Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Europe - In or Out

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 20 2016, 03:56 PM

Europe - In or Out - Straw Poll

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 20 2016, 06:58 PM

Out.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 20 2016, 07:29 PM

I will vote 'Out', but I suspect the country will vote 'In'

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 20 2016, 07:38 PM

I'm out. Not because of immigration. I just like to think of us as an independent nation who can make laws
that are not overruled.

The problem with being in the "out" camp is that you are instantly branded as racist by small minded people.

Now we'll get 3 months of "***" from both camps scaremongering... angry.gif

Out leads 3-0 amongst the forumisters.




Posted by: x2lls Feb 20 2016, 09:23 PM

Out

Posted by: On the edge Feb 20 2016, 09:24 PM

Out. The negotiations didn't address the real issue so didn't deliver a real solution.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 20 2016, 11:08 PM

Out foul spot. Out, sooner the better. Put the money we give in subsidies towards schools and hospitals.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 20 2016, 11:43 PM

The biggest 'Out' problem I see is the possibility of being bullied in trade wars.

Posted by: newres Feb 21 2016, 05:08 AM

In.

I saw a "status" being shared on Facebook blaming the EU for the not being able to sort out the "Syria/Libya migrant" problem, talking about more trade with the U.S. and completely failing to see the irony of the the EU being left to clean up the mess that was caused by the US with the help of the UK.

I dislike nationalisn.

I like the balance and stability we get from having so many states of all political persuasions having an input into how are laws are interpreted/framed.

And I like the fact that Europe (the EU bit) has been at peace since its inception.

Posted by: nerc Feb 21 2016, 06:17 AM

out

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 21 2016, 06:55 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 20 2016, 11:08 PM) *
Out foul spot...

Curious that you should (mis)quote the febrile gibberings of a delusional despot to support your desire for the UK to leave the UK.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2016, 07:58 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 20 2016, 11:43 PM) *
The biggest 'Out' problem I see is the possibility of being bullied in trade wars.


Actually, that pretty much sums it up for me, ironically the other way. I'd argue our commerce has been damaged since we joined, more by the subtle actions of the senior EU member states. For me, out might, just might, mean that our bankers are effectively forced to invest far more in our own industries.

Whatever the vote, I don't think day 2 will be 'carry on as normal' - even for a yes, so I'd like to see a realistic strategy from both sides outlining where they think we'd be going next.

Anyway, it's a pretty interesting point AndyC!

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2016, 08:02 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 21 2016, 05:08 AM) *
In.

I saw a "status" being shared on Facebook blaming the EU for the not being able to sort out the "Syria/Libya migrant" problem, talking about more trade with the U.S. and completely failing to see the irony of the the EU being left to clean up the mess that was caused by the US with the help of the UK.

I dislike nationalisn.

I like the balance and stability we get from having so many states of all political persuasions having an input into how are laws are interpreted/framed.

And I like the fact that Europe (the EU bit) has been at peace since its inception.


All perfectly valid - this logically leads to closer integration, which David Cameron has been keen to rule out. Nonetheless that might not have been such a wise move as he imagined. Whatever anyone says, its worked for the US.

Posted by: HJD Feb 21 2016, 10:29 AM

Out.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 21 2016, 12:51 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Feb 21 2016, 05:08 AM) *
In.

I saw a "status" being shared on Facebook blaming the EU for the not being able to sort out the "Syria/Libya migrant" problem, talking about more trade with the U.S. and completely failing to see the irony of the the EU being left to clean up the mess that was caused by the US with the help of the UK.

I dislike nationalisn.

I like the balance and stability we get from having so many states of all political persuasions having an input into how are laws are interpreted/framed.

And I like the fact that Europe (the EU bit) has been at peace since its inception.


In - for the above reasons and because I am scared what will happen with a Tory government unfettered by the reasonableness of many EU constraints. When it comes down to it I trust EU bureaucrats more than UK politicians.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 21 2016, 01:12 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 21 2016, 06:55 AM) *
Curious that you should (mis)quote the febrile gibberings of a delusional despot to support your desire for the UK to leave the UK.

While you, apparently spout your own! laugh.gif

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2016, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 21 2016, 12:51 PM) *
In - for the above reasons and because I am scared what will happen with a Tory government unfettered by the reasonableness of many EU constraints. When it comes down to it I trust EU bureaucrats more than UK politicians.


Interesting that; it was a Tory Government that took us in. I'd certainly not disagree with your observations about the EU bureaucrats; the trouble is, much of what they come up with is deflected or subverted by the nation states who (like us) are concerned only with their own parochial national interest.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2016, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 21 2016, 12:51 PM) *
In - for the above reasons and because I am scared what will happen with a Tory government unfettered by the reasonableness of many EU constraints. When it comes down to it I trust EU bureaucrats more than UK politicians.

At least we get the opportunity to change a Tory government every few years.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 21 2016, 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 21 2016, 03:06 PM) *
At least we get the opportunity to change a Tory government every few years.

How much of an opportunity? The boundary changes will ensure they are in power for another 20 years unless a miracle happens.

And what's the alternative? Give me EU bureaucrats over any politicians (any party, any country).

I would also be happy to join a United States of Europe - my only objection to the Euro is the absurdity of one currency, multiple economies.


Posted by: Cognosco Feb 21 2016, 04:14 PM

It's out for me.

I don't like the way European decisions are made by unelected bureaucrats and European courts overides Uk courts.
I also believe with the migrant crisis that the EU is going pear shape anyhow? unsure.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2016, 04:30 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 21 2016, 04:03 PM) *
How much of an opportunity? The boundary changes will ensure they are in power for another 20 years unless a miracle happens.

And what's the alternative? Give me EU bureaucrats over any politicians (any party, any country).

I would also be happy to join a United States of Europe - my only objection to the Euro is the absurdity of one currency, multiple economies.

The point is, if a sufficient amount of people wish it, then they can be removed. With Europe in control we have no mechanism as a country to reject their policies.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2016, 04:35 PM

I would be more in favour of a EU light, but to decide on the current one I have to say: 'Non'.

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2016, 05:42 PM

In.

One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.


Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 05:42 PM) *
In.

One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.



This is exactly the sort of c**p that gets my goat.
Don't vote out because 2 people you don't like are in favour of out.
So..... if these people were for "in" I guess you'd vote "out"??? laugh.gif

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 21 2016, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 05:42 PM) *
In.

One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.



Well you have confirmed I have chosen correctly by voting out if WBC spokesperson want's to stay in. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2016, 07:01 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 21 2016, 06:00 PM) *
This is exactly the sort of c**p that gets my goat.
Don't vote out because 2 people you don't like are in favour of out.
So..... if these people were for "in" I guess you'd vote "out"??? laugh.gif
Firstly they'd never be "in", it's not in their interests, secondly it's not just two, the Out roster including Michael Gove, Frank Field, Boris Jonhson and Jacob Rees-Mogg looks like a collection of the most eccentric politicians in the UK.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 07:16 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 07:01 PM) *
Firstly they'd never be "in", it's not in their interests, secondly it's not just two, the Out roster including Michael Gove, Frank Field, Boris Jonhson and Jacob Rees-Mogg looks like a collection of the most eccentric politicians in the UK.


Define "Eccentric"? You are obviously a bigot. Intolerant of other peoples views that don't conform to your own. biggrin.gif

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2016, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 07:01 PM) *
Firstly they'd never be "in", it's not in their interests, secondly it's not just two, the Out roster including Michael Gove, Frank Field, Boris Jonhson and Jacob Rees-Mogg looks like a collection of the most eccentric politicians in the UK.


Throughout political history the big intellects in each party have never been popular;zi suppose because they don't court the cause of the moment. What is interesting is that these big thinkers are in the out camp. Ironically, they are also old liberals - small government, so would necessarily upset people who believe in a collective centrist approach to all things.

The concept of a common market (and if you think about it, that inevitably means eventual integration) is great in theory but experience demonstrates it simply doesn't work in practice.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 08:01 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 21 2016, 07:56 PM) *
Throughout political history the big intellects in each party have never been popular;zi suppose because they don't court the cause of the moment. What is interesting is that these big thinkers are in the out camp. Ironically, they are also old liberals - small government, so would necessarily upset people who believe in a collective centrist approach to all things.

The concept of a common market (and if you think about it, that inevitably means eventual integration) is great in theory but experience demonstrates it simply doesn't work in practice.


Exactly. Nothing more to add.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 21 2016, 08:09 PM

I'm undecided. I don't particularly like the the concept of a trade association, mush less a federal Europe, and I would sooner Blighty was a sovereign state with a small government and that British companies were free to buy and sell stuff with whoever they liked. I don't like the degree to which the state - both European and domestic, has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives when the role of the state should be nothing more than to provide for the peace and protection. It's not just Europe, but government at every level is self-serving and self-absorbed. However, I'm inclined to vote in because I really don't like the motivation behind some of the outers.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 21 2016, 08:09 PM) *
I'm undecided. I don't particularly like the the concept of a trade association, mush less a federal Europe, and I would sooner Blighty was a sovereign state with a small government and that British companies were free to buy and sell stuff with whoever they liked. I don't like the degree to which the state - both European and domestic, has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives when the role of the state should be nothing more than to provide for the peace and protection. It's not just Europe, but government at every level is self-serving and self-absorbed. However, I'm inclined to vote in because I really don't like the motivation behind some of the outers.


So you'd vote in not because that is what you believe but because of other peoples "motives"
Again the insinuation is that all "outers" have a hidden agenda.

99.9% don't. Why change your vote because of 0.01% of idiots??

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2016, 08:40 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 21 2016, 07:16 PM) *
Define "Eccentric"? You are obviously a bigot. Intolerant of other peoples views that don't conform to your own.
I think I might need me to define both "Eccentric" and "Bigot" to you, before you throw around any more insults at people who don't agree with you.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 21 2016, 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 21 2016, 08:09 PM) *
I'm undecided. I don't particularly like the the concept of a trade association, mush less a federal Europe, and I would sooner Blighty was a sovereign state with a small government and that British companies were free to buy and sell stuff with whoever they liked. I don't like the degree to which the state - both European and domestic, has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives when the role of the state should be nothing more than to provide for the peace and protection. It's not just Europe, but government at every level is self-serving and self-absorbed. However, I'm inclined to vote in because I really don't like the motivation behind some of the outers.

In that case, Comrade Corbyn wants in so we have to vote out. Same rationale.

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2016, 08:47 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 21 2016, 07:56 PM) *
Throughout political history the big intellects in each party have never been popular;zi suppose because they don't court the cause of the moment. What is interesting is that these big thinkers are in the out camp. Ironically, they are also old liberals - small government, so would necessarily upset people who believe in a collective centrist approach to all things.

The concept of a common market (and if you think about it, that inevitably means eventual integration) is great in theory but experience demonstrates it simply doesn't work in practice.
Do you consider George Galloway and Nigel Farage "big intellects"?

https://www.rt.com/shows/sputnik/332357-eu-referendum-brexit-campaign/#.Vr9x5aGmbMV.twitter.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 08:40 PM) *
I think I might need to define both "Eccentric" and "Bigot" to you, before you throw around any more insults at people who don't agree with you.


laugh.gif
laugh.gif

Please do.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 21 2016, 08:48 PM

1st minister wants out of GT Britain but wants to stay in EU? How does that work?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 21 2016, 08:50 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 08:47 PM) *
Do you consider George Galloway and Nigel Farage "big intellects"?

https://www.rt.com/shows/sputnik/332357-eu-referendum-brexit-campaign/#.Vr9x5aGmbMV.twitter.

Ah, yes, but, if we vote out what will UKIP have left in the toybox?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 21 2016, 08:48 PM) *
1st minister wants out of GT Britain but wants to stay in EU? How does that work?


This could be a great thing. We vote out. Scots vote in. Scots get a new referendum. This time they grasp the thistle and leave.

If they do we'll have to put some border controls in to stop them from leaving and coming down south when they realise that they are bankrupt.


Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 21 2016, 08:54 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 21 2016, 08:51 PM) *
This could be a great thing. We vote out. Scots vote in. Scots get a new referendum. This time they grasp the thistle and leave.

If they do we'll have to put some border controls in to stop them from leaving and coming down south when they realise that they are bankrupt.

I giggle every time I look at the price of Brent crude!

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2016, 08:56 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 21 2016, 08:50 PM) *
Ah, yes, but, if we vote out what will UKIP have left in the toybox?
One thing's for sure, they'll lose http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30486154.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 08:59 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 08:56 PM) *
One thing's for sure, they'll lose http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30486154.


Good. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 21 2016, 09:02 PM

Has anyone noticed how most keyboard warriors struggle for free thought but rely on links to newspaper articles and streams.

Is this because they cannot articulate in words what they believe in? Or is it just lazy?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2016, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 08:47 PM) *
Do you consider George Galloway and Nigel Farage "big intellects"?

https://www.rt.com/shows/sputnik/332357-eu-referendum-brexit-campaign/#.Vr9x5aGmbMV.twitter.


No, of course not; that's why I didn't mention them.

It's really sad that even at this early stage of the campaign, some haven't the intellectual capability to rise above personal slight and insult. That's what damages democracy.

That goes for both sides and includes all the usual mindless deliberate misunderstanding and other tricks that appear when real responses are difficult.

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2016, 09:14 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 21 2016, 09:04 PM) *
No, of course not; that's why I didn't mention them.

It's really sad that even at this early stage of the campaign, some haven't the intellectual capability to rise above personal slight and insult. That's what damages democracy.

That goes for both sides and includes all the usual mindless deliberate misunderstanding and other tricks that appear when real responses are difficult.
Indeed, I've already been called a bigot for expressing my views, for example.

I prefer this approach, https://medium.com/idea-of-europe/why-michael-gove-is-wrong-on-europe-479b50c5f23b#.8pdvtomzi.

Of course, some will say https://twitter.com/davidclewis/status/588978663535828993.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2016, 09:17 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 08:56 PM) *
One thing's for sure, they'll lose http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30486154.


I shouldn't think that would surprise many, least of all UKIP. Whatever anyone thinks of his views, David Cameron has done exactly what he said he'd do at the election. A negotiation, a referendum and letting Ministers have their heads - that was his response to UKIP and so far it's worked.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2016, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 09:14 PM) *
Indeed, I've already been called a bigot for expressing my views, for example.

I prefer this approach, https://medium.com/idea-of-europe/why-michael-gove-is-wrong-on-europe-479b50c5f23b#.8pdvtomzi.

Of course, some will say https://twitter.com/davidclewis/status/588978663535828993.


Good at least you are looking. Nonetheless, the debunking article contains very few grounded facts and much information of doubtful provenance. Not entirely unexpected of course. Ironic really, I have a couple of French colleagues who firmly believe a lot of their present and very serious troubles are down to EC rules. French interpretation maybe, but then that's our problem with the rules too! As to statistics and indeed other descriptors, the politics of spin has so abused the over the years, it's surprising anyone takes them other than with a massive pinch of salt.

The key reason why I'd say 'no' today is actually down to age. I was at work when we had the first referendum. Sure, the Country's economic performance was dire, but, it was clear even then that in reality, it was actually caused by short term financing and abysmal management. Europe hasn't actually added much.

As for the regulations, even arch enthusiast Ken Clarke admitted he'd never read the regulations and that we should just sign and work it out as we go along.

Again, it's a cruel irony that it was Tory Ted Heath who took us in. The same PM who presided over the smash up of Local Government in the UK.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2016, 10:11 PM

While I would vote 'No' now, I stand to be corrected; I am not devoted to an exit. Indeed, a 'No' may not necessarily mean autonomy anyway; once we have renegotiated new deals. Negotiating means compromise so we may end up back to where we were anyway.

And I take Blackdog's point on a permanent Tory government, despite only polling ~37%. I cannot bear to think of a life of endless Monster Raving Tories and their subhuman supporters.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 21 2016, 10:28 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 21 2016, 08:50 PM) *
Ah, yes, but, if we vote out what will UKIP have left in the toybox?


You don't carry on with a war when victory or defeat has been declared.
They have already achieved their objective, a referendum.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 21 2016, 11:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 21 2016, 06:55 AM) *
Curious that you should (mis)quote the febrile gibberings of a delusional despot to support your desire for the UK to leave the UK.

Err? Lady Macbeth? And if I remember the words are Shakespeare's anyway Lady macbeth is merely a character in a play. I'm puzzled. Oh unless you believe Milady was a real person? That could explain your difficulty in your difficulty in telling the difference between real life and fantasy biggrin.gif Would also go part way to explaining why you believe in Jeremy laugh.gif

Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.--**** is murky!--Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power to
account?--Yet who would have thought the old man
to have had so much blood in him."

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 21 2016, 11:25 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Feb 21 2016, 10:28 PM) *
You don't carry on with a war when victory or defeat has been declared.
They have already achieved their objective, a referendum.

True, but, I wonder whether that's all there is. If so why racist? Puzzled much I am!

Posted by: x2lls Feb 22 2016, 12:09 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Feb 21 2016, 11:25 PM) *
True, but, I wonder whether that's all there is. If so why racist? Puzzled much I am!



Give it a rest, there is no racist policy. That is a spin tactic by swivel eyed liberals (you know who, them wot don't read the daily wail/hail). An urban myth with no evidence.

If the UKIP party are racist, why is Nigel consistently given media time by the BBC and other outlets. Why has he been provided with his own newspaper columns and radio appearances?
Why did he appear on TV with the couple who partake in gogglebox?

If you wonder what else there is, perhaps you should take the time to look, you'd find nothing to back up that twaddle.

Someone asked on here why some post links to backup their opinions. I provide some new reading for you.
Here are two links which state facts, not hearsay/rumor and 'I will say that cos I don't want to stand out'. That sounds familiar.

http://www.ukip.org/the_constitution
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/253/attachments/original/1448534213/Official_UKIP_Rules_of_Procedure_251115.pdf?1448534213

Why is it that when a UKIP member causes 'outrage' by offering stupid opinions in isolation, it is reported as UKIP policy? Whenever that happens they get kicked out but are still associated with UKIP policy. So convenient to slur a genuine party that speaks for many of us who were cheated of representation by a corrupt voting system which allowed over four million people not to be represented.









Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2016, 12:56 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Feb 22 2016, 12:09 AM) *
Why is it that when a UKIP member causes 'outrage' by offering stupid opinions in isolation, it is reported as UKIP policy? Whenever that happens they get kicked out but are still associated with UKIP policy. So convenient to slur a genuine party that speaks for many of us who were cheated of representation by a corrupt voting system which allowed over four million people not to be represented.

The concern is that one is worried about a person having those views being in a position of power. All parties to the left of UKIP will have racists, probably soft racists, but the thought is that UKIP might have more than most.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 22 2016, 01:16 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2016, 12:56 AM) *
The concern is that one is worried about a person having those views being in a position of power. All parties to the left of UKIP will have racists, probably soft racists, but the thought is that UKIP might have more than most.

Ohh, Ohh, and Tories dressed as Nazi's

Posted by: x2lls Feb 22 2016, 01:19 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2016, 12:56 AM) *
The concern is that one is worried about a person having those views being in a position of power. All parties to the left of UKIP will have racists, probably soft racists, but the thought is that UKIP might have more than most.

I thought racists were to the right?

Your reply does not address the points I made.

Also, have you noticed the distinct lack of HYS on the BBC website?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2016, 01:20 AM

What I'd like to know is why people would want out or in. I have little I can list, but I'm an example of why democracy fails, as I am saying 'Out' without a sound reason; an ignorant voter who just wants to feel the excitement of sticking one up the establishment.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2016, 01:27 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Feb 22 2016, 01:19 AM) *
I thought racists were to the right?

They can be anywhere; racism is human trait. Parties to the left of UKIP, like the Monster Raving Tories, are bound to have racists amongst their fold. Labour certainly do as I believe Diane Abbot has demonstrated as such.

QUOTE (x2lls @ Feb 22 2016, 01:19 AM) *
Your reply does not address the points I made.

I never intend to, but I agree officially UKIP in policy are not obviously racist, but I believe UKIP are more likely to have racist members than center ground parties.

QUOTE (x2lls @ Feb 22 2016, 01:19 AM) *
Also, have you noticed the distinct lack of HYS on the BBC website?

No I haven't.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2016, 07:55 AM

UKIP simply suffers from our present deliberate misuse of emotive words. They are not racist, they are isolationist. That's not an unreasonable position; in fact, probably a good many of us feel the same way.

For me, prior to our joining the EU, we grew a much greater percentage of our food, we had an industrial and manufacturing base, we took pride in our local differences. We could see responsible career paths, with a stable livelihoods continuing for our children

Our island was already a 'single market which had embraced ever further union'. Even then, keeping our separate nation states together wasn't easy and was facing strident calls to separate. At least we had a stable single currency and a single language.

If we had troubles on our small scale; what chance Europe?




Note - when the strident voices tell you that UK isn't big enough to have sustained its own mass car and motorcycle manufacturing firms, world size computing firms, food and confectionary firms. etc.etc. simply ask how Japan has managed. (Of course, it was all the fault of the trades unions....!!)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2016, 07:57 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2016, 01:27 AM) *
... I agree officially UKIP in policy are not obviously racist...

The issue for me is that UKIP attracts intolerant illiberal reactionary totalitarian xenophobes, and some of them will likely be racists too, but it's not true to say that UKIP is a racist party.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2016, 07:59 AM

I'd also say that a strong case can be made to leave the EU, but that UKIP has done a really bad job of articulating that argument and has thoroughly poisoned the debate with their brand of ultra-conservative weirdness which has conflated the politically neutral question of EU membership with a whole raft of inflammatory right-wing baggage.

Posted by: James_Trinder Feb 22 2016, 02:01 PM

Got to be in. We do too much trade with the rest of Europe and anybody who is currently suggesting with certainty that leaving the EU will have absolutely no effect on this has their head in the clouds.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 22 2016, 03:13 PM

QUOTE (James_Trinder @ Feb 22 2016, 02:01 PM) *
Got to be in. We do too much trade with the rest of Europe and anybody who is currently suggesting with certainty that leaving the EU will have absolutely no effect on this has their head in the clouds.

I doubt anyone is saying it will have absolutely no effect; however, can you explain why 'Out' would put our trade with the EU in jeopardy?

Posted by: James_Trinder Feb 22 2016, 04:09 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2016, 03:13 PM) *
I doubt anyone is saying it will have absolutely no effect; however, can you explain why 'Out' would put our trade with the EU in jeopardy?


Yes, because any company would implicitly have the backing of their government to screw us over at every possible opportunity.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2016, 04:31 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 22 2016, 03:13 PM) *
I doubt anyone is saying it will have absolutely no effect; however, can you explain why 'Out' would put our trade with the EU in jeopardy?

I think that's a question that deserves a thorough answer. I see plenty of goods from plenty of non-European countries, so do these countries stop exporting to us because we're no longer in Europe, and if non-European countries can export to Europe won't Blighty be free to export its good to Europe just as easily if it leaves the EU?

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 22 2016, 04:57 PM

Out.

Looks like it may be the way we're going if the http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/sondaggi/poll/17066/Do-you-want-Britain-to-leave.html is anything to go by.
But don't speak too soon eh as the "out" vote has decreased from 65% from last week!
The current 10% waiting for Cameron should now have decided.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2016, 05:12 PM

Maybe some of those voting out can say a bit more about what they're expecting to improve. A return of bendy bananas? The abandonment of SI and a reimposition of Imperial units? Repeal of the Human Rights Act and a resumption of cruel and unusual punishments, imprisonment without trial, and the end of free speech and freedom of association?

Posted by: GMR Feb 22 2016, 05:21 PM

I will vote out, but I think the country will vote in. However, it won't be the end of the matter. Say 48% are out, this alone will split the country and every time there is a problem those who voted out will point the finger at Cameron and the "yes" voters. Whatever way you look at it, it is a nail in the coffin of Europe. Like the Scottish referendum (which strengthened SNP), this referendum will strengthen UKIP.

