Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 05:59 PM

I think we should have a referendum. I believe the choice of the people will be to remain in Europe and nothing will change, but if we have been promised a referendum, we should be entitled to one.

We should be in Europe leading from the front, as standing back and allowing it to crumble is obviously not working for us or the economy.

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 06:06 PM

Not really Newbury News this, is it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 06:10 PM

Is Richard Benyon not our MP? I'd personally love to know which way he will vote, especially given pledges made in the election campaign.

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 06:12 PM

He'll probably vote the same as the majority of your party I would imagine on this national issue.

Back to local topics, where's this referendum on a mayor for West Berkshire you promised by September this year?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 06:17 PM

Body swerve!!! The Labour position on an EU referendum has always been consistant, but I believe we should have a referendum. The fact is the Tories promised a referendum... When are we having it? If Mr benyon votes against it, he has broken a personal pledge that HE made at the general election.

As for any other issues that you wish to discuss, please feel free to start another thread.

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 06:18 PM

The Labour position on an EU referendum has changed over the years.

Back to local issues, where's the referendum on a mayor for West Berkshire Labour promised by September this year?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 06:25 PM

I told you, start another thread. What gives you the right to ask questions anyway, you never ask questions posed to you, you still haven't said whether you think it's right that a paid council employee in a position of trust engages in political debate and / or discussion? That's a pretty heavy conflict of interest, especially as there is a potential for abuse of position to benefit a political party of your choosing if you wished with no safeguards in place to prevent that from happening. What's to say you don't change documents on the website to flatter the Tories and discriminate against other parties?

As you have access to multiple council social media accounts, could you use that to further your political arguments? What safeguards are in place to prevent that from happening? If there is no safeguards to prevent against it, surely you shouldn't be in position?

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 06:36 PM

I've never said where I'm employed Richard. On the subject you raise of public sector workers expressing their opinions however, I though the Labour Party were generally in favour of this.

Anyway, back to the subject of referenda that you raised, where's the referendum on a mayor for West Berkshire Labour promised by September this year?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 22 2011, 06:38 PM

Whatever he thinks, Ministers are usually the first to defy a three-line whip.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 06:39 PM

Come on Phil, answer the questions. I've said that if you start another thread about the mayor subject, I will answer the questions but that means you can't disrupt this one so you are not interested. As I said before, you still need to answer many questions that have been asked of you on various threads.

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 06:44 PM

I think we can all infer from your reaction that the people of West Berkshire aren't going to see the referendum on a mayor for West Berkshire you promised by September this year.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 06:52 PM

Not at all. I'm happy to answer the question, just ask it in a relevant thread and I will give you your answer.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 22 2011, 07:06 PM

I think GB wants to remain in Europe but I don't thin GB wants to be part of the EU.

Their nanny state nonsense and ridiculous rules which are being accepted by a weak and "yes daddy" government here means that in about 10 years it will be illegal to do anything apart from get up, go to work, get home, pay taxes. You won't even be allowed to have a poo. Complete injustice.

As for which way he'll vote, he'll vote for whatever makes him come across as good to his superiors.

I'll beat a hasty retreat now and watch people with beards arguing about politics.

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 07:13 PM

What does this mean?

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 22 2011, 07:18 PM

Well being part of the European Union does not dictate whether a country is from Europe, does it not? Switzerland, for example. It's a country not a (in)continent.

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 07:22 PM

Surely we don't have any choice as to whether these islands are part of the continent of Europe?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 22 2011, 07:28 PM

He will ignore his electorate and vote as he is told by Dave of course what else would you expect of a politician. You seem a bit niave for a politician if you don't know the answer?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 22 2011, 07:31 PM

Israel is European by choice it would seem, and Iceland isn't technically on a continental shelf but rather it's extruded directly from the mid-ocean ridge and could just as easily claim to be North American, so I guess the UK is free to choose which continent it wishes to be identified with.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 22 2011, 07:31 PM

Allrighty, I'll bite: Can you actually name some European legislation that you find so objectionable?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 07:32 PM

You would expect him to deliver what he promised I suppose, isn't that what we were promised with all this "new politics" pledge? A bit like not hiding things like EU subsidies...

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 07:44 PM

You raise a good point, however isn't it mainly in terms of sporting competitions and of course Eurovision that Israel is "in Europe", not geographically, and isn't this is mainly for political reasons?

That said, if the British Isles weren't in Europe, where would they be?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 22 2011, 07:48 PM

Independent?

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 22 2011, 07:53 PM

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/legis/20090501/index.htm

Knock yourself out.

It's illegal to sell chips with mayonnaise.
Almost every UK website is illegal because of the crappy "cookie" laws.
You can't buy eggs etc by the dozen.
Odd coloured fruit is illegal (bananas was it?)


