***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
Continuing discussion.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 09:42
|
Cameron is using referendum to lock the UK into the E.U. forever, says unelected bureaucrat.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11643101/Britain-will-not-vote-to-leave-EU-says-Juncker.html
No surprise there, then!
|
>> Cameron is using referendum to lock the UK into the E.U. forever, says unelected bureaucrat.
An elected bureaucrat would be an unusual thing no?
The term unelected tends to be dragged out for lack of any real criticism of what's being said - think press fulminations over unelected judges.
|
>> >> Cameron is using referendum to lock the UK into the E.U. forever, says unelected
>> bureaucrat.
>>
>> An elected bureaucrat would be an unusual thing no?
>>
>> The term unelected tends to be dragged out for lack of any real criticism of
>> what's being said - think press fulminations over unelected judges.
>>
Yes and by virtue of their non-elected status they need to keep their traps shut in public!
They are there to advise politicians & administer the paperwork and not to try and influence public opinion as this particular functionary is prone to do.
Of course E.U. bureaucrats think they rule Europe, oh - hang on................................
|
>> >> Cameron is using referendum to lock the UK into the E.U. forever, says unelected
>> bureaucrat.
>>
>> An elected bureaucrat would be an unusual thing no?
>>
>> The term unelected tends to be dragged out for lack of any real criticism of
>> what's being said - think press fulminations over unelected judges.
So what? Did you just post to have a go at Roger, or do you think it's true about Cameron's intention?
Self evident I would have said, since Cameron is an innie and will probably claim his renegotiation has fixed everything.
|
>> So what? Did you just post to have a go at Roger, or do you
>> think it's true about Cameron's intention?
Taking the unelected point was a challenge to Roger's reasoning. If you regard that as 'having a go' so be it.
I've said since way back when that Cameron's referendum is taken straight from Harold Wilson's book of tricks. Quick cosmetic renegotiation followed by a Yes campaign supported by business and most big hitters in main parties, accepting as Wilson did, some cabinet dissent.
Outcome - a landslide in favour.
As it happens I'd regard that as right outcome. I suspect we could have acheived much same in concessions by a more consensual/pragmatic approach to EU diplomacy. But if we have a referendum it will at least kill off the 'anti marketeer' tendency for a generation.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 Jun 15 at 14:46
|
>> An elected bureaucrat would be an unusual thing no?
>>
>> The term unelected tends to be dragged out for lack of any real criticism of
>> what's being said - think press fulminations over unelected judges.
You are missing the point.
Many people wish for elected British politicians to be deciding our country's future (on our behalf, voted in by us) not an unelected bureaucrat from another country.
So in that context, the constant mentioning of unelected bureaucrats is entirely appropriate.
|
>> You are missing the point.
Not really
>> Many people wish for elected British politicians to be deciding our country's future (on our
>> behalf, voted in by us) not an unelected bureaucrat from another country.
I'd rather they were made by people who, irrespective of their elective status, got decisions about our future right. The choice between commissioners appointed by elected politicians and Ministers appointed by the elected PM is not as divergent as you suggest.
>> So in that context, the constant mentioning of unelected bureaucrats is entirely appropriate.
In this context Juncker expressed an opinion about Cameron's objectives. I don't think whether or not he's elected makes much difference to the truth or otherwise of what he said. Indeed it looks to me like it's spot on in suggesting Mr C is effectively following the path beaten by J Harold Wilson.
OTOH given it's value to Roger and you as antis it might have been better if he's kept it to himself.
|
"I'd rather they were made by people who, irrespective of their elective status, got decisions about our future right. The choice between commissioners appointed by elected politicians and Ministers appointed by the elected PM is not as divergent as you suggest. "
Wow I'm speechless......
|
>>Many people wish for elected British politicians to be deciding our country's future (on our behalf, voted in by us) not an unelected bureaucrat from another country.
Don't give a crap where he's from, where he lives, or what nationality he is. We can be governed by a pink daffodil from Mars for all I care.
But those governing should be...
1) Elected by the ones who will be governed. Not appointed.
2) Quickly booted out if no good.
The problem with "appointed" is that there doesn't ever seem to be appropriate accountability for that appointment from the appointing, and presumably elected, person.
If the appointee genuinely and incompetently screws up, the appointer should be paying the penalty.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 1 Jun 15 at 19:39
|
"Britain would be forced to implement every rule from Brussels even if it leaves the European Union, Norway’s foreign minister warned today.
Børge Brende said his country was one of the fastest to apply EU directives without being ‘around the table’ to have a say in new rules and regulations.
Eurosceptics have argued Britain could adopt a looser Norwegian-style relationship with the EU, but Mr Brende said there ‘is no real difference’ between his country and those inside the 28-nation bloc."
tinyurl.com/ocm2erp
No doubt Roger has an answer..
|
>> but Mr Brende said there 'is no real difference' between his country and those inside the
>> 28-nation bloc.
If that is so, how does that equate with his statement that the UK is better off inside?
>> Britain would be forced to implement every rule from Brussels even if it leaves the
>> European Union, Norway's foreign minister warned today.
Well he's an idiot then. Britain *can choose* to implement every rule from Brussels, Britain may decide it is better if it does so, but it won't be forced to do so. Which is Norway's position.
There may be a standard for the curviness of bananas, the contents of sausages or whatever, but the UK will choose to adopt those if it wanted to trade in them or because it wanted some quid pro quo.
One should also consider that the proportion of Norway's trade done with the EU is considerably higher than the UKs. Now, that's not as simple as it sounds, but nonetheless it does indicate why Norway feels the need to adopt the rules so strongly across the board, whereas someone else may not.
The more idiots make these statements, the more I think the UK should be taking the harder line of "we're off unless you make it worth our while to stay".
|
I'm not so sure how this Democracy works.Five million people are represented by two members of parliament.About seven million couldn't be bothered or didn't want to vote.
This Quickly booted out takes five years in which time a lot of damage can be down.I might be naïve. But I've lived long enough to see that politicians dance to the masters of the financial world.
|
'Tis strange, but aren't the people scremaing "undemocratic" at the unelected EU apparatchiks the very same who cry "yeehah" and wave the national flag when unelected 'royals' hove in to view?
At least the EU bods are appointed by elected representatives, rather than vicious, vengeful, non-existant sky fairies.
|
John Redwood MP (Conservative) has an "out" view as we know.
With that in mind, here are some of his thoughts.
www.thecommentator.com/article/5891/could_uk_restore_democracy_without_leaving_eu
|
>> John Redwood MP (Conservative...., here are some of his thoughts.
>>
www.thecommentator.com/article/5891/could_uk_restore_democracy_without_leaving_eu
>>
And here is another stiring
Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
|
>> And here is another stiring
>> Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729
>>
Well knock me down with a feather...surely not???
"She believes it could produce a "clamour" for another vote on Scottish independence referendum".
Who would have thought it???
|
|
If she thinks the Jocks will vote for independence because they want to stay in the EU she is one seriously deluded lady.
|
>> If she thinks the Jocks will vote for independence because they want to stay in
>> the EU she is one seriously deluded lady.
................but she IS fit (in a Krankie kind of way) deluded or not!
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 09:37
|
>> If she thinks the Jocks will vote for independence because they want to stay in
>> the EU she is one seriously deluded lady.
>>
Is that how it is up there? More socialist than England, but still wary of the EU?
|
>> Is that how it is up there? More socialist than England, but still wary of
>> the EU?
I think more 'socialist' than England and (mostly) more pro EU too, hence the SNP raising the issue.
|
>> >> Is that how it is up there? More socialist than England, but still wary
>> of
>> >> the EU?
>>
>> I think more 'socialist' than England and (mostly) more pro EU too,
bet you they aint.
|
>> bet you they aint.
Perhaps it's just less of an issue up there but the anti EU/sceptic parties had pretty well zero traction in Scotland. There may also be variations between the urban areas and rural and more particularly the outlying islands.
|
>> >> bet you they aint.
>>
>> Perhaps it's just less of an issue up there but the anti EU/sceptic parties had
>> pretty well zero traction in Scotland.
UKIP was seen as an "english" party.
|
>> UKIP was seen as an "english" party.
That may be so but OP evidence suggests UKIP are irrelevant as 'out' has little support.
tinyurl.com/nmvcwoe (whatscotlandthinks.org)
|
>> >> UKIP was seen as an "english" party.
>>
>> That may be so but OP evidence suggests UKIP are irrelevant as 'out' has little
>> support.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/nmvcwoe (whatscotlandthinks.org)
Only you could interpret that as "out has little support"
Only 46% would vote to stay in, 33% would vote to leave and 21% don't knows.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 14:46
|
>> Only you could interpret that as "out has little support"
>>
>>
>> Only 46% would vote to stay in, 33% would vote to leave and 21% don't
>> knows.
I was responding to your gainsaying my suggestion that Scotland was more pro EU than England (or RofUK).
As those numbers show the gap between In and Out is considerably wider than in England.
|
>> If she thinks the Jocks will vote for independence because they want to stay in
>> the EU she is one seriously deluded lady.
>>
I think they voted SNP 'cos they resent the London-centric emphasis on so many things in the UK.
In spite of that, just remember how many Scots have featured in very senior Government positions in the last few years - way out of proportion to the population of Scotland, compared with that of England.
|
"If she thinks the Jocks will vote for independence because they want to stay in the EU she is one seriously deluded lady."
Apart from anything else, the SNP seems to cling to the idea that an independent Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU - or would at least be shoo-in.
Before the independence referendum, Jose Manuel Barroso (president of the European Commission) didn't think so. The other EU countries would need to approve the application and there is every incentive for Belgium and especially Spain to block it, for fear of encouraging the secessionist movements in their respective countries (Flanders and the Basque Country).
Then there's the question of currency. The Scots want to keep the pound, because of its convenience - it is so unfortunate and so annoying that England is right next door - but a newly-joined member of the EU would probably have to adopt the euro.
I used to think Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP were canny operators, but I now see a party and a leader floundering in real-life politics.
As for the Sturgeon creature being "fit", in any kind of way - come on, Roger! That weasely, scrunched-up face, bleached hair and skinny legs - what are you looking at, exactly? The Daily Mail once described her as sexy and that's as damning as it gets.
I don't like her in any way, in case you were wondering.
|
>> As for the Sturgeon creature being "fit", in any kind of way - come on,
>> Roger! That weasely, scrunched-up face, bleached hair and skinny legs - what are you >>looking at, exactly? The Daily Mail once described her as sexy and that's as damning as it gets.
BBD would categorise her as a MILF, I guess!
|
More of a Leanne Wood fan myself. Strangely alluring.
Yes, I have been prescribed my first pair of glasses this year.
|
|
There is also the paradox of wee Nicola's liking for the EU and at the same time, dislike for austerity. Does she really think that both of these can happen together in a small independent country in the EU?
|
>> There is also the paradox of wee Nicola's liking for the EU and at the
>> same time, dislike for austerity. Does she really think that both of these can happen
>> together in a small independent country in the EU?
In similar vein, I am not the only person unable to reconcile the hatred of being ruled from Westminster with the enthusiasm for being ruled from Brussels.
|
You need to understand the "anyone but the English" attitude which prevails in many places in my homeland.
By the way if you do understand it can you explain it to me, I have never understood it.
|
>> In similar vein, I am not the only person unable to reconcile the hatred of
>> being ruled from Westminster with the enthusiasm for being ruled from Brussels.
>>
This is quite easily explained away by the fact that the UK is not ruled from Brussels.
|
>> ...the UK is not ruled
>> from Brussels.
That much is true, but it is a disingenuous reply nevertheless.
One assumes that the SNP's enthusiasm for independence from the UK has not diminished;
An independent Scotland would have little leverage and would almost certainly join EU on bog standard terms; and quite possibly as a member of the Eurozone;
The object of the EU is closer integration under the EUropean Parliament;
Nicola Sturgeon knows all of these things.
|
>> As for the Sturgeon creature being "fit", in any kind of way - come on,
>> Roger! That weasely, scrunched-up face, bleached hair and skinny legs - what are you looking
>> at, exactly? The Daily Mail once described her as sexy and that's as damning as
>> it gets.
Remarkably unattractive, god forbid you get a close shot on tele, the make up looks like its been applied by an apprentice plasterer.
|
|
Chivalrous bunch of chaps aren't we?
|
I mean, it seems to me below the belt to comment rudely on a woman's appearance, even when she has asked for it by going into politics. I'm old-fashioned like that, just can't help it.
Male politicians aren't all that appetising as a rule are they? Scrofula and unhygienic personal habits...
|
"Male politicians aren't all that appetising as a rule are they?"
I'm not qualified to judge whether any of them are "fit", but certainly they are unappetising on the whole, I would have thought.
Boris has allegedly had considerable success with the ladies - God only knows why.
|
Oh, he's OK, very personable. No doubt could cope with being Con leader or trying to be, but it could be a gruelling experience.
Some of his fellow-members are another matter.
Who's that UKIP geezer with the razor-like smile? He's a bit frightening.
|
Sorry Roger but Mr Hannan is writing junk.
ANY article which suggests leaving the EC allows us to exploit shale gas is totally unconvincing.
After all, the protests which stop it have NOTHING to do with the EC - they are local.
I am not saying much of what he writes is not true.... BUT to add shale gas exploitation - or rather its lack- as an EC problem is just a step too far...
Lazy and wrong ...
|
>> Lazy and wrong ...
Are you sure it isn't your knee jerk put down that's lazy and wrong madf? Where does it say that the EU prevents us extracting shale gas?
|
>>
>> >> Lazy and wrong ...
>>
>> Are you sure it isn't your knee jerk put down that's lazy and wrong madf?
>> Where does it say that the EU prevents us extracting shale gas?
>>
By implication he implies it..including them in an article about whhat happens when the UK leaves the EU.
|
>>By implication he implies it..
He certainly does, although that may win the "dodgiest grammar of the day" award.
The article represents all as beauty after we leave the EU, implying that ll those things happened *because* we left the EU.
It is ridiculous pandering.
|
>> By implication he implies it..
Sounds a bit remote to me.
And you can infer that I have inferred and that by implication I am implying that you routinely deride any "outie" comment regardless of its content:)
|
|
Mr Hannan makes sense to me.
|
Fair warning - this link is to an article shown on Breitbart, so those of you of a nervous disposition should probably ignore it: nudge, nudge, wink, wink, :-)
tinyurl.com/olxyp4j
|
"Fair warning ............."
Anyone on here know if the EU accounts have been audited yet? If all is well, then I might consider voting to stay in.
|
>> "Fair warning ............."
>>
>> Anyone on here know if the EU accounts have been audited yet? If all is
>> well, then I might consider voting to stay in.
You're not taking much of risk there Haywain. They're still quibbling over £100 billion or so. Picky so and sos.
|
|
If my family finances became precarious, I wouldn't consider leaving the wife and children as the only possible course of action.
|
"If my family finances became precarious,"
I would certainly never allow my family to become so dysfunctional as to lose 100 billion quid, but maybe I'm just a tight-git.
|
>> "If my family finances became precarious,"
>>
>> I would certainly never allow my family to become so dysfunctional as to lose 100
>> billion quid, but maybe I'm just a tight-git.
>>
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of (most) small families dealing in somewhat smaller financial numbers than large blocks of nations.
|
"Allow me to introduce you to the concept of (most) small families dealing in somewhat smaller financial numbers than large blocks of nations."
Same basic principles apply - unless, of course, you subscribe to the G Brown school of 'Prudence'.
|
Subtle difference - you probably feel you have a responsibility for your wife and children. I'm not sure it's the UK's job to take responsibility for the lack of probity of the rest of the EU.
Maybe Cameron sees a similarity though. He refused to pay the £1.7 billion, on the grounds that there were no receipts for £100bn quid, AND left his daughter in a pub! Perhaps she had misused her pocket money.
|
>> If my family finances became precarious, I wouldn't consider leaving the wife and children as
>> the only possible course of action.
Hmmm. Hadn't considered that as an option. Thanks.
|
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3109215/EU-watchdog-says-Brussels-lost-650million-taxpayer-cash-fraud-year-Romania-worst-offender.html
They are doing extremely well
The State of the Nation report published in 2010 by the Government of David Cameron estimated the total benefit fraud in the United Kingdom in 2009/10 to be approximately £1 billion.[3] Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that benefit fraud is thought to have cost taxpayers £1.2 billion during 2012–13, up 9 per cent on the year before.
150 billion is lost by HM gov to tax fraud.
did you know that white british folks living in spain defraud the uk government by 55 million?
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 16:36
|
>>did you know that white british folks living in spain defraud the uk government by 55 million?
Course he does, he was one.
|
|
So people in foreign countries are stealing hard working british families money. What a disgrace, i want to know what ukip are going to do about this money leaking from this country to foreign shores. Infact what have the Daily Wail got to say about it?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 16:51
|
>> So people in foreign countries are stealing hard working british families money. What a disgrace,
>> i want to know what ukip are going to do about this money leaking from
>> this country to foreign shores. Infact what have the Daily Wail got to say about
>> it?
>>
UKIP work in Brussels as MEPs.. So waste our money because they actually do nothing.. So if they want to show an example...
|
O!
I'll have to lie down in a darkened room!
I agree that the media has done a pretty good hatchet job on Nigel Farage, but for Eurosceptics he has been right in his forecasts and warnings more often than he has been wrong.
|
>> O!
>>
>> I'll have to lie down in a darkened room!
>>
>> I agree that the media has done a pretty good hatchet job on Nigel Farage,
>> but for Eurosceptics he has been right in his forecasts and warnings more often than
>> he has been wrong.
He hasn't made any forecasts or warnings, merely bitched and whined.
|
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112046/Who-trust-EU-Voters-say-Farage-stay-away-campaign-Blair-harm-pro-EU-message.html
The voters, according to this poll, don't 'trust' politicians much. Only the Prime Minister and Boris Johnson are trusted by more people than distrust them. Poor Nicola Sturgeon is hardly trusted at all.
What a load of old whassername. Reminds me of my old market research days, trying to measure the 'attitudes' of hopeless bewildered ignorant consumers. Point is, the attitudes can't really be 'measured'. They can be assessed in words by a sensible person after investigation, unless you want to be really poncy and incomprehensible and go for 'psychometric' calculations using an abstruse and meaningless mathematics. Fashionable at one time and the bane of my life, or one of its banes.
Everyone badmouths Tony Blair and I suppose he's used to it, but I don't see what they have against poor old Faraggio except the mistake of leading a single-issue party. I've got used to his ugly mug.
|
"Poor Nicola Sturgeon..."
"... poor old Faraggio..."
You're getting soppy, AC.
Agree about the dubious methodology, though.
Last edited by: Observer on Fri 5 Jun 15 at 16:05
|
Moth .. for the use of.
So I says to neighb, what can I do about all the mole hills then, Betty.
Moth balls, says she. Stick one down each hole and they'll bu&&er orf somewhere else.
Ebay, I thought tis the best place to get them. Slight problem though ... The EU has banned them!!!!
I HATE the EU - with a vengeance.
|
Presumably you assume that without the nasty EU that you would still be able to buy them? That they were banned by officialdom just to upset the UK in general and you in particular?
I do hope not. Have a read.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothball
>>I HATE the EU - with a vengeance.
Whereas I dislike knee-jerk reactions, especially when they are based on false premises, and doubly so when they're ridiculous.
|
I can't get proper creosote either. Even 'new formula' Nitromors paint stripper isn't as good as it used to be. Sure, I know they are hazardous to use, but used properly they are ok.
I HATE the EU for many reasons, and there is naff all you could say to make me change my mind.
|
Because you want to hate the EU, not because of any particular reason.
So arguing against your excuses will simply cause more to be made up.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 6 Jun 15 at 18:13
|
|
One doesn't need those ghastly things, my missus uses cedar-wood balls.
|
We were all raised with toxic products before the nanny state. They worked much better than this ecofriendly rubbish they try to flog us now.
Anyone with a nose and fingers can identify something likely to be toxic, even if they can't read what it says on the tin.
|
Had a respondent once in a discussion group on cleaning products who was unusually keen on acid and alkali-based ferocious scouring aids. He was so emphatic that I wondered who he was and looked up his details. He gave his profession as 'Steel floor scourer'.
We used to have industries in this country before we went soft.
|
>> I can't get proper creosote either. Even 'new formula' Nitromors paint stripper isn't as good
>> as it used to be. Sure, I know they are hazardous to use, but used
>> properly they are ok.
But they're known carcinogens and environmental poisons.
Do you really think that if UK were outside EU it would be plausible for government to continue to permit them in face of a public campaign calling the EU wide ban in evidence?
|
>>Because you want to hate the EU, not because of any particular reason.
>>So arguing against your excuses will simply cause more to be made up.
I hate the EU and everything it stands for, but I would be quite happy to go along with the original idea of a group of trading nations, i.e the EEC.
I don't need to make up any excuses:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3463893/Holy-straight-bananas-now-the-Eurocrats-are-banning-moth-balls.html
>>One doesn't need those ghastly things, my missus uses cedar-wood balls.
I wanted them to use them for moles, not moths :)
>>But they're known carcinogens and environmental poisons.
>>Do you really think that if UK were outside EU it would be plausible for government to continue to permit them in face of a public campaign calling the EU wide ban in evidence?
Cigarette smoking is carcinogenic, but they haven't banned the use of that.
Of course I realise that if the UK hopefully quits the EU, there is no way toxic products such as the original Nitromors, moth balls, creosote, or even incandescent light bulbs etc. etc. etc. would ever be available in this country again.
FU to the EU !
|
|
The EU project is a German attempt to achieve what they failed to achieve in WW2.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 6 Jun 15 at 21:06
|
>> The EU project is a German attempt to achieve what they failed to achieve in
>> WW2.
>>
That's a pretty unpleasant statement made without any justification.
|
|
A sensitive soul may find it unpleasant but you don't deny that they want a USE with them running it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 6 Jun 15 at 21:15
|
They may want a USE and given their population and GDP they're going to be a big player in such a venture.
But it's one hell of a leap from there to the 4th Reich.
|
|
Time will tell. Don't they also want European armed forces, creeping goalposts.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 6 Jun 15 at 21:22
|
If you new anything about history, the European Union and its origins or modern Germany you would realise the absurdity of your statement? I suggest you read a few books on the subject.
|
>> If you new anything about history, the European Union and its origins or modern Germany
>> you would realise the absurdity of your statement? I suggest you read a few books
>> on the subject.
Nah. Like dealing with pedal bikes just rely on simple prejudice.
Saves the effort of thinking.
|
>> Nah. Like dealing with pedal bikes just rely on simple prejudice.
>>
I see that your head in the sand denial extends beyond push bikes.
|
>> I see that your head in the sand denial extends beyond push bikes.
Still waiting for you on the cycling thread re what exactly Scots Sheriff's comments actually require of motorists.
|
>> Still waiting for you on the cycling thread re what exactly Scots Sheriff's comments actually
>> require of motorists.
>>
You would make a good politician, if you don't like the question answer with one or change the subject.
|
>> A sensitive soul may find it unpleasant but you don't deny that they want a
>> USE with them running it.
I deny that, and you have no proof or evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Which is the most influential country in the EU?
|
>> Which is the most influential country in the EU?
France
|
The OAPs are for out.
Farage is a disaster if he leads OUT campaign.
tinyurl.com/p3b2z5u
|
The rules for the European Referendum are becoming clearer by the day!
Ministers must resign to vote against the view held by the Prime Minister.
The EU will fund the 'in' campaign.
The Civil Service will be used to support the Govt!!!
So, a free and fair democratic fight!!
|
> Ministers must resign to vote against the view held by the Prime Minister.
Seems reasonable. It goes against the gov and the collective decision of the cabinet.
>> The EU will fund the 'in' campaign.
How so?
>> The Civil Service will be used to support the Govt!!!
>> So, a free and fair democratic fight!!
>>
Seems reasonable they are there to support the government of the day. I'm sure if ukip formed this government they would stop that assistance they would have received. Probably.
|
>> The OAPs are for out.
That'll be the people who voted us "in" in the first place then. Make your minds up.
b***** babyboomers.
|
>> >> The OAPs are for out.
>>
>> That'll be the people who voted us "in" in the first place then. Make your
>> minds up.
>>
>> b***** babyboomers.
>>
Not me - I voted NO in the first place!
|
>> >> >> The OAPs are for out.
>> >> That'll be the people who voted us "in" in the first place then. Make
>> your minds up.
does ANYBODY still believe opinion polls? Seriously?
|
I expect we only believe opinion polls which purport to prove that which we would like to believe.
Such as those showing enormous support for the monarchy - I expect you and others are minded to believe them unquestioningly.
But I am being slightly facetious - of course you make a good point.
|
>> Such as those showing enormous support for the monarchy - I expect you and others
>> are minded to believe them unquestioningly.
>>
I have a healthy disregard for any opinion poll, including any about the monarchy or the house of lords.
Looking at the crowds for major royal occasions is more of a clue than any of these as is the demand for the major royals presence, as I said elsewhere.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Mon 8 Jun 15 at 13:02
|
>> >> The OAPs are for out.
>>
>> That'll be the people who voted us "in" in the first place then. Make your minds up.
For goodness sake!
NOBODY voted us in.
we were in, and then we had a referendum on whether to stay in or come out...
Last edited by: swiss tony on Mon 8 Jun 15 at 22:47
|
EU voting thread volume 1. - Roger.