Posted by: GMR Feb 22 2016, 05:23 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 21 2016, 05:42 PM) *
In. One look the collection of swivel eyed and leftie loons leading the Out campaign (some of whom would like to see us more closely aligned with Russia if we leave the EU) should tell you everything you need to know.





This is a stupid comment. There are likes and dislikes on both sides, and beside, are you saying your will allow "names" to persuade you which way to vote?


Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2016, 05:48 PM

QUOTE (James_Trinder @ Feb 22 2016, 04:09 PM) *
Yes, because any company would implicitly have the backing of their government to screw us over at every possible opportunity.


Rather like the French Government does right now you mean? Ever heard of EdF?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2016, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2016, 05:12 PM) *
Maybe some of those voting out can say a bit more about what they're expecting to improve. A return of bendy bananas? The abandonment of SI and a reimposition of Imperial units? Repeal of the Human Rights Act and a resumption of cruel and unusual punishments, imprisonment without trial, and the end of free speech and freedom of association?


That's an interesting one. Under existing English common law at least, if we came out, the existing directives we've signed up to are, by the legislation we enacted when we first joined enshrined in our own law, so we'd need some legislation to repeal and change all that we didn't like. A long and onerous task.

For me, the only immediate improvement would be the cost and bureaucratic effort reduction. It's the longer term win that gets my vote; winning new markets and restoring soup to nuts ownership of UK business.

We also exit the agricultural policy, so medium term ought to see less food imports and our own agriculture making a big come back.

It's possible, and will doubtless be painful, but get it right and our national respect is back, this time not based on an Empire.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 22 2016, 07:25 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 22 2016, 05:57 PM) *
That's an interesting one. Under existing English common law at least, if we came out, the existing directives we've signed up to are, by the legislation we enacted when we first joined enshrined in our own law, so we'd need some legislation to repeal and change all that we didn't like. A long and onerous task.

Not sure about that. Take for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), a piece of legislation with which I have some familiarity that incorporates into English law the European Union Directive 93/13/EEC. UTCCR is English Law right enough, but it is not primary legislation, so not an act of parliament, but rather it is secondary legislation and the Statutory Instrument that incorporates 93/13/EEC is made under a power of the 1972 European Communities Act, and that's going to be true for quite a bit of legislation. So if we leave the EU I'm assuming that there will need to be some repeal of the 1972 Act, and while tht might not necessarily mean the power to mke secondary legislation gets repealed, it's not immediately obvious that there won't be some difficulty. I'm not saying that the difficulty should prevent us from withdrawing from the Union, but it's a consideration given that the majority of the outers will jump at the chance of purging English Law of all taints of foreigness (like habeas corpus for example - doesn't even have an English name - how foreign is that!).

Posted by: On the edge Feb 22 2016, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2016, 07:25 PM) *
Not sure about that. Take for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), a piece of legislation with which I have some familiarity that incorporates into English law the European Union Directive 93/13/EEC. UTCCR is English Law right enough, but it is not primary legislation, so not an act of parliament, but rather it is secondary legislation and the Statutory Instrument that incorporates 93/13/EEC is made under a power of the 1972 European Communities Act, and that's going to be true for quite a bit of legislation. So if we leave the EU I'm assuming that there will need to be some repeal of the 1972 Act, and while tht might not necessarily mean the power to mke secondary legislation gets repealed, it's not immediately obvious that there won't be some difficulty. I'm not saying that the difficulty should prevent us from withdrawing from the Union, but it's a consideration given that the majority of the outers will jump at the chance of purging English Law of all taints of foreigness (like habeas corpus for example - doesn't even have an English name - how foreign is that!).



Yes, the 1972 Act will need to be repealed or amended. The issue is the continued application of the secondary legislation that applies today. There has been a huge amount since 1972 and its this that certain Ministers are saying are 'unstoppable laws that daily flow across my desk'. I've seen good evidence of that in the energy and trade departments. If they stopped being legal on a day we exit, there could be serious consequences. I'd argue it would take too long to do an order by order review, so that leaves adding clauses into the exit legislation, or taking the other route open; common law, which would hold that as they are legal on their own right, they'd continue to be so, until a formal change was made. In other words, the legality of these isn't dependent on EU membership. It is a very real issue and certainly as you say, most of the 'outers' won't even consider this,

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 22 2016, 10:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 22 2016, 07:25 PM) *
Not sure about that. Take for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), a piece of legislation with which I have some familiarity that incorporates into English law the European Union Directive 93/13/EEC. UTCCR is English Law right enough, but it is not primary legislation, so not an act of parliament, but rather it is secondary legislation and the Statutory Instrument that incorporates 93/13/EEC is made under a power of the 1972 European Communities Act, and that's going to be true for quite a bit of legislation. So if we leave the EU I'm assuming that there will need to be some repeal of the 1972 Act, and while tht might not necessarily mean the power to mke secondary legislation gets repealed, it's not immediately obvious that there won't be some difficulty. I'm not saying that the difficulty should prevent us from withdrawing from the Union, but it's a consideration given that the majority of the outers will jump at the chance of purging English Law of all taints of foreigness (like habeas corpus for example - doesn't even have an English name - how foreign is that!).


I can't see things like this affecting the way people vote.
People are normally in or out.
One things for certain. This vote is more important than the next general election. We have tories for a long time
I hope for a very high turnout


Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2016, 07:08 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 22 2016, 10:23 PM) *
I can't see things like this affecting the way people vote.
People are normally in or out.
One things for certain. This vote is more important than the next general election. We have tories for a long time
I hope for a very high turnout


That's exactly the point!

Nonetheless, it isn't particularly wise to vote either way without appreciating the consequences. Put it this way, right now, I'm inclined to vote out, but in my view, that will mean for a fair few years immediately after, we will find things quite hard. Rather like winning WW2; yes a massive cause celebration but in reality, everyday life became harder for a few years, much safer but harder. Exactly the same after the American independence. I'd be up for it let's hope everyone else is.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2016, 08:19 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 22 2016, 10:23 PM) *
I can't see things like this affecting the way people vote.

If you're not taking practical, rational things like this into account can you say what is motivating your strong desire to leave the EU - and if you're goung to cite soverignty as many do will you please be specific about which specific legislation you find so intolerable and provide some kind of balaced evidence that doesn't reference a story in the Daily Wail about illegal immigrants not being deported because of their cat?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 23 2016, 08:45 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 23 2016, 08:19 AM) *
If you're not taking practical, rational things like this into account can you say what is motivating your strong desire to leave the EU - and if you're goung to cite soverignty as many do will you please be specific about which specific legislation you find so intolerable and provide some kind of balaced evidence that doesn't reference a story in the Daily Wail about illegal immigrants not being deported because of their cat?

Naw, this is my current favourite take of the day!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12169049/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-completely-irrelevant-to-the-EU-referendum-and-still-he-screws-it-up.html

Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2016, 09:06 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 23 2016, 08:45 AM) *
Naw, this is my current favourite take of the day!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12169049/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-completely-irrelevant-to-the-EU-referendum-and-still-he-screws-it-up.html


OMG! I'd forgotten the Telegraph; thought it had died ages ago. As someone once said, a paper for Mail readers who've started to dribble! laugh.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 23 2016, 11:38 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 23 2016, 09:06 AM) *
OMG! I'd forgotten the Telegraph; thought it had died ages ago. As someone once said, a paper for Mail readers who've started to dribble! laugh.gif

laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: James_Trinder Feb 23 2016, 12:57 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 22 2016, 05:48 PM) *
Rather like the French Government does right now you mean? Ever heard of EdF?


Yes, exactly like that but even more so.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2016, 03:04 PM

QUOTE (James_Trinder @ Feb 23 2016, 12:57 PM) *
Yes, exactly like that but even more so.

That's one of the key reasons I want to come out. EdF the French nationalised industry were the highest bidder for London Electricity, no other public company could go there of course, not having access to the low interest rates nation states can secure. Since then, they've also essentially dictated our energy policy with their stranglehold on nuclear generation! What a superb example of a common market.

Yet the EC in spite of lots of bluff and bluster has done absolutely nothing. There are other examples. Sure, EdF and the like could continue to do this if we exit BUT at least we won't be paying for the privilege and could impose our own sanctions.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2016, 06:36 PM

I fear being in or out wouldn't make the difference. Poor government planning results in being vulnerable to exploitation, e.g. West Berks Council and town centre apartments.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2016, 06:43 PM

“What did the EU ever do for us?

In the week when the UK's five extremist right-wing media billionaires won their battle to waste our time, money and political capital on a EU referendum, I thought it a good time to post the great letter by Simon Sweeney in the Guardian, which he kindly allowed me to reproduce in my book, "The Prostitute State - How Britain's Democracy has Been Bought":

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

Simon Sweeney,

Lecturer in international political economy, University of York"

Please share - the anti-EU campaign will have the full force of Murdoch's and the other 4 extremist right-wing media billionaires papers whose agenda is to destroy all our human rights.

As I wrote in The Prostitute State, over 80% of UK papers are owned by five extremist right wing media billionaires: Rupert Murdoch, (Sun/Times), Barclay Brothers (Telegraph), Richard Desmond (Express) and Lord Rothermere (Daily Mail).

Murdoch is Australian living in New York, Rothermere lives in France, the Barclay Brothers in the tax havens of Monaco and Guernsey. All of them use tax haven entities to avoid UK taxes.

So key question is in light of the above list, why have these billionaires for decades tried to destroy the EU's democratic institutions?

Together we can take him/them on and beat him/them.

peace love respect
Donnachadh x
www.theprostitutestate.co.uk

Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2016, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 06:36 PM) *
I fear being in or out wouldn't make the difference. Poor government planning results in being vulnerable to exploitation, e.g. West Berks Council and town centre apartments.


Quite, so as maintaining a common market is the prime reason for their existance, there is little point in paying the huge sums we do for their efforts.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2016, 07:02 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 06:43 PM) *
“What did the EU ever do for us?

In the week when the UK's five extremist right-wing media billionaires won their battle to waste our time, money and political capital on a EU referendum, I thought it a good time to post the great letter by Simon Sweeney in the Guardian, which he kindly allowed me to reproduce in my book, "The Prostitute State - How Britain's Democracy has Been Bought":

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

Simon Sweeney,

Lecturer in international political economy, University of York"

Please share - the anti-EU campaign will have the full force of Murdoch's and the other 4 extremist right-wing media billionaires papers whose agenda is to destroy all our human rights.

As I wrote in The Prostitute State, over 80% of UK papers are owned by five extremist right wing media billionaires: Rupert Murdoch, (Sun/Times), Barclay Brothers (Telegraph), Richard Desmond (Express) and Lord Rothermere (Daily Mail).

Murdoch is Australian living in New York, Rothermere lives in France, the Barclay Brothers in the tax havens of Monaco and Guernsey. All of them use tax haven entities to avoid UK taxes.

So key question is in light of the above list, why have these billionaires for decades tried to destroy the EU's democratic institutions?

Together we can take him/them on and beat him/them.

peace love respect
Donnachadh x
www.theprostitutestate.co.uk


Seriously?

I think I could argue with a good many of those! It's this ungrounded bilge that takes much credibility from the yes side. Ironic, 'break up of monopolies' is listed - see immediately previous post!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2016, 07:23 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 06:43 PM) *
“What did the EU ever do for us...

And pretty much all of that I appreciate. Blighty is a more just, a more responsible society, and it's a miserable truth that, but for our membership of the EU, we might still be living in our own 70's crapulance. Of course, having had some benefit from EU membership there is no reason per se why we shouldn't now leave, and quite honestly I don't believe the EU should have got itself involved in hardly any of those things, but here's the pinch - without the EU this tin-pot island of ours just doesn't appear to have civilised sufficiently to want those things for itself and we'd rather grow our hedges and cower indoors like some piss-pants old misanthrope.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2016, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 23 2016, 07:02 PM) *
Seriously?