We are in the EU yet reap none of the benefits. We are forced to allow X amount of inter-EU migrants in, we can't say no, we are paying so much dollar to the EU and yet not getting any benefit. Want to cut the tax deficiet? It would take 1/3rd of the planned time if we were not in the EU. Plus combined with the daft motorcycle test they make people take forcing you to go over the speed limit of a built up area, I could go on but a chicken nugget is calling my name.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 22 2011, 07:55 PM

I rather think the Eurosceptics hanker for the days when the map was defined in terms of Empires rather than geography and Britannia ruled the waves!

Posted by: NORTHENDER Oct 22 2011, 08:02 PM

I can Simon. Me having to throw fish that I have caught in my nets back into the sea DEAD.
That is my first and last comment on the subject of the EU.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 09:18 PM

I agree with you on that. Surely this is where our local MP in his Government role should be influencing European laws? What we have seen from the Coalition is that they will just stand on the sidelines waiting for it to go belly up so they can say "told you so". This is why I think the referendum needs to happen. We need to know what the people want, and as the Tories promised the ballot, let us have one. I'm confident that we are better off in than out, but that doesn't mean we can't improve the way Europe is run.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 22 2011, 09:50 PM

Yes, those rules are perverse, yet something needs to be done to preserve fish stocks and prevent over fishing, and if that isn't done multi-laterally we know where that leaves us.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 22 2011, 09:52 PM

I thought his department was working on new rules to allow trawlers to land everything they catch.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 22 2011, 10:46 PM

You really have fallen for it haven't you?

Chips with mayonnaise, not that popular here but you can get them. The French and Belgians love it, it's the standard way they sell frites.

What cookie laws? Have you stopped to consider that the presence of all these 'illegal' sites exist because the 'cookie laws' don't exist in the form you seem to believe in?

Eggs by the dozen> Have you ever looked on the shelves of any supermarket. Have you ever seen one that does not sell eggs by the dozen and half dozen?

Odd coloured fruit? Where did you find that one! Bananas come of the plant green, go yellow and then brown/black as they rot. Green and yellow are the normal shade in the shops, brown and black fruit probably doesn't sell that well.

So all these so called laws are not enforced? Or do they simply not exist?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Oct 22 2011, 11:04 PM

Oh dear.

No it's not.
No they're not.
Yes you can.
Love to see a link to the last one.

Here is the EU site dedicated to countering 'untrue' stories that people have fallen for.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/take_part/myths_en.htm

And here are some 'fibs' from (inevitably) the British tabloids perpetuating the sort of untruths you seem to have fallen for -

http://http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/03/express-front-page-lies-about-chip-shop.html

http://http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/no-eu-ban-on-blowing-up-balloons.html

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/09/mail-reports-joke-as-fact.html

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 22 2011, 11:07 PM

Tabloids? Smarter brother of dodgy, I never read news papers. Well, I read page 3 of the sun from time to time but that's not to get up to date on the latest goings on in this country of ours, if you get what I mean.

The law to ban eggs (and everything for that matter), not in itself, but by number of items in the packet (so say, 6 eggs). They wanted it sold by volume was a genuine law put forward by the EU. The fact it was not adopted is not the point; the fact is they wanted it to become enforced.

As for bananas, hence my application of a question mark I was unable to remember, it was vegetables and their having to be of a certain size, shape, colour (now who's being racist) for sale in the UK. Some laws were revoked however they still apply to: Apples, oranges, kiwi fruit, lettuces, nectarines, strawberries, sweet peppers, grapes and tomatoes. They must feel so left out, all of their brothers and sisters being able to be sold and they just get left behind. Imagine their crying, there must be puddles of tears produced by vegetables and fruits and this is something we cannot stand for.

As for cookies, I work in IT and while it's not really applicable to my line of work I am apprised of the news, El Reg for example, Naked Security over at Sophos..

The video can explain it easier than I can http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arWJA0jVPAc&feature=player_embedded

Although I am in favour of preventing another Justin Bieber album.

Although I thank you for your link as it explains to me that at least 10 members of the EU council have a problem "getting it up". Small wonder they give us such a crappy life, they ain't getting none! Would make me mad too =(

Posted by: FactFile Oct 23 2011, 10:32 AM

So when you said,

"It's illegal to sell chips with mayonnaise." You were wrong.
"Almost every UK website is illegal because of the crappy "cookie" laws." You post no evidence
"You can't buy eggs etc by the dozen." You were wrong
"Odd coloured fruit is illegal," You were wrong.

You also claim that you don't read newspapers. You must be really annoyed at your news sources then for giving you so much mis-information then.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 23 2011, 03:08 PM

It is illegal for chips & mayo = wrong, yes. I hope you feel so proud for pointing that out, sure that'll help you sleep at night.

Illegal websites = i'm right, watch the video I linked (if you know what a Youtube is) and you can also google the rules.
As for illegally coloured bananas, I had forgotten exactly,hence the (?) in my original post. I was not incorrect on the restrictions of selling fruits and veg based on shape or colour (the facists)

Posted by: blackdog Oct 23 2011, 03:10 PM

Yes you were. There is no such restriction.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Oct 23 2011, 03:19 PM

Factfile, don't worry about xjay. Facts are purely optional with him.

Back to the point though, I'd be amazed if Benyon votes in favour, but not just because Dave says so.

Benyon rakes in millions of Euros a year from CAP. If we're out of Europe, his cash cow is off to the abbatoir. He won't be a turkey voting for xmas.

You have to wonder how he is allowed to be a junior minister in the department that's responsible for CAP. Nice work if you can get it. Dracula really does work for the Westminster blood bank.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 23 2011, 03:48 PM

Just like reading is optional with you, stewie. Oh and also being a troll.

*gasp from the back row*


Think you're the chap on the left?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8587496.stm

Posted by: stewiegriffin Oct 23 2011, 03:54 PM

Correct.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2011, 04:04 PM

Lets be real about this and I'm not in favour of being 'in'. Even voted 'no' in the famous 1970's referendum. A more realistic answer would be for us to get some allies and sort it out. It really does need a Mrs T type - but with anger directed at the members not us. When did you last hear from your Euro MP, or contact him for that matter. (I'll save you the bother, you don't get a reply!)

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 23 2011, 04:15 PM

What? You are saying they are taking on WBC practices? Are you deliberately trying to get User going again?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2011, 05:53 PM

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 23 2011, 06:10 PM

The Famous Referendum in the 70s , I voted no , I would still vote NO.
I was a youngster then, and I am old and dafter now.
ce

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 24 2011, 08:05 AM

I also voted NO back then and would again given the opportunity.
What grieves me most is that one of the reasons I voted Tory in the general election was that Cameron promised us a vote on continued membership of the EU. The Tories also agreed that if there was 100,000 signatories on an e-petition then the Commons would vote on it. It looks like both of these promises have or will be broken because those we vote to represent us have chosen to represent some other interest.
I for one will not vote for the Tories again as I feel I have been misled and lied too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 24 2011, 08:11 AM

I know how you feel, and have vowed similar, albeit maybe for slightly different reasons. The problem is I'm running out of parties. I think the three-line whip should be outlawed.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 24 2011, 08:41 AM

Yep, there seems to be no party that actually represents the things that I feel are important. whether or not I am right or wrong.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 24 2011, 12:01 PM

I think this is why local parties should look at the candidates they put up for election nationally. I bet the majority of Tory members locally want a referendum, but if Richard votes against it their wishes will be denied. The reason I'd never get selected to contest a seat anywhere is that I would vote with my electorate, and that's how it should be. When in Parliament, you are not their to represent your party as your priority, your first priority should be to do what is right for your constituency. I actually believe their should be a vote which is against the Labour Party line on this issue, and if was an MP I would vote for a referendum if I felt that was the view of those who elected me.

Until parties stop parachuting candidates into winnable seats, we will always be at the mercy of party whips.

Posted by: Jay Sands Oct 24 2011, 01:48 PM

I can tell you how Richard Benyon will vote because he sent an email response to me after I had asked him by email to vote for a referendum:

"So, whilst I respect and understand the views of those who may believe we should leave the EU, after the most careful consideration it is, in my judgement, not the right time, for the serious uncertainty, cost and disruption that would inevitably arise from such a referendum. You may be assured that the Government is serious about bringing back powers from Brussels and to insist on reform of the EU. "

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 24 2011, 01:58 PM

So basically he's ignoring what the people want.

There's a surprise..

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 24 2011, 02:03 PM

How disappointing that he should take a view that "he knows best" and not help facilitate a referendum that clearly many people would like to participate in. I'll be voting UKIP from now on.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 24 2011, 02:08 PM

Of course. All governments are scared of what the people really want. They treat us like imbeciles. I'd like a referendum on Europe, Scottish Devolution (we all should have a say - not just the Scot's), and the Death Penalty. Not likely to happen ever though.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 24 2011, 02:28 PM

Well if say, we can get 1 million people to send written protest then that should launch a full scale referendum and then end with us all having to go to ballot boxes with cards marked "NO LEAVE THE EU NOW!!!!".

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 12:54 AM

He seems to have left out another reason he would vote No: it might put his political career in jeopardy!

I hope people who vote for these parties will remember this and other acts of insincerity come election time (but I won't hold my breath). They want to feed you crumbs of democracy, so-long as it doesn't change anything.

Conservative Andrew Bridgen said in the Commons, "The only communication I have had urging me to vote against it (a referendum) was a telephone call from the whips' office." I wonder what percentage of correspondence our MP had urging him to vote yes. Mind you, being out of the EU would most likely really harm the well-being of our local farmer, Mr Benyon MP. The man who supports battery farming birds for shooting games.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 08:25 AM

Tory MP on TV this morning:

"I've walked around for seven years saying I want a referendum, if I voted against it I would look ridiculous."

So Richard Benyon has been the MP for seven years, and has been saying we should have a vote on the EU. Does he now look ridiculous?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 09:43 AM

As even the Labour party had a three line whip, would you have put your Labour party career on the line and voted yes?

Labour and the Tories have both deceived the country regards the EU.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 25 2011, 10:07 AM

Beacuse its in POLITICIANS interests to be in in the EU. Look how important I am making these important European decisions....Not the Publics. Power corrupts all Politicians - Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative. I put Politicians on a par with gambling bankers.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 10:10 AM

I've already said, I would have voted in line with my constituents. My own personal view is that we should have a vote as I believe the result would be that we remain in Europe and influence the future direction of it, and if I was the MP for Newbury my views would be in line with public opinion. If it was somewhere that the public was against a vote, their view would obviously come first. You are right though, there should have been no need for a Labour whip. Have you got a source that proves Labour MP's were whipped at all? I know Ed asked all MP's to vote against it, but that doesn't mean there was a three line whip.

I've said many times, I'm in the Labour Party as I believe they are the only party that represent those on low and middle incomes. That doesn't mean there will be occasions where I don't agree with the Westminster leadership.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 10:22 AM

You have a point to an extent. Local branches of political parties need to look at who they select to represent them. There are some fantastic MP's out there, but there are a lot of self serving, self obsessed people with no real life experience.

It is probably in all of our interests to be in Europe, but only if we are leading the direction of travel. Standing on the sidelines helps nobody, and eventually reduces our influence as a country.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 10:41 AM

You're the spokesman: were they whipped or not? Did your leader 'ask' or 'tell'? You tell us. According to the news, they were told to vote no.

We should at least have a EU debate, but a proper one where the facts are aired. There seems to be a lot of spin about this from both sides.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 10:45 AM

According to the Party, MP's were asked to vote against it as the focus should be on sorting out the economy etc. The only mention of a abour Party whip I can find via google is on a site called "liberal conspiracy". I would say it's safe to assume that the Labour MP's were not whipped.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 10:52 AM

What is the official line: were they whipped or not?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 10:59 AM

There is no reference to a whip in anything from the party. Nothing in the media either.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 25 2011, 10:59 AM

Since the stance taken by parliment in all likelyhood does not reflect the will of the majority of the people or gives an opportunity to prove the same then I suggest that the whole petition proces is started again and hopefully will gain more momentum and signatures to force a vote.
This is a democracy and it needs to be demonstrated as such. This is a decision that I believe the people of this country want a say on and not be wrongly represented by selfserving politicians.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 11:00 AM

I agree, for what it is worth, another petition should be started.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 11:02 AM

Is that official; Labour spokesman?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 11:09 AM

I simply asked you to provide a source to the fact there was a whip. There is no mention that I can find, so that's official enough for me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 11:24 AM

So the official Labour party spokesman doesn't know?

When I made my post about the three-line whip, I thought it was common knowledge, but I didn't have a source as such. I would have expected the official Labour Party spokesman to have known. If not, I don't think he should guess. That's bad politics. What else have you got wrong? I don't expect you to know everything about the party, but you should, when asked for an official line, seek an official answer I suggest.


BTW; I found this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052910/EU-DEBATE-111-MPs-vote-favour-referendum-EU-membership.html

7.01pm Former Labour minister Kate Hoey said: 'Here we have the situation where the 3 party leaders have, it seems, colluded to make sure that we MPs do not get a free vote. ... It was a mistake by my leader to have a three-line whip tonight'


Can Newbury's official spokesman for the Labour Party confirm that the labour Party issued a three line whip?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 12:20 PM

I can't confirm it as I wasn't there, but as I said above, if there was it would be rather silly as it isn't exactly required.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2011, 01:56 PM

It was probably a mistake by all party leaders to have a whip! Frankly, as nothing was going to change, there was very little point in holding the debate anyway. Knowing that and that it would be a big news story the cynic in me wonders what real news story has been buried or turned using the EU debate as cover?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 02:18 PM

You're the one that is challenging the idea, how about finding out? Surely it can't be that hard? Transparency and all that.

You said:



You then said:



Like I said: it would seem, even the Labour Party are not comfortable about the popularity of our membership of the EU and applied the three-line whip as well.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 03:36 PM

I see Mr Benyon (I hope to be a Lord one day) MP, thinks it is the wrong time for a referendum. So when does he think would be the right time? When the EU is prosperous? Also, who said it need to be a referendum for now?

I understand that Mr Benyon MP would be considered a 'tame' MP in political circles.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 25 2011, 04:20 PM

Why didn't Labour vote for the motion, and 'defeat' the Government? Isn't that what oppositions do?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 04:42 PM

No. The Labour Party policy is to focus on fixing the economy and jobs, not the EU. But you are right, if Miliband really wanted to show Cameron up, he could have forced a referendum and there would have been a no vote. That's the reason Cameron doesn't want a referendum, he knows the majority are in favour of staying as part of the EU.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 04:47 PM

No, the Labour Party are as anxious to avoid a vote on their pet project as the Tories.


You really need to do some homework before you post. Ed Milliband would not have been able to have forced anything. The vote was not binding. And as for your last sentence...

If your party and the other liars in the commons had thought a referendum would bring a yes vote to staying in the EU, we all would have had a referendum by now.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 25 2011, 05:03 PM

But the Labour Party cannot fix anything as they are not in the majority. Their job is to mount Opposition to what the majority party seek, to scrutinise and question. Politically, their objective has to be to hold the majority.

Embarrasing the Governmet yesterday would have been that alone, as the vote is not binding. It certainly would not have forced a referendum. As the referendum question is hypothetical, the vote is pure guesswork.

The majority are in favour of staying in the EU?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 05:06 PM

Richard Garvie and his party seem to make it their specialised subject: to be out of touch with public opinion.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 05:13 PM

To be fair, if Labour had taken advantage of the situation, they could have easily had been accused of putting ego before the country's well being. It would have been politically ruinous.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 26 2011, 01:28 PM

That's the big point, it would have been worse for Labour to vote for a referendum as it's not our policy. I've had an email back from a colleague who works as a member of staff for an MP and she has told me there was no Labour party whip. I've emailed back with the link you posted, but regardless of what happened I still can't see why Labour would insist on whipping the MP's on an issue that isn't really supported by the party. It's one of thos issues that I just don't get the party line, it's a bit like ID cards. Nobody REALLY wants ID cards, I certainly don't and I believe a vote on the EU is the same. If people want a vote, let them have one and let's draw a line under the issue once and for all (at least thirty years or so anyway!!!).

Just out of interest, could those who are against remaining in Europe give me some reasons as to why we should leave the EU? Just curious I guess.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 26 2011, 01:28 PM

That's the big point, it would have been worse for Labour to vote for a referendum as it's not our policy. I've had an email back from a colleague who works as a member of staff for an MP and she has told me there was no Labour party whip. I've emailed back with the link you posted, but regardless of what happened I still can't see why Labour would insist on whipping the MP's on an issue that isn't really supported by the party. It's one of thos issues that I just don't get the party line, it's a bit like ID cards. Nobody REALLY wants ID cards, I certainly don't and I believe a vote on the EU is the same. If people want a vote, let them have one and let's draw a line under the issue once and for all (at least thirty years or so anyway!!!).

Just out of interest, could those who are against remaining in Europe give me some reasons as to why we should leave the EU? Just curious I guess.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 26 2011, 01:45 PM

We've already explained why, silly legislation, daft rules, lots of money for no tangible benefit, forced to allow x amount of unskilled inter-eu migrants in..

And no-one is short of a cheap builder, let's be honest

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 26 2011, 01:56 PM

And the British have naturally been xenophobic. It's in our blood. An island race.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 26 2011, 02:07 PM

And her reply was...?


Perhaps the management were afraid of an embarrassing high number of ayes?

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 26 2011, 04:07 PM

Me, I'm all in favour of whipping MPs, and not just those who wouldn't mind.

If 'The Party' can demand they follow the party line, why can't the voters do the same with the community opinion one?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 26 2011, 07:58 PM

There are a lot of Little Englanders around. They don't need reasons. They seek out fish and chips when they go abroad, never bother to learn any of that country's language and just talk more slowly and loudly (in English) if Johnny Foreigner doesn't understand.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 26 2011, 08:28 PM

Hey...! Big Englander to you!

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 26 2011, 10:13 PM

Since you asked nicely;

1. Since we joined the EEC in 1973, we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. Over those 27 years, we have run a trade deficit with the other member states that averages out at £30 million per day.

2. In 2010 our gross contribution to the EU budget will be £14 billion. To put this figure in context, all the reductions announced by George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference would, collectively, save £7 billion a year across the whole of government spending.

3. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.

4. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.

5. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.

6. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.

7. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.

8. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.

9. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven.

10. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again.

But I digress.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 26 2011, 10:37 PM

When reading that list, I had the theme tune to the "bassets soft and chewy vitamins" advert. Oh how better it sounds if those above points were nullified.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 26 2011, 10:45 PM

These are points I have not conjured, but have read about.

Auditors unable to sign-off EU accounts.
EU agricultural trading restrictions prevent African nations from standing in its own two feet.
Less democratic, never been voted for.
Most people don't want it.
Top down, rather than bottom up policies.

Posted by: gel Oct 27 2011, 02:27 PM

And to cap it all today the EU demands another http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2054180/More-cash-EU-You-joking.html to run their corrupt/ unaccountable body whilst all around Europe, National Governments are making sweeping cuts!

Our share will be £834,000,000

So as I calculate it that's about 7% share, but there are 27 members of EU I recall, so as usual we're being stiffed.

No wonder majority who pay little/nonthing at all, are quite happy with EU spending as they only see benefits.

This article says it all:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2053465/EU-referendum-Britain-deception.html


No doubt Camerloon will continue to waste ever more of our taxes via foreign aid to corrupt regimes overseas.

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 05:41 PM

It's strange how racist abuse is acceptable as long as its directed against the English.

Jeff - If you have a point to make, make it. Resorting to name calling like 'Little Englander' and silly stereotypes shows either you have run out of arguments or are insufficiently intelligent to form one. Which is it?

Do not conflate being anti-EU with being xenophobic - it simply isn't true.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2011, 06:23 PM

Turning things round, why do you think we should stay a part of the EU?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2011, 06:45 PM

He didn't, he equated being anti-EU with being a little-Englander - a blinkered love of Englishness, not a hatred of non-Englishness. Can you make a plausible reasoned argument to refute that?

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 08:25 PM

I presume you've heard of Mark Twain. He gave some good advice on with who or who not to argue.

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 08:47 PM

Why do you think Little Englander is a racist term?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2011, 08:53 PM

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"? I expect you're right.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 27 2011, 08:53 PM

*sorry - bouncy button or something*

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 08:53 PM

Because it's a derogatory comment based on race. If Jeff had used another race (e.g. Jew or Pakistani) in such a way he would have been (quite rightly) condemned for it. There's no call for him to be abusive because people disagree with him.

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 08:56 PM

Is an Englander a particular race and if so which?

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 09:02 PM

Anything sensible to add?

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 09:05 PM

For the term Little Englander to be racist you're must be imping that Little Englanders are all one race.

I'm just asking which race you think Little Englander are and justify your use of the term "racist".

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 09:08 PM

That is a 'no' then.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2011, 09:09 PM

Pete might have a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 09:11 PM

Go on, give it a go, try to justify your use of the word "racist" in reference to the use of the term "Little Englander".

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 09:12 PM

Nope, can't see the word "racist" used there at all.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2011, 09:13 PM

The term does have a derogatory undertone, of not overtly racist.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2011, 09:14 PM

To use it to describe someone, is to be 'racist'.

I knew what he meant anyway.

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 09:17 PM

Indeed, derogatory but not racist given being a "Little Englander" is not dependent on race.Is "English" a race?

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 09:24 PM

Read my first reply to you.

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 09:31 PM

Second thoughts - we're hi-jacking this thread with pendantry. If you really want an answer on why I consider it racist, PM me.

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 09:31 PM

I did, you referred to "the English" as a race when surely "the English" are made up of many races?

Little Englander is a derogatory terms to describe a set of attitudes to many things, one ironically being race.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 27 2011, 10:05 PM

I see my tongue-in-cheek remark (and it was thus) has raised some hackles Leaving aside the undoubted intelligence of the contributors to this forum who are anti-EU for whatever reason, there are an awful lot out there who are not and who fit into the category I outlined. They would unthinkingly vote against the EU purely because anything beyond these shores is full of "nasty foreigners" trying to impose their foreign ways on them.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2011, 10:10 PM

In a twisted kind of way, if you were to remove the word nasty from the passage, it would seem like a legitimate reason to me.

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 27 2011, 10:26 PM

OK, accepted it was tongue-in-cheek.

I don't think you need worry to much about those who consider foreigners 'nasty' as they probably will not be bothered to vote in a EU referendum in any numbers.

Many other people have, however, seen the effects of such policies as the unification of the currency in places like Spain, Greece and Ireland. Many have experience in dealing with European legislation through work and others have bothered to find out about the performance and mechanisms of the EU and its institutions. These are the people who are anti-EU and who will be out to vote.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 28 2011, 08:21 AM

It was, but that wasn't an apology. To suggest that the epithet I used, describing a subset of the nationality of which I am part, was racist was daft (and somewhat offensive). Pejorative yes, racist in no shape or form. Moving on...

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 28 2011, 03:20 PM

I didn't mistake your back-tracking for an apology.

You may consider it daft, but I do not believe it is daft to confront racism.
Your initial comment was a pejorative term based on nationality, followed by a nasty caricature, which makes it a racist and offensive remark. You do not seem to have the grace or guts to apologise.

Still as you say, moving on…

I notice you didn’t advance any argument as to why we should remain in the EU.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 28 2011, 03:50 PM

It's not racist.

Move along before I force you to harvest my grain for no money.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Oct 28 2011, 09:52 PM

Racism is defined by ethnicity; not nationality.

Hating Caucasians is racist; hating the English is just normal

Posted by: user23 Oct 28 2011, 09:57 PM

Indeed, and as such the term "Little Englander" cannot be racist.

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 28 2011, 10:47 PM

You tell yourself that. I supose, from your logic, you do not consider the term 'P@ki' racist either.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 28 2011, 10:51 PM

*exhales massively and applys the palm of my hand to my face*.

Not.

Racist.

On the subject of racism;

Posted by: Pete 'o Newbury Oct 28 2011, 11:12 PM

Whose word should we take take for it? Yours or the United Nations?



Nice picture of Terry BTW

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2011, 11:13 PM

On Question Time last night David Dimbleby said all parties were whipped and it was not contradicted.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2011, 11:21 PM

Denying an English man a job because you believe they are not as good as Scottish men is being racist, so I would argue that you are wrong. Ethnicity and nationality can mean the same thing.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 29 2011, 12:16 AM

Anything can be classed as racist if you try to find things which are racism; hence, what you look for, you will find. I think most of us would refer to a shop run by people of an Indian nature a "p@ki shop". No racism intended, but some may see it as that.

I could say it's racist that Jack Bauer got shafted by the American and Russian governments at the end of season 8, but it wasn't really.

Racism is when people of a certain colour, belief or whatever, are treated unfairly in a negative manner, holocausts, and all that. Which is what your handily copied and pasted link shows. but; Little englander etc isn't racist, it's just a phrase people use.

You seem a bit too PC. That could either stand for police constable (emphasis on constable) or politically correct. I included both variations so you wouldn't call me racist and report me to the U.N.

either way it's people like you for our children not being able to sing "baa baa black sheep" in school anymore.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 12:31 AM

Yes, life was a lot more wholesome when we were all chauvinists!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 11:23 AM

The response I got back was that Ed simply asked all MP's to vote against, but there was no whip. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) voted for a referendum, and he's Labour.

Sorry I've not answered your question about why we should be in the EU, I wanted to provide you with a list of what is good and I just haven't had time to get it together. At the same time though, I will try and supply you with a list of what needs to be changed etc., because although I ultimately think we are better in than out, I still believe we need big changes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 11:52 AM

Well I have compelling evidence that isn't true.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2011, 02:41 PM

most of us would refer to a shop run by people of an Indian nature a "p@ki shop

Would we?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 29 2011, 02:44 PM

No, I'd like to think most of us wouldn't.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 29 2011, 04:08 PM

Depends on the age group.

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2011, 04:19 PM

I'm fairly sure most wouldn't.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 06:43 PM

To be honest; many did (and if you're over 40 and you say your friends never used the words, you are lying; just like going for a Chinky is short for a Chinese takaway). These colloquial phrases, were slang (maybe euphemisms). Racism wasn't a part of it. It was never used to condescend, merely to differentiate those shops that closed when you needed them (in the evening), and those that didn't. Now we have 24/6 and a bit shopping, the need to describe such a shop has gone.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 30 2011, 08:39 PM

It, along with other words and phrases were of the time, I for instance uses to collect gollywog badges, somehow seen as 'racist' now (don't ask me, totally mad in my view)

Posted by: JeffG Oct 31 2011, 12:09 PM

The word "P@ki" is a fairly modern word used exclusively as a racist slur. I would never think of it being used otherwise. I never heard it when I was younger, but that was when Asians didn't own corner shops and were mainly confined to restaurants, and perhaps inner cities. We never thought twice about going for a Chinky Nosh, however.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2011, 12:20 PM

I'd just like to add, I am not condoning the use, only explaining how it felt back then. Saying P... Shop wasn't meant to be condensing, although I know using the word usually is a pejorative term. Not least because many were not from Pakistan. I certainly wouldn't want to use the word today.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 31 2011, 12:27 PM

Isn't it amazing that we are all afraid to use a term that in itself is just a slang word to describe a certain ethnicity.
Are we also going to shy away from terms such as Ausie, Kiwi, Scouser etc.
What a fuss about nothing. People should be a little less focused on being determined to be offended at every opportunity and treat such slang terms as exactly what they are.

Posted by: NORTHENDER Oct 31 2011, 12:30 PM

I have several friends that are black Afro-Americans that I play golf with
from time to time. To a man (and woman) they refer to each other as n*****s.
EG if one of them hole a long putt out you will hear one or the other of them
say "you are one lucky ****** SOB" accompanied by much laughter.
Now I have heard that and others phrases that have the forbidden word in it on
many occasions, so why is it so bad when a white person say it. Just for the record
I would never use it, and it makes me cringe when they do.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 31 2011, 12:37 PM

Praise the lord someone has some common sense.



It's a black-person thing. Just how you would joke about with your friends (If you have friends and/or if you joke about with them).

I call my mates gay, fat, stupid, ugly, a whole assortment of swearwords, difference is the context and how it's meant, same with these black people.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 31 2011, 01:59 PM

In the same context, that's ok if you're gay, fat, stupid and ugly too, I suppose.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 31 2011, 02:13 PM

Well there's nothing wrong with being factual. I am fat, stupid and ugly, but I'm only gay on weekends when I turn into Jannine.

(I made up that last part).

Posted by: blackdog Oct 31 2011, 06:14 PM

The problem is that is a misuse of a word that describes a nationality and, essentially a religious persuasion, and is used to describe people from different countries and different religions. Then you might consider that India and Pakistan have been in a state close to war since 1947. It's as if you were running a shop in, say, Brazil during the Second World War and all European shops were referred to as Kraut shops.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 31 2011, 07:33 PM

Well put ethnic Dog!

Posted by: Andy1 Oct 31 2011, 07:33 PM

Unfortunately an awful lot do

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2011, 07:46 PM

I have had a similar opinion, but this essay did provoke a thought in me that made think again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 1 2011, 08:31 AM

I think that calling people names is something that has been going on for years and I don't think that many have been actually harmed by that alone. Present day ethnic groups have learned to use their minority status as a political weapon to put their competitors and critics in on the back foot in any dealings with them and in fact have used it as a positive advantage in many situations.
Real ethnic persecution should not be tolerated in any situation however calling each other names is not something I can get excited about.
Signed "Lofty"

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 08:39 AM

I agree about the 'sticks and stones' point, but the payground is where prejudice starts. I remember hearing Lenny Henry once explain how, as a child, he would dread Jim Davidson (I think it was) being on TV, as the following day, he knew he would be in for a torrent of teasing and abuse. I'd imagine he wasn't the only one.

I think that it is a part of the problem that people consider it harmless banter. I suspect those people are rarely on the receiving end.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 1 2011, 09:03 AM

Of course there will always be cases such as you describe and persistent harrassment of anyone for any reason should be acted against however I feel that inacting laws that effectively contradict a persons right in this country to free speech is a step too far and it can be used by some ethnic groups as an opportunity to manipulate the laws of this country to their advantage.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 10:15 AM

I sure you are right, and I have seen evidence of this myself. I am also inclined to resent new laws of behaviour, so to speak, but some might say that it is a small price to pay to have a society that now considers it rude, or wrong to use such language. I think freedom of speech carries with it responsibilities, and perhaps a loss of 'right' to use such language isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 1 2011, 10:24 AM

It concerns me greatly when laws are enacted to effectively control the language of a mindless minority but the same laws infringe the rights of free speech for the more tolerant majority.

On another track and more in line with the EU Referendum theme I see that the Greek people are effectively being granted the opportunity to vote for the acceptance of a financial bail-out from other EU memebrs or if they say "No" the strong possibility of leaving the EU.
A choice that the people of the UK should be allowed if the majority want it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 10:59 AM

What use does the 'tolerant majority' have with the language of bigotry and ignorance?


I think the EU could do with more democracy, but the problem is, there are an awful lot of people who would be eligible to vote that can't even walk and chew gum at the same time, and they would be asked to decide our economic future.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 1 2011, 11:06 AM

Yes, I understand that but where will that censorship end?


That is democracy I'm afraid. I guess a similar comment was made when women were given the vote.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 11:10 AM

I agree there, it is now looking at religion.


I hesitate to say, but democracy is not always the best solution and people don't always know what is best for them. Suffrage for women was inevitable in a civilised society where there was no coherent reason to deny them access, where as, there is a good reason to stop the ignorant making choices they have no understanding of.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 1 2011, 11:20 AM

Exactly my point. It is very concerning the controls that are being applied.

I understand what you are saying but it is inconceivable that you can legislate against peoples ability to make the "correct" choice in a referendum that suits a certain group and if you follow your line you would stop the same people voting in a general, or even local election.
In a true democracy all of the people have a voice and it is very dangerous to revoke that right.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 1 2011, 02:36 PM

With great power comes great responsibility. So just because you have free speech does not mean you can go around calling black people Gollywogs or something. That wouldn't wash. However on the opposite side of the coin, how many times has a perp of a crime used their race, be it immigrant, black, fat, jewish, whatever, as a way to "get off" being treated for what they are; a criminal? There are so many legislative pieces regarding how you must treat people who are "not-white"..

Aside from how something like 80% of random searches on people were on black and asian people, but oh well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. People saying "oh it's racist" are missing a fact that 80% of the knife crime in London (murders, attacks, etc) are either performed on or performed by ethnic minorities, in this case black people. So searching them more often isn't racist, it's statistics.