1990s over their internal battles over Europe.
The result with those battles over Europe was a split in the Conservative Party which destroyed themselves in the 1997 General election.
The referendum was never an answer for the country but to sticky tape the Conservative Party from their internal cracks.
|
I agree with you Bromptonaut . if that result does occur there might be chaos in the financial markets.
There might be a collapse in the pound and a collapse in consumer confidence,
|
|
On the other hand, the opposite might happen.
|
Fluffy, you are a pillock who is doing nothing other than unintelligently recycling statements that you have read elsewhere.
Now I cannot possibly know if you are a real tit, or merely pretending to be a tit, but I'm not sure it matters.
You're either an a*** or a damned good representation of one. And quite frankly if it quacks like a duck...
|
|
There is no need to (a) be rude, (b) state the obvious and (c) spoil everyone's fun.
|
|
I completely disagree on a), b) seems not to be obvious to some, but I guess there is some justification for c).
|
>An indecisive result just kicks the can not very far down the road.
A 51/49 result is only 'indecisive' to those who lose whichever way it goes.
|
|
The EU IN/OUT referendum will in the end solve no answers to the running sore inside the Conservative Party.
|
|
If there was a referendum to join the Euro what would the U.K. population vote for.
|
|
For ease of use, being in the euro would be handy. For political and economic reasons we are fine where we are, and 90% of the country would vote no to joining the Euro.
|
|
I would vote no for the Euro as well.
|
|
I will vote LEAVE to the European Federal State (yet to be fully implemented) but that's the end game.
Last edited by: Roger. on Sat 2 Apr 16 at 21:24
|
>> I will vote LEAVE to the European Federal State (yet to be fully implemented) but
>> that's the end game.
Unfortunately that wasn't the question asked.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 2 Apr 16 at 21:46
|
I just wanted to make my position (held since the first referendum in the 1970s) clear, in case any forum members were not sure! ;-) (That's a winking LOL if you are not sure)
(Fire away folks - I can take it!)
|
|
I am still confused whether to vote IN our OUT to the forthcoming EU IN/OUT Referendum.
|
|
You need to be 18 to vote.
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 - Volume 7 - Bromptonaut