I think I could argue with a good many of those! It's this ungrounded bilge that takes much credibility from the yes side. Ironic, 'break up of monopolies' is listed - see immediately previous post!

Please name three things that are highest on your things that you disagree?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 23 2016, 07:47 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 07:33 PM) *
Please name three things that are highest on your things that you disagree?

OK, take the first five. The UK was either doing or well on the way when joined. The 'EU' have been involved since then, of course, but claiming 'they did it' rather like the Americans saying they won WW2 - yes indeed, BUT actually, they helped.

Posted by: GMR Feb 23 2016, 08:08 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 06:36 PM) *
I fear being in or out wouldn't make the difference. Poor government planning results in being vulnerable to exploitation, e.g. West Berks Council and town centre apartments.





It would make a difference in the sense that we are in charge of our own destiny.


Posted by: Biker1 Feb 23 2016, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 23 2016, 09:47 PM) *
OK, take the first five. The UK was either doing or well on the way when joined. The 'EU' have been involved since then, of course, but claiming 'they did it' rather like the Americans saying they won WW2 - yes indeed, BUT actually, they helped.

I like "cleaner air" and "cheaper air travel" being in the same list! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2016, 08:56 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Feb 23 2016, 08:08 PM) *
It would make a difference in the sense that we are in charge of our own destiny.

That is just the point; we wouldn't necessarily.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 23 2016, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 08:56 PM) *
That is just the point; we wouldn't necessarily.


BUT we would only have our own elected leaders and ourselves to blame. That is the nub.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 23 2016, 09:14 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 23 2016, 09:07 PM) *
BUT we would only have our own elected leaders and ourselves to blame. That is the nub.

Which is another good point: if I am averagely intelligent, half the voting population are thicker than me.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 23 2016, 09:42 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 09:14 PM) *
Which is another good point: if I am averagely intelligent, half the voting population are thicker than me.


Perhaps we should introduce an exam to qualify for voting.

A written English and Maths exam should do the trick.

Pass and you get to vote. I'm sure UKIP would be up for it!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 24 2016, 12:18 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 09:14 PM) *
Which is another good point: if I am averagely intelligent, half the voting population are thicker than me.

Or conversely.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 24 2016, 01:16 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 24 2016, 12:18 AM) *
Or conversely.

Sadly being intelligent brings no guarantee of rational decisions.

Posted by: Andy1 Feb 24 2016, 06:35 AM

Leave the EU for Freedom. Freedom to restore the legal system. To negotiate better trade deals. Regenerate the British fishing industry. To spend the vast sums of money here rather than on a costly membership. To make economic and social decisions at home.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 24 2016, 07:49 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 23 2016, 09:42 PM) *
Perhaps we should introduce an exam to qualify for voting.

A written English and Maths exam should do the trick.

Alrighty: Question #1. A sizable majority of voters are less than averagely intelligent.

Might that be true? Show your workings.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 24 2016, 07:52 AM

QUOTE (Andy1 @ Feb 24 2016, 06:35 AM) *
Leave the EU for Freedom. Freedom to restore the legal system.

And which specific pieces of European legislation are making life so intolerable for you?

Posted by: Andy1 Feb 24 2016, 08:05 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 24 2016, 07:52 AM) *
And which specific pieces of European legislation are making life so intolerable for you?

I think I covered a few but the freedom negotiate anything is very important. We simply do not have this now. If we do please correct me.

Posted by: Andy1 Feb 24 2016, 08:58 AM

QUOTE (Andy1 @ Feb 24 2016, 08:05 AM) *
I think I covered a few but the freedom negotiate anything is very important. We simply do not have this now. If we do please correct me.

Apologies I didn't read your question correctly. Unlike some European nations we've been pretty peaceful internally for 100 of years, I would suggest this is due mostly to ours, I maybe wrong.

Posted by: Ken Feb 24 2016, 04:49 PM

My vote would be for out.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 24 2016, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (Andy1 @ Feb 24 2016, 08:05 AM) *
I think I covered a few but the freedom negotiate anything is very important. We simply do not have this now. If we do please correct me.

You're not going to be able to negotiate a better trade deal with Europe after leaving as preferential trade terms is precisely the thing that membership of the EU brings, and you're not going to have a better bargaining position with non EU countries because at best nothing has changed for them, though we could be much worse off as Blighty will no longer have the collective bargaining position that we get by virtue of EU membersip. We will however be free to import bendy bananas, liberated as we will soon be from the un-bending tyrany of EU regulation, so happy days.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 24 2016, 06:51 PM

So far the 'Out-ists' seem to struggle to come up with a sensible reason(s) for exit, other than seemingly saying, 'cause we want to'. Mine is irrational in that I simply don't like the way the EU is run and I think it needs a kick up the democracy buum.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 24 2016, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 24 2016, 06:51 PM) *
So far the 'Out-ists' seem to struggle to come up with a sensible reason(s) for exit, other than seemingly saying, 'cause we want to'. Mine is irrational in that I simply don't like the way the EU is run and I think it needs a kick up the democracy buum.

Umm, in that case we ought to campaign for a referendum to leave Newbury Town Council laugh.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 24 2016, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 24 2016, 07:05 PM) *
Umm, in that case we ought to campaign for a referendum to leave Newbury Town Council laugh.gif

Well the model we have here with which to compare with the UK and the EU is NTC being cobblers and WBC being even bigger cobblers.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 24 2016, 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 24 2016, 06:51 PM) *
So far the 'Out-ists' seem to struggle to come up with a sensible reason(s) for exit, other than seemingly saying, 'cause we want to'. Mine is irrational in that I simply don't like the way the EU is run and I think it needs a kick up the democracy buum.

I'd quite like to live in a democracy again. Oh, and a border, with search lights and guards armed with laser guided nuclear bullets n barbed wire. Well, maybe not the searchlights, or the bullets, but you get the broad idea I'm sure. Bendy bananas and curly cucumbers would be a nice side benefit though! rolleyes.gif oh can can we get the Daily Mail in broadsheet as well? Classy! smile.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 24 2016, 07:40 PM

The problem with democracy is scale. Moreover, democracy means your vote and influence declines as the pool of voters increase. The EU is less democratic for UK citizens, but is more democratic for the EU as a whole. Except of course, there is weighted power to the benefit of places like Germany.

I still take Blackdogs point that do I really want to see years of the Monster Raving Tories doing things their way for years on end, or would it be better to concede some power for a more inclusive EU governance.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 24 2016, 08:21 PM

Don't worry, soon be living in Corbynagrad.

Posted by: user23 Feb 24 2016, 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Andy1 @ Feb 24 2016, 08:05 AM) *
I think I covered a few but the freedom negotiate anything is very important. We simply do not have this now. If we do please correct me.
One of the first things we'd have to do is negotiate various things with our EU neighbours.

Of course they'd be in no rush to do this, the UK probably more so, which puts us at a bit of a disadvantage.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 24 2016, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 24 2016, 07:40 PM) *
The problem with democracy is scale. Moreover, democracy means your vote and influence declines as the pool of voters increase. The EU is less democratic for UK citizens, but is more democratic for the EU as a whole. Except of course, there is weighted power to the benefit of places like Germany.

I still take Blackdogs point that do I really want to see years of the Monster Raving Tories doing things their way for years on end, or would it be better to concede some power for a more inclusive EU governance.

I think you've described exactly how the Indian people felt when we offered them government - 'we' still had control. What we really have on offer, isn't yes or no to Europe. It's actually vote for a half membership of Europe or out. The other irrational want the Tory in's seem to have is still wanting Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom. If Europe takes no notice of us now it sure won't if we vote for half measures.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 24 2016, 09:32 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 24 2016, 08:21 PM) *
Don't worry, soon be living in Corbynagrad.

I doubt it; unless the Tories F-up.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 24 2016, 09:39 PM

carefull using your phone outside the EU: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kl0xn

Posted by: blackdog Feb 24 2016, 10:49 PM

One question I would like answered is that of immigration. We are in economic terms doing better than our fellow EU states creating new jobs (there are more jobs in the UK than ever before) - and will need continued high immigration to maintain our relative economic success. Without the immigration our economy will slow.

Of course this may well the the case because of our exit from the EU - ie Brexit in itself will solve the immigration 'problem' because it will push our economy into recession and the jobs won't be there for the immigrants. However, this is not the picture the Out campaign paints - they claim that the UK economy will boom once the fetters of EU bureaucracy are broken. How can it boom without importing workers??

I simply cannot see how our exit will make any real difference to immigration except though recession - which I have to say I am not too keen on.






Posted by: Biker1 Feb 25 2016, 06:00 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 25 2016, 12:49 AM) *
One question I would like answered is that of immigration. We are in economic terms doing better than our fellow EU states creating new jobs (there are more jobs in the UK than ever before) - and will need continued high immigration to maintain our relative economic success. Without the immigration our economy will slow.

So you are saying that uncontrolled immigration is good for the UK and should continue?
Does this take into account our overcrowded roads, railways, schools, hospitals, doctor's surgeries and the housing shortage?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2016, 08:58 AM

If we look at immigration at its widest, there are some very interesting considerations - worthy of note, in or out of Europe, but as a people on these islands.

I'd argue, right now, our biggest issue is actually emigration; virtual and actual, in respect of those doing 'top end' jobs. In other words, the clever stuff, the head office roles, writing computer code, coming up with the next generation of things we need. Equally, there is a large population that have chosen to take their pensions and capital and spend it where it's hot and sunny. Their choice of course, but its still a loss to our economy. In both cases, its damaging the foundation for future or continued success as a nation state.

Then, there is immigration. It we are really honest, most immigrants don't actually want benefits. Sure, a bit of help to start, but not a life on benefits. They want work, and that's what our residual industry and service sector firms give them. However, its the 'work' we British won't or don't want to do; hence the very real problem we have trying to get people off a life time of benefits. If we didn't have these jobs, we wouldn't be such a magnet, so there are some real attitude changes needed from us.

It's an interesting twist, but asking to stop immigration is also saying get far more off benefits and working. And sorry, its only the low grade jobs we have, remember we've lost the high grade ones.

In fact, it's this latter point that seriously worries me about a no vote; which right now is my preference. I'm not actually convinced that we have the skills or abilities necessary to make it on our own anymore. Once this generation has spent our national inheritance, there's nothing more.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 25 2016, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 24 2016, 10:49 PM) *
One question I would like answered is that of immigration. We are in economic terms doing better than our fellow EU states creating new jobs (there are more jobs in the UK than ever before) - and will need continued high immigration to maintain our relative economic success. Without the immigration our economy will slow.

I believe both your premise and you argument are flawed. We're spun this line about growth without challenge but it's nothing but a Ponsi scheme. We don't need growth, we need stability and sustainability. And the notion that immigration satisfies an escalating need for manpower is wrong because immigrants (or more properly ecconomic migrants) are also consumers.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2016, 11:22 AM

Yes, there are many more jobs in the UK. That, as the Chancellor is beginning to discover is not necessarily a good thing; hence the unbelievable Tory twittering about wage growth not keeping up. Another illustration, our car and motorcycle industry employed hundreds of people and as their production rose, employed even more - all the investment went to Japan, where car for car they started to employ far less.

We need to understand that commerce shouldn't be a horse race, rather a marathon - it took more than one shirt shop to make Jermyn Street!

Posted by: blackdog Feb 25 2016, 11:31 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 25 2016, 10:02 AM) *
I believe both your premise and you argument are flawed. We're spun this line about growth without challenge but it's nothing but a Ponsi scheme. We don't need growth, we need stability and sustainability. And the notion that immigration satisfies an escalating need for manpower is wrong because immigrants (or more properly ecconomic migrants) are also consumers.

The whole capitalist economic scheme is a Ponsi scheme, but it's the one we currently live by.

Growth (increased GDP) can come about in two ways - the easy one being more people working - reliant on increased population. The difficult one is increased efficiency - people working smarter to improve their individual outputs - this was easier in the past, and we will continue along the path, but it's getting more and more difficult - for instance we no longer have as many millions of manufacturing jobs that can be replaced by machines or far Eastern sweat shop workers.

In reality we are using the simple solution to keep us out of recession - while this is the case we need immigrant workers.

As for immigrants also being consumers - whoopee! More consumers = more growth too.

But, by all means come up with an alternative to capitalism and sell it to the world, the world needs it (and a lot more birth control).

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2016, 01:36 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 25 2016, 11:31 AM) *
The whole capitalist economic scheme is a Ponsi scheme, but it's the one we currently live by.

Growth (increased GDP) can come about in two ways - the easy one being more people working - reliant on increased population. The difficult one is increased efficiency - people working smarter to improve their individual outputs - this was easier in the past, and we will continue along the path, but it's getting more and more difficult - for instance we no longer have as many millions of manufacturing jobs that can be replaced by machines or far Eastern sweat shop workers.

In reality we are using the simple solution to keep us out of recession - while this is the case we need immigrant workers.

As for immigrants also being consumers - whoopee! More consumers = more growth too.


Where are all these jobs? Just one illustration, nearby at that. Swindon is about to celebrate 175 years since the defunct railway works started. It closed down back in the Thatcher years. Does it not strike one as odd that all the very expensive shiny new trains we need are made abroad and shipped over here. And we are apparently going to go on wanting new trains. The works closed some say down to inefficiency and trades unions, but if you think about it incredibly poor investment and incompetent direction and..the avarice of the money men. Still, I suspect they'll need a few immigrants in base pay to dosh out the coffee and rolls in the Museum shop.

It's not condoms we need, more a remedy for avarice.

But, by all means come up with an alternative to capitalism and sell it to the world, the world needs it (and a lot more birth control).


Not much hope then have we, Blackdog! What a dismal future our children face; especially now we aren't allowed the Empire.

Is there any real reason why the Duke of Westminster should own most of the Country?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 25 2016, 01:51 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 25 2016, 11:31 AM) *
The whole capitalist economic scheme is a Ponsi scheme, but it's the one we currently live by.

Growth (increased GDP) can come about in two ways - the easy one being more people working - reliant on increased population. The difficult one is increased efficiency - people working smarter to improve their individual outputs - this was easier in the past, and we will continue along the path, but it's getting more and more difficult - for instance we no longer have as many millions of manufacturing jobs that can be replaced by machines or far Eastern sweat shop workers.

In reality we are using the simple solution to keep us out of recession - while this is the case we need immigrant workers.

As for immigrants also being consumers - whoopee! More consumers = more growth too.

But, by all means come up with an alternative to capitalism and sell it to the world, the world needs it (and a lot more birth control).

A ponsi scheme is hardly a sound basis for a sustainable ecconomy, and while your ecconomic migrants increase GDP with the consumption and production that's not creating per-capita growth which is what your ecconomic model requires, so both the basis of your argument and its reasoning are flawed - and no, it's not my job to fix it, I'm an impartial observer here and undecided either way whether in or out is best, I just want to see someone put together a solid argument either way that isn't founded on prejudice, nostalgia, or fallacy, and I'm yet to hear that, and that's pretty poor when so much is likely to ride on the decision.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2016, 02:03 PM

Swindon is a great example of what's wrong. They are celebrating 175 years since the iconic but defunct railway works opened.

We still need trains and will go on needing them. So we are investing millions in upgrades and replacements. However, where are these shiny new hi tech. trains designed and built? Why overseas of course!

Some say the works closed because of inefficiency and trades unions. Or in other words incompetent direction and management. Or then again, because we know the site was redeveloped and the scrap metals sold, some took a huge wadge; avarice of bankers.

I'm sure the railway museum had a shop where a few immigrants are needed on base pay to dosh out tea and wads to the old boys wandering round; but it's not the same!

It's not condoms we need, more a cure for avarice.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 25 2016, 02:17 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 25 2016, 01:51 PM) *
A ponsi scheme is hardly a sound basis for a sustainable ecconomy, and while your ecconomic migrants increase GDP with the consumption and production that's not creating per-capita growth which is what your ecconomic model requires, so both the basis of your argument and its reasoning are flawed - and no, it's not my job to fix it, I'm an impartial observer here and undecided either way whether in or out is best, I just want to see someone put together a solid argument either way that isn't founded on prejudice, nostalgia, or fallacy, and I'm yet to hear that, and that's pretty poor when so much is likely to ride on the decision.


It's not my economic model - but it's the one the Chancellor uses when he tells us how well we are doing. If he tried to sell his performance based on per capita growth I suspect the story would be very different.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/24/joseph-stiglitz-interview-uk-economy-lost-decade-zero-growth


Posted by: Sherlock Feb 25 2016, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 24 2016, 07:40 PM) *
I still take Blackdogs point that do I really want to see years of the Monster Raving Tories doing things their way for years on end, or would it be better to concede some power for a more inclusive EU governance.


I'm with Blackdog. The EU is far from perfect - its agricultural subsidies, barriers to trade with developing countries and distinctly dodgy development funding systems are all in need of reform - but it at least provides a check on a UK government which is already far to the right of Margaret Thatcher and would, out of the EU, swing even further in that direction.

The main reasons that Gove and co want to leave are that the EU involves government, and they're generally against the idea of government, and that it stops them from demolishing even further worker and consumer protections and letting the free market decide everything.

This has little to do with 'democracy'. So far as that is concerned, even nice guy Cameron is reducing funding to opposition parties, expunging (mostly) potential Labour supporters from the electoral register and changing boundaries all in ways that help him stay in power. He also told his chief spin doctor to 'destroy the Labour party'. He's the most anti-democratic Prime Minister we've seen for years.

If we leave the the SNP is certain to push through another referendum and - even if the economic consequences for Scotland are negative - vote to break up the UK. England would be stuck with egomaniac Prime Minister Johnson and his successors for generations, declining in power and influence year by year.

Finally, I suppose the Little Englanders might get their wish of reducing legal immigration but with zero cooperation from the rest of Europe that's unlikely and illegal immigration would, I think, go through the roof as the remaining EU countries would push all migrants in our direction.

So, all in all, I'm on the fence.



Posted by: On the edge Feb 25 2016, 10:08 PM

Has anyone else noticed the deafening silence from our Euro MPs, or am I just not noticing? I really can't believe there is a media blackout. We pay enough for these people after all.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 25 2016, 11:48 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 25 2016, 10:08 PM) *
Has anyone else noticed the deafening silence from our Euro MPs, or am I just not noticing? I really can't believe there is a media blackout. We pay enough for these people after all.

Not total silence, sadly. Nigel Farage is still speaking.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 26 2016, 12:15 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 25 2016, 10:08 PM) *
Has anyone else noticed the deafening silence from our Euro MPs, or am I just not noticing? I really can't believe there is a media blackout. We pay enough for these people after all.



Where are you looking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sllcexlb8TY&feature=youtu.be

No matter which way you intend to vote, you have to hand it to him, he has stamina and conviction to his principles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sllcexlb8TY&feature=youtu.be

Just look at the smug face on that woman to the right of Casa, who got a great slap down.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 26 2016, 12:17 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 25 2016, 11:48 PM) *
Not total silence, sadly. Nigel Farage is still speaking.



Was that a deliberate omission to provide a link?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 26 2016, 03:07 AM

Blah blah swivel eyed loon blah blah Daily Wail blah blah little Englander blah blah Torygraph blah blah, and so on and so on. Boring!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 26 2016, 07:18 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 26 2016, 03:07 AM) *
Blah blah swivel eyed loon blah blah Daily Wail blah blah little Englander blah blah Torygraph blah blah, and so on and so on. Boring!

So here's your chance, the floor is your, make a reasoned evidence-based argument for leaving.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 26 2016, 12:15 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Feb 26 2016, 12:17 AM) *
Was that a deliberate omission to provide a link?

?

Not quite sure what the question means.

But I had no thought of providing a link - so it can hardly be said that I deliberately omitted one.

I was merely noting that the best known British MEP was not staying silent.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 26 2016, 02:29 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Feb 26 2016, 12:15 AM) *
Where are you looking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sllcexlb8TY&feature=youtu.be

No matter which way you intend to vote, you have to hand it to him, he has stamina and conviction to his principles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sllcexlb8TY&feature=youtu.be

Just look at the smug face on that woman to the right of Casa, who got a great slap down.


Yes, give him his due, he is still making news. However, he's just one of how many? Can we take it, as our masters at WBC often do, that silence means they are accepting what he says?

Posted by: x2lls Feb 26 2016, 03:40 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 26 2016, 02:29 PM) *
Yes, give him his due, he is still making news. However, he's just one of how many? Can we take it, as our masters at WBC often do, that silence means they are accepting what he says?



Or are burying their heads in the sand in the face of some home truths?

Posted by: GMR Feb 26 2016, 08:04 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2016, 09:14 PM) *
Which is another good point: if I am averagely intelligent, half the voting population are thicker than me.





They would have to be pretty stupid to achieve that goal wink.gif


Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2016, 09:47 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Feb 26 2016, 08:04 PM) *
They would have to be pretty stupid to achieve that goal wink.gif

Exactly my point.

Posted by: Blake Feb 26 2016, 11:52 PM

We so need to leave.

I resent the way the in campaign reduces the discourse to essentially that of it being bad for business and our trade to leave.

Anyone who knows anything about the EU knows that it has long since ceased to be merely a free trade area (which I would have no opposition to and would welcome).

The most worrying thing about the EU and especially the European Commission is that it has awful tendency to act like a monster steamroller that pushes aside the wishes of the electorate, implements endless red tape whilst reducing effective democratic control and accountability.

There have been a series of grotesque episodes of serial ineptitude: antagonising the Russians over Ukraine, then failing to effectively support a nascent movement for democracy, cooking the books to allow basket case economies to join the single currency with disastrous consequences, and, allowing a huge flood of immigrants into Europe, the number of which we have no hope of accommodating. Add to this quotas, fraud and "subsidies" to persuade certain members to do what the Commission wants and it all adds up to a shameful portfolio of bungling and ineptitude.

In recent decades, we have come to realise that in fact Britain has surrendered so much of its sovereignty to the EU that very key areas of our essential national interests have been signed away and are now wholly beyond our control. Having lost control of them, we seem unsure who now holds those reigns. Even if we did, would they in fact listen?

I for one find that very alarming and I want Britain to regain its independence and autonomy. I think if we do not leave soon, the future of our ability to self govern and thus act as a democratic and representative country will be severely compromised.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 27 2016, 01:38 AM

Wot he said.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 27 2016, 01:40 AM

The European Union is run by unelected, unaccountable elites whose power is vast. They often bring in legislation that has not been voted on in our national parliament, yet supercedes our own laws that do pass through such democratic processes.

"The common denominator between national and multi-level governing procedures is that each is tasked with coordinating opinion, and ultimately policy and resources, into a common pool. Power and influence within the European Union structures are divided, although somewhat disparately, between the European Parliament (EP), the Council of Ministers and the Commission. These bodies are designed to check and balance one another. In member states, citizens have the opportunity to influence national policy making through their elected officials. In the EU’s multi-tiered system, the closest a citizen comes to impacting a policy decision is through their elected representative to the European Parliament."

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2016, 03:49 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 27 2016, 01:40 AM) *
The European Union is run by unelected, unaccountable elites whose power is vast. They often bring in legislation that has not been voted on in our national parliament, yet supercedes our own laws that do pass through such democratic processes.

"The common denominator between national and multi-level governing procedures is that each is tasked with coordinating opinion, and ultimately policy and resources, into a common pool. Power and influence within the European Union structures are divided, although somewhat disparately, between the European Parliament (EP), the Council of Ministers and the Commission. These bodies are designed to check and balance one another. In member states, citizens have the opportunity to influence national policy making through their elected officials. In the EU’s multi-tiered system, the closest a citizen comes to impacting a policy decision is through their elected representative to the European Parliament."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23488006

The EU is work in progress; because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean the best thing to do is abandon it.

What legislation that has been brought from the EU in do you object to?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 27 2016, 07:19 AM

As this campaign progresses, I'm becoming less and less convinced about leaving. In a nutshell, its pretty evident that we no longer have the capability or the skills to be on our own; even if we changed our economic system and even if we had some effective leadership. So, staying in; t does that mean; more of the same? Just twittering endlessly about iniquities and wrongs? Or could it mean that we'll roll our sleeves up and this time actually work with our European peers (and yes, a good number exist) to improve the thing? Sadly, I suspect I know the answer!

We keep on about democracy, again I'd ask, where are our MEP's? What have they been doing? The present situation is really an indictment on them surely? One lesson worth learning from this is that this 'party list PR system' simply isn't effective and doesn't produce good government.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 27 2016, 07:38 AM

QUOTE (Blake @ Feb 26 2016, 11:52 PM) *
We so need to leave.

I resent the way the in campaign reduces the discourse to essentially that of it being bad for business and our trade to leave.

Anyone who knows anything about the EU knows that it has long since ceased to be merely a free trade area (which I would have no opposition to and would welcome).

The most worrying thing about the EU and especially the European Commission is that it has awful tendency to act like a monster steamroller that pushes aside the wishes of the electorate, implements endless red tape whilst reducing effective democratic control and accountability.

There have been a series of grotesque episodes of serial ineptitude: antagonising the Russians over Ukraine, then failing to effectively support a nascent movement for democracy, cooking the books to allow basket case economies to join the single currency with disastrous consequences, and, allowing a huge flood of immigrants into Europe, the number of which we have no hope of accommodating. Add to this quotas, fraud and "subsidies" to persuade certain members to do what the Commission wants and it all adds up to a shameful portfolio of bungling and ineptitude.

In recent decades, we have come to realise that in fact Britain has surrendered so much of its sovereignty to the EU that very key areas of our essential national interests have been signed away and are now wholly beyond our control. Having lost control of them, we seem unsure who now holds those reigns. Even if we did, would they in fact listen?

I for one find that very alarming and I want Britain to regain its independence and autonomy. I think if we do not leave soon, the future of our ability to self govern and thus act as a democratic and representative country will be severely compromised.

I don't necessarily disagree but your objection is vague and general, I would really like to hear specifically what the objection is, most particularly on the question of sovereignty, as I've seen this point made before and when pushed I'm not finding that it's a well-founded objection. So can you expand on that for me please.

Posted by: Blake Feb 27 2016, 08:57 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 27 2016, 07:38 AM) *
I don't necessarily disagree but your objection is vague and general, I would really like to hear specifically what the objection is, most particularly on the question of sovereignty, as I've seen this point made before and when pushed I'm not finding that it's a well-founded objection. So can you expand on that for me please.


Well, most conspicuously, we have lost control of who we can and can't let in.
We have lost the ability to conduct bilateral trade agreements that better suit British interests.
We can no longer control certain taxes.

And that's just a start.

We in Britain stand for the roll back of the state. By contrast, the EU cannot get enough.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 27 2016, 09:54 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 27 2016, 01:40 AM) *
The European Union is run by unelected, unaccountable elites whose power is vast. They often bring in legislation that has not been voted on in our national parliament, yet supercedes our own laws that do pass through such democratic processes.


All EU legislation has to be enacted by the UK Parliament and does not supersede UK law, it has equal status not higher.

The unelected, unaccountable elites are the equivalent of our Civil Service - the source of most UK legislation. All EU laws have to be approved by the European Parliament in a democratic process.

The British problem with the EU is our xenophobic issue with the concept that WE might actually include Frenchmen, Germans and Poles.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 27 2016, 11:18 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 27 2016, 09:54 AM) *
The British problem with the EU is our xenophobic issue with the concept that WE might actually include Frenchmen, Germans and Poles.

That's certainly what it's looking like to me.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 27 2016, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Feb 27 2016, 08:57 AM) *
We in Britain stand for the roll back of the state. By contrast, the EU cannot get enough.

I don't think that is even remotely true, we appear to be completely happy with an over-blown self-serving state, and it's something I object to most strongly, and I'd happily start by culling the Town Council apparatchiks, but yes, this is also one of my major objections to the EU.

QUOTE (Blake @ Feb 27 2016, 08:57 AM) *
Well, most conspicuously, we have lost control of who we can and can't let in.

And who would you let in?

QUOTE (Blake @ Feb 27 2016, 08:57 AM) *
We have lost the ability to conduct bilateral trade agreements that better suit British interests.

You're going to have to show how Blighty is losing out here as it's not obvious to me that we're disadvantaged by EU membership which I figure gives us a better bargaining position, unless you're saying that we lose out as against the French and Germans or whatever, and I'd like to see where specifically you think we're losing.

Personally I think it's a tyranny that states impose trade restrictions, much like a protection racket, and for me the model to aim for is a world without trade boarders, and the EU is a positive obstacle to this.

QUOTE (Blake @ Feb 27 2016, 08:57 AM) *
We can no longer control certain taxes.

Are you talking about VAT, or do you have something else in mind? I'd like to get rid of VAT, it's a pointless expense collecting several different taxes and managing VAT is an administrative overhead that business doesn't need, so yes, I agree with you here.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 27 2016, 01:26 PM

The EU is arguably a drain on the British economy. A huge amount of money given to the EU is allocated to bureaucracy and wasteful spending such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In 2006, a whopping 45% EU spending went towards the CAP,
To put this in perspective, that's almost half EU spending allocated towards an industry that employs only 5% EU citizens and generates 1.6% GDP

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 27 2016, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 27 2016, 11:18 AM) *
That's certainly what it's looking like to me.

Yes, well it would, wouldn't it. Everything does.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2016, 02:01 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 27 2016, 01:28 PM) *
Yes, well it would, wouldn't it. Everything does.

A part from the times how everything looks to you of course. wink.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 27 2016, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 27 2016, 02:01 PM) *
A part from the times how everything looks to you of course. wink.gif

laugh.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2016, 02:18 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Feb 27 2016, 01:26 PM) *
The EU is arguably a drain on the British economy. A huge amount of money given to the EU is allocated to bureaucracy and wasteful spending such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In 2006, a whopping 45% EU spending went towards the CAP,
To put this in perspective, that's almost half EU spending allocated towards an industry that employs only 5% EU citizens and generates 1.6% GDP

But that isn't the purpose of the CAP, although it is a divisive policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 27 2016, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Feb 27 2016, 01:26 PM) *
The EU is arguably a drain on the British economy. A huge amount of money given to the EU is allocated to bureaucracy and wasteful spending such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In 2006, a whopping 45% EU spending went towards the CAP,
To put this in perspective, that's almost half EU spending allocated towards an industry that employs only 5% EU citizens and generates 1.6% GDP

I agree that the CAP is bent, and the very best that can be said about it is that it's considerably less bent than what went before it.

However, do you have much confidence that a Tory government will leave British agriculture to fend for itself in a free market if we leave the EU? - it's a pretty good working definition of Conservatism to think of it as the party of the landed rich.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 27 2016, 07:27 PM

The EU itself has changed from a confident Common Market to a tired, increasingly fragmented superstate, bickering about debts so huge that they will never be repaid - the Greek debt burden works out to be around £22,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 27 2016, 07:55 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 27 2016, 07:27 PM) *
The EU itself has changed from a confident Common Market to a tired, increasingly fragmented superstate, bickering about debts so huge that they will never be repaid - the Greek debt burden works out to be around £22,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.


Ye Gods - that's almost as much as ours!


Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 27 2016, 09:25 PM

I'm with Trump. Let's build a wall. wink.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 27 2016, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 27 2016, 07:55 PM) *
Ye Gods - that's almost as much as ours!

Per-capita national debt is pretty much the same for Greece and the UK at around £23.5k, and likewise for Germany. It's some £43k for the USA, so whatever point JSC was trying to illustrate with this factoid is lost on me.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 27 2016, 11:47 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 27 2016, 11:00 PM) *
Per-capita national debt is pretty much the same for Greece and the UK at around £23.5k, and likewise for Germany. It's some £43k for the USA, so whatever point JSC was trying to illustrate with this factoid is lost on me.

But then most things are.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 27 2016, 11:53 PM

Since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973, and had a referendum about our membership in 1975, the global economy has been transformed out of all recognition. First Japan and later China and India have become economic powerhouses. Changes in technology have shrunk the planet. Globalisation means that Europe is no longer the centre of the world. "The World Trade Organization has brought down tariff rates around the world," the Spectator noted in a piece called "Ten Myths About Brexit". "Even if we didn't sign a free-trade deal with the EU, we would have to pay, at most, £7.5 billion a year in tariffs for access to its markets. That's well below our current membership fee." So, win win.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 28 2016, 12:42 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 27 2016, 11:53 PM) *
Since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973, and had a referendum about our membership in 1975, the global economy has been transformed out of all recognition. First Japan and later China and India have become economic powerhouses. Changes in technology have shrunk the planet. Globalisation means that Europe is no longer the centre of the world. "The World Trade Organization has brought down tariff rates around the world," the Spectator noted in a piece called "Ten Myths About Brexit". "Even if we didn't sign a free-trade deal with the EU, we would have to pay, at most, £7.5 billion a year in tariffs for access to its markets. That's well below our current membership fee." So, win win.

Seems we currently pay about £8.5 billlion to the EU (well we pay £13bn and get £4.5bn back in support for farmers, poorer regions etc).

So the saving could be as little as £1 billion? 0.13% of Government spending.

Is that worth the risk?


Posted by: On the edge Feb 28 2016, 07:15 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 28 2016, 12:42 AM) *
Seems we currently pay about £8.5 billlion to the EU (well we pay £13bn and get £4.5bn back in support for farmers, poorer regions etc).

So the saving could be as little as £1 billion? 0.13% of Government spending.

Is that worth the risk?


I suppose the 'out' argument would say that at least we would say where 4.5m would be spent and for the rest, it's simply duplicating the cost of government we already have. However, if we really look at how good 'we' are at determining where money should be spent on our own), the counter argument does make much sense, as I think you've mentioned before! So, then, another way of looking at these apparently huge fees would be to see what we could trim out from our own administration; arguably that's the duplication. As for control, EU is a democracy and our vote just as valid and frankly just as effective.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2016, 07:44 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 27 2016, 11:53 PM) *
Since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973, and had a referendum about our membership in 1975, the global economy has been transformed out of all recognition. First Japan and later China and India have become economic powerhouses. Changes in technology have shrunk the planet. Globalisation means that Europe is no longer the centre of the world. "The World Trade Organization has brought down tariff rates around the world," the Spectator noted in a piece called "Ten Myths About Brexit". "Even if we didn't sign a free-trade deal with the EU, we would have to pay, at most, £7.5 billion a year in tariffs for access to its markets. That's well below our current membership fee." So, win win.

You lifted this wholesale from GQ Magazine. Did it escape you that Tony Parsons writes fiction? Do you have any of your own thoughts on the matter?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2016, 08:12 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 28 2016, 07:15 AM) *
I suppose the 'out' argument would say that at least we would say where 4.5m would be spent and for the rest, it's simply duplicating the cost of government we already have. However, if we really look at how good 'we' are at determining where money should be spent on our own), the counter argument does make much sense, as I think you've mentioned before! So, then, another way of looking at these apparently huge fees would be to see what we could trim out from our own administration; arguably that's the duplication. As for control, EU is a democracy and our vote just as valid and frankly just as effective.

I'm more than happy to ditch the European administrators, and would happily shed some of our own domestic stat functionaries too (a proper bonfire of the vanities) but it's the isolationism of the Little Englanders that's really putting me off this option - we could for example continue to fund the economic regeneration of Eastern Europe after we leave the EU, but the reality will be that the Johnson government won't enen support the development of the English Regions, and that power and spending will be ever more concentrated in the conservative heartlands of the Thames Valley and Shire Counties, and the discussion will soon turn to discouraging internal economic migration.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 28 2016, 11:12 AM

The costs issue is a big one to Out supporters - they make much of our sending £50 million a day to Europe as if it all goes to fund the Commission. What they never mention is that the UK Government spends over £2 billion a day and that our spend on the EU is a tiny proportion (0.25%) of what is spent in our name and on our behalf. Nor do they ever admit that an element of the EU budget is about supporting emerging economies in Eastern Europe - a key factor in the long term limitation of westward economic migration within the EU.

Another issue is VAT - often sold as an EU tax, as if it all goes to paying our EU dues. I have recently seen it suggested that an exit from the EU means we would do away with VAT saving businesses loads of aggro. If we decided that the £13 billion paid to the EU were to be left in British peoples' pockets (some chance) this could be done by reducing VAT by 2.5%, not to zero, but to 17.5%. Assuming, of course, that we would not continue the support to UK regions and industries that currently comes from the EU.

It is true that the EU mandates the use of VAT as a tax system and that we would be free to collect the revenue in a different manner - back to sales tax for instance; but the idea that VAT would simply vanish is totally misleading.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 28 2016, 02:35 PM

I'd certainly agree with cutting back The EU administrators in exactly the same way as I'd live to see ours cut right back. In my book, we should have been campaigning for that as members, with other members from day one. It does actually have a fair amount of support from other Countries, notably Germany. Odd isn't it, our 'outers' never seem to keen on killing 'jobs for the boys' in Uk. Just like the other issue Blackdog mentions about VAT, the odd twists on that. Do we really want to go back to good old purchase tax? Now there really was an unfair tax with even more oddities. What would we really loose if we started to think of ourselves as Europeans, who happen to live in the English region; is that really so bad? Arguably, that's the nub.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2016, 03:18 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Feb 28 2016, 02:35 PM) *
I'd certainly agree with cutting back The EU administrators in exactly the same way as I'd live to see ours cut right back. In my book, we should have been campaigning for that as members, with other members from day one. It does actually have a fair amount of support from other Countries, notably Germany. Odd isn't it, our 'outers' never seem to keen on killing 'jobs for the boys' in Uk. Just like the other issue Blackdog mentions about VAT, the odd twists on that. Do we really want to go back to good old purchase tax? Now there really was an unfair tax with even more oddities. What would we really loose if we started to think of ourselves as Europeans, who happen to live in the English region; is that really so bad? Arguably, that's the nub.

Same for me. I see very little genuine protest at the big-state busy-work, and that's a real shame because a lightweight pan-European forum is the very thing we need to promote peace and understanding. Creating a single European market takes absolutely nothing at all, it's actually the default position if states would just stop imposing taxes and duties on imports/exports, and I really strongly object to being part of a European Union that only grants trading rights to members who pay their protection money - it's abusive, and the only winners are the parasites that work the con. This for me is what needs reforming, and it's wretched to me to see the UK leaving Europe and isolating ourselves when we should be building bridges.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2016, 03:25 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 28 2016, 11:12 AM) *
The costs issue is a big one to Out supporters - they make much of our sending £50 million a day to Europe as if it all goes to fund the Commission. What they never mention is that the UK Government spends over £2 billion a day and that our spend on the EU is a tiny proportion (0.25%) of what is spent in our name and on our behalf.

That's an awful argument - £50 million a day is still £50 million day, and if it's being spent of pointless busy-work and vanity projects then that needs to stop.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 28 2016, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 28 2016, 03:25 PM) *
That's an awful argument - £50 million a day is still £50 million day, and if it's being spent of pointless busy-work and vanity projects then that needs to stop.

50 million would likely give nurses a pay-rise, or perhaps save a good many Citizen's Advice Bureaus from cutting back (but the filthy Tories, and their supporters, don't want those busy bodies about anyway; as is the case with social housing).

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2016, 04:37 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 28 2016, 03:56 PM) *
50 million would likely give nurses a pay-rise, or perhaps save a good many Citizen's Advice Bureaus from cutting back (but the filthy Tories, and their supporters, don't want those busy bodies about anyway; as is the case with social housing).

And everyone needs flagpoles remember.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 28 2016, 05:53 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 24 2016, 07:52 AM) *
And which specific pieces of European legislation are making life so intolerable for you?

How about this trivia,

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013, which are calculated to cost the economy £1.5billion a year without giving us a penny in return, and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which costs industry £41million a year with no measurable financial benefit whatsoever. Lots more where that came from!

Posted by: On the edge Feb 28 2016, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 28 2016, 05:53 PM) *
How about this trivia,

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013, which are calculated to cost the economy £1.5billion a year without giving us a penny in return, and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which costs industry £41million a year with no measurable financial benefit whatsoever. Lots more where that came from!


I'm not quite sure how these costs are calculated. In fact, from what I understand, both actually give a measure of protection. The second, in particular, is actually something I've always thought absolutely necessary. Of course, the old UK Factory Acts cost the economy, because employers had to shell out safeguarding machinery etc!

Be careful what you wish for!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2016, 06:18 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Feb 28 2016, 05:53 PM) *
How about this trivia,

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013, which are calculated to cost the economy £1.5billion a year without giving us a penny in return, and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which costs industry £41million a year with no measurable financial benefit whatsoever. Lots more where that came from!

And is this why you're voting to leave the EU, or is it just something you read about in GQ magazine and are posting here to buttress your substantive reasons?

Edit: Sorry, I see you http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/438402/EU-laws-that-cost-the-UK-a-fortune-and-achieve-nothing from the Mirror this time.

It's always good to see where these opinions are coming from. For example, the Mirror piece you lifted comes from http://openeurope.org.uk/, an anti-European conglomeration of business interests who don't like the cost that European legislation is having on their businesses. Here's more from the piece:

QUOTE (Open Europe)
Now, the think tank Open Europe has totted up the cost to the UK economy of the most burdensome EU laws. It comes to a staggering £27.4billion a year. Among the costliest are the Working Time Directive, which costs £4.1billion a year

It's the Working Time Directive that mandates a reasonable amount of annual holiday for employees so that we have a half-decent chance of maintaining some kind of work-life balance and not being slaves to our employers. Obviously it's not going to be easy for these Captains of Industry just to come out with their whinge that paid holiday costs them profits because it'll make them sound like some Dickensian Workhouse proprietor, but with a little guile it's not too difficult for them to drip the notion into the heads of their working-class schlubs that the legislation that is giving them tolerable industrial health, safety and welfare is in some way hateful, and this piece in the Mirror is a peach.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Feb 28 2016, 06:46 PM

Two things of interest here, one is that it was the Express not the Mirror. Secondly I find it slightly odd how much effort you put into finding out where I research. Weird or what? Still, to be expected. From you anyway.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 28 2016, 07:57 PM

The problem for the average person is to find facts and figures to help them decide in or out that is not tainted by our insidious politicians, media Barons, and financial fat cats? unsure.gif

Posted by: On the edge Feb 28 2016, 08:45 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 28 2016, 07:57 PM) *
The problem for the average person is to find facts and figures to help them decide in or out that is not tainted by our insidious politicians, media Barons, and financial fat cats? unsure.gif

Well said C!


Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2016, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 28 2016, 07:57 PM) *
The problem for the average person is to find facts and figures to help them decide in or out that is not tainted by our insidious politicians, media Barons, and financial fat cats? unsure.gif

Quite so. Take the opinion piece from Open Europe:
QUOTE (Open Europe)
Among the costliest are the Working Time Directive, which costs £4.1billion a year

£4.1Billion is obviously a lot of money so it certainly looks as though the Working Time Directive is, as Open Europe confidently bellows, a "a burdensome EU law". But hang on, there are https://www.gov.uk/government/news/final-2014-employment-figures-show-all-time-record-number-of-people-in-jobs people in work in the UK, so the claimed cost to industry is £136 per worker, and that's more or less a single extra day's holiday - not really such a burdensome EU law then is it.

So yes, it's difficult getting information on which to make your own mind up about Europe.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 28 2016, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 28 2016, 08:51 PM) *
Quite so. Take the opinion piece from Open Europe:

£4.1Billion is obviously a lot of money so it certainly looks as though the Working Time Directive is, as Open Europe confidently bellows, a "a burdensome EU law". But hang on, there are https://www.gov.uk/government/news/final-2014-employment-figures-show-all-time-record-number-of-people-in-jobs people in work in the UK, so the claimed cost to industry is £136 per worker, and that's more or less a single extra day's holiday - not really such a burdensome EU law then is it.

So yes, it's difficult getting information on which to make your own mind up about Europe.


Absolutely! Yes, we thought it would be a cost; that is until we saw the reduction in reportable accidents and the reduction in fulfilment error. Of course, those savings don't get fed back so aren't taken into account.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 28 2016, 10:39 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 28 2016, 03:25 PM) *
That's an awful argument - £50 million a day is still £50 million day, and if it's being spent of pointless busy-work and vanity projects then that needs to stop.

But is it? Or is it being spent promoting economic growth in Eurpoe's poorer regions - like Wales and Tyneside? The UK gets £4.5 billion in such aid, I suspect poorer countries get more.


Posted by: blackdog Feb 28 2016, 10:48 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 28 2016, 03:56 PM) *
50 million would likely give nurses a pay-rise, or perhaps save a good many Citizen's Advice Bureaus from cutting back (but the filthy Tories, and their supporters, don't want those busy bodies about anyway; as is the case with social housing).

Do you really think that the current government would spend it this way? Their natural inclination would be to simply not spend it and thus cut the deficit. They will only spend it if they think they need to buy some votes - when economic prudence instantly goes out of the window.

And would the money exist? There is a good chance that government income would fall in the short term by as much as the result of reduced economic activity.


Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 29 2016, 12:35 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 28 2016, 10:48 PM) *
Do you really think that the current government would spend it this way? Their natural inclination would be to simply not spend it and thus cut the deficit. They will only spend it if they think they need to buy some votes - when economic prudence instantly goes out of the window.

And would the money exist? There is a good chance that government income would fall in the short term by as much as the result of reduced economic activity.

Errr... didn't you see my cynical rant at the end of my post? huh.gif wink.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2016, 08:53 PM

The latest NWN NewburyToday data:

Remain 56%
Leave 36%
I haven't made my mind up yet 6%
I won't be voting 1%

This is what I think will play out in the election.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2016, 11:01 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2016, 08:53 PM) *
The latest NWN NewburyToday data:

Remain 56%
Leave 36%
I haven't made my mind up yet 6%
I won't be voting 1%

This is what I think will play out in the election.


I wouldn't disagree with that.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 4 2016, 02:00 AM

We'll stay in, why? Cos the donkeys will be afraid of change.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 4 2016, 06:37 AM

I think the problem will solve itself soon, it won't be long before Europe tears itself apart under the strain of supporting the Euro, poorer members and the immigrant crisis, better to leave now and make our own way in the world first. It's interesting to note that while BMW (German) is crying wolf, Honda and Toyota (Japan) are both saying the opposite.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 4 2016, 08:48 AM

Yes, I think the car firms reflect my feelings exactly. BMW won't want to loose it's easy UK market for their products. Honda and Toyota on the other hand see us when out, as another South Korea, a cheap place to manufacture with easy labour laws; so easily able to sell in Europe on price.


Posted by: Biker1 Mar 4 2016, 09:02 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2016, 09:53 PM) *
The latest NWN NewburyToday data:

Remain 56%
Leave 36%
I haven't made my mind up yet 6%
I won't be voting 1%

This is what I think will play out in the election.

That's only 99%! unsure.gif
Similar to the amount of household germs we only ever seem to be able to kill!
That 1% could be the killer!! tongue.gif

Posted by: blackdog Mar 4 2016, 12:06 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 3 2016, 08:53 PM) *
The latest NWN NewburyToday data:

Remain 56%
Leave 36%
I haven't made my mind up yet 6%
I won't be voting 1%

This is what I think will play out in the election.


I suspect the not voting percentage will be considerably higher than 1%!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 4 2016, 12:15 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Mar 4 2016, 12:06 PM) *
I suspect the not voting percentage will be considerably higher than 1%!

Yes, I posted that for completeness, but I believe the in or out will be that proportion.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 4 2016, 12:16 PM

Funny how Rt Hon Cameron PM was prepared to take us out of the Union unless he got what he wanted, yet now decides leaving would be bad for the country.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 18 2016, 04:45 PM

Just in case anyone was wondering what to do with Cameron's propaganda leaflet.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/660228/EU-Referendum-2016-Leaflet-Row-How-to-Send-Back-Return-Downing-Street

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 12 2016, 03:28 PM

Just in case anyone's in any doubt on how to vote apparently if we vote leave the Sun is going to explode
and all life on Earth will be extinguished.



Posted by: je suis Charlie May 12 2016, 04:12 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 12 2016, 04:28 PM) *
Just in case anyone's in any doubt on how to vote apparently if we vote leave the Sun is going to explode
and all life on Earth will be extinguished.

I heard, plagues of locusts O'er the Earth. With a outside chance of total cessation of spinning of said Earth.

Posted by: blackdog May 12 2016, 06:21 PM

And if we vote to stay we will all have to speak German and drive on the other side of the road as of the following Thursday, sorry Donnerstag.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 12 2016, 06:26 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 12 2016, 07:21 PM) *
And if we vote to stay we will all have to speak German and drive on the other side of the road as of the following Thursday, sorry Donnerstag.

Ja! Das ist gut!

Posted by: Biker1 May 13 2016, 08:33 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 12 2016, 04:28 PM) *
Just in case anyone's in any doubt on how to vote apparently if we vote leave the Sun is going to explode
and all life on Earth will be extinguished.

Now you've let the cat out of the bag.
Cameron was saving that one for closer to polling day!! laugh.gif

Posted by: Biker1 May 13 2016, 08:58 AM

How about a few predictions for fun then?
I reckon 59% - 41% to stay in.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 13 2016, 09:02 AM

We'll stay by about 63% the public will always stay with what they know. Its cold and scary out there! Muppets.

Posted by: Berkshirelad May 13 2016, 10:55 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 13 2016, 10:02 AM) *
We'll stay by about 63% the public will always stay with what they know. Its cold and scary out there! Muppets.


The herd will always resist change.

I am old enough to remember life before we joined the EEC. I voted yes in the following referendum. We then turned our backs on trade with the Commonwealth.

Having lived through the morphing of a Common Market into a self-aggrandising Superstate, my strong inclination is to vote for out.

There are a couple of salient points that I feel need to be at least mentioned.

  1. European peace has not been guaranteed by the existence of the EU, but by NATO. The bitter recriminations between nations over the increasingly likely collapse of the Eurozone is more ike to cause war, as is the EU's foolhardiness over Ukraine etc.
  2. The scare-mongering about the 'Jungle' moving to Dover is just that. The agreement in place is an Anglo-French bi-lateral agreement and absolutely nothing to do with the EU; and to establish another jungle, they would first need to get through Border Control.
  3. It is a myth that you need a trade agreement in order to trade. We trade very well with the US despite having no formal agreement. The German motor
    manufacturers will not give up their UK market and have enough power to force the German government to veto a EU retaliatory action on trade
  4. The EU's control of VAT rates is an insult. The reason for the 'tampon feud' is that the UK government cannot remove the VAT on sanitary towels without the agreement of all EU member states
  5. Finally, and very personally, I live in a constitutional monarchy and resent being addressed as a citizen when I have no wish to be one. Just too 1984!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 13 2016, 01:05 PM

60/40 to Remain, but will vote Brexit.

Posted by: Biker1 May 13 2016, 09:42 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 13 2016, 10:02 AM) *
We'll stay by about 63% the public will always stay with what they know. Its cold and scary out there! Muppets.

You say "what they know" but whether we remain or leave the future is equally unknown.
Not sure Bremain will be as high as 63%. Surely not that many are gullible enough to fall for the scare tactics.
I think one of the worst scenarios would be a small majority either way.
For example, would Cameron leave on a 51% vote to do so? His political career, I think, depends on a vote to remain, otherwise enter Boris!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 13 2016, 10:28 PM

If Brexit wins I expect another referendum with a new deal.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 14 2016, 06:12 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 13 2016, 11:28 PM) *
If Brexit wins I expect another referendum with a new deal.


And that is one reason why I shall be voting brexit.
Merkel will blink and we shall get reform.
Proper reform. Not Dave's dodgy deal.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 14 2016, 07:16 AM

55:45 in favour of Brexit, with a voter turn-out of less than 50%.

I remain undecided.

For the sake of peace and international cooperation I want Blighty to have a strong relationship with its international neighbours, but I wouldn't limit that to European countries and the UN already fills that role and the EU actually weakens the role of the UN by conflating international cooperation with trade. I also agree that Nato has preserved the peace in Europe and that the EU has no defence role and undermines Nato and national sovereignty by conflating trade with defence. So that then leaves the EU's role as a trade regulator, but that is little more than a protection racket run by a self-serving and unaccountable eurocracy. At the end of the day I believe a state should be free to impose what import and export duties it pleases, set its own standards for product quality and animal welfare and control its borders how it likes. I have some concerns that I'd personally agree with the choices that the UK state might otherwise make for itself if it wasn't compelled by its EU membership, and that is the essential paradox, but if I were to vote with my head I'd be voting Brexit.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 14 2016, 07:29 AM

Here is the http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/, and I would feel more comfortable voting to leave the EU if I could have any hope that the UK would remain a liberal democracy and that the right wouldn't immediately aggitate to suspend habeus corpus and reintroduce the ducking stool.

Posted by: Biker1 May 14 2016, 07:59 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 14 2016, 08:16 AM) *
55:45 in favour of Brexit, with a voter turn-out of less than 50%.

I hope you're right on the vote, but surprised you think turnout will be so low.
I would like to think that something that as important as this, which has received so much political and media attention would invoke a turnout of at least 75%.

Posted by: blackdog May 14 2016, 08:25 AM

QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ May 13 2016, 11:55 AM) *
There are a couple of salient points that I feel need to be at least mentioned.


[*]European peace has not been guaranteed by the existence of the EU, but by NATO. The bitter recriminations between nations over the increasingly likely collapse of the Eurozone is more ike to cause war, as is the EU's foolhardiness over Ukraine etc.

The peace that is referred to in this argument is the prevention of France v Germany round 4. The EU has worked perfectly in this. NATO has done little but keep the Cod War going for as long as possible.

[*]The scare-mongering about the 'Jungle' moving to Dover is just that. The agreement in place is an Anglo-French bi-lateral agreement and absolutely nothing to do with the EU; and to establish another jungle, they would first need to get through Border Control.

The jungle is unlikely to appear in Kent, but the illegal immigrants would. Currently the French keep them in France, we would not be able to stop them until they were at sea or in England - and would have to deal with them in the UK.

[*]It is a myth that you need a trade agreement in order to trade. We trade very well with the US despite having no formal agreement. The German motor
manufacturers will not give up their UK market and have enough power to force the German government to veto a EU retaliatory action on trade

It is indeed a myth - but UK products would be more expensive in the EU than at present owning to the imposition of EU tarrifs (not hugely perhaps 5% or so - but it would impact on the already poor competitiveness of many British goods.

[*]The EU's control of VAT rates is an insult. The reason for the 'tampon feud' is that the UK government cannot remove the VAT on sanitary towels without the agreement of all EU member states

You will be delighted to hear that part of Cameron's deal with the EU is to increase member states' freedom to charge or not charge VAT - the Tampon tax will go. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35834142

[*]Finally, and very personally, I live in a constitutional monarchy and resent being addressed as a citizen when I have no wish to be one. Just too 1984!

You are a citizen of the UK whether we are in or out of the EU - get used to it Citizen.

Posted by: Biker1 May 14 2016, 10:35 AM

This is interesting.

Number of people expected to be living per square kilometre in 2015 - by country
• England - 419
• Holland - 408
• Wales - 258
• Germany - 226
• Italy - 205
• N. Ireland - 130
• Poland - 123
• Portugal - 116
• France - 105
• Romania - 89
• Bulgaria - 66
• Scotland - 40

Apparently only Malta has a higher number of people per sq.Km. than us in Europe.

Racist or non-racist, benevolent or not, how much more can this country take before it breaks?
There must be a point somewhere surely?
In the context of in or out, will it make any difference to the is issue?
No one can seem to say for certain, as with other issues.
Finger in the air or toss a coin?? unsure.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2016, 10:43 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 14 2016, 09:25 AM) *
The peace that is referred to in this argument is the prevention of France v Germany round 4. The EU has worked perfectly in this. NATO has done little but keep the Cod War going for as long as possible.

NATO intervened in the Bosnian War and the 'Cod' War helped bring down the Iron Curtain.

I believe the 'Keeping peace' argument is a cheap argument as I believe the peace has been kept for several reasons which includes EU, NATO and IT. To say it is down to one factor is false.

QUOTE
The jungle is unlikely to appear in Kent, but the illegal immigrants would. Currently the French keep them in France, we would not be able to stop them until they were at sea or in England - and would have to deal with them in the UK.

How does Brexit or Remain change the independent agreement?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2016, 10:45 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 14 2016, 11:35 AM) *
This is interesting.

Number of people expected to be living per square kilometre in 2015 - by country
• England - 419
• Holland - 408
• Wales - 258
• Germany - 226
• Italy - 205
• N. Ireland - 130
• Poland - 123
• Portugal - 116
• France - 105
• Romania - 89
• Bulgaria - 66
• Scotland - 40

Apparently only Malta has a higher number of people per sq.Km. than us in Europe.

Racist or non-racist, benevolent or not, how much more can this country take before it breaks?
There must be a point somewhere surely?
In the context of in or out, will it make any difference to the is issue?
No one can seem to say for certain, as with other issues.
Finger in the air or toss a coin?? unsure.gif

Where do those figures come from as they don't look right, besides our sad economy relies in part on immigration and being in or out is not likely to change immigration much.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 14 2016, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 14 2016, 11:45 AM) *
Where do those figures come from as they don't look right, besides our sad economy relies in part on immigration and being in or out is not likely to change immigration much.


Immigration. We need some yes. But how much? I get on trains these days and Im the only English speaker. Not saying it is wrong. Just a fact. Some people want to live in a Country which is predominantly English speaking and COE. Is that racist? Some would argue it was.... mellow.gif

Posted by: On the edge May 14 2016, 05:04 PM

I think the biggest untruth is the statement that says 'we know there are problems; but we can only change things if we stay'. We've been in since the mid 70s and what's ever changed? Sure, we've been given a few concessions, most of which are meaningless.
So for me, the institution itself is beyond repair. As most big business is the American multi national corporate model these days, it's really only World trade that Is of any significance. In reality, the EU is about as relevant as the House of Lords, but not as useful.

Posted by: On the edge May 14 2016, 05:32 PM

I think it's still too far out to call yet; the 'vote' makes its mind up just days before the ballot.

I'm also not convinced there will be a second ballot; we are more likely to go down the 'associate member' route. We'll still keep Commissioners for ceremonial purposes...

Posted by: blackdog May 14 2016, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 14 2016, 11:43 AM) *
NATO intervened in the Bosnian War and the 'Cod' War helped bring down the Iron Curtain.

I believe the 'Keeping peace' argument is a cheap argument as I believe the peace has been kept for several reasons which includes EU, NATO and IT. To say it is down to one factor is false.

Sorry about the 'Cod' - but you got the idea. The Cold War may have brought down the Iron Curtain, but it also put it up in the first place. Franco-German issues were the key to three European wars, the EU was not the only reason they didn't go for it again, but it went further than keeping the peace, it made the two enemies the closest allies in Europe.

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 14 2016, 11:43 AM) *
How does Brexit or Remain change the independent agreement?

Ask the French, will they want to retain/renew the agreement which creates them problems? I can't see what incentive they would have to keep it going.

Posted by: gel May 14 2016, 09:19 PM

Well worth watching; Brexit The Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2016, 02:03 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 14 2016, 08:24 PM) *
Sorry about the 'Cod' - but you got the idea. The Cold War may have brought down the Iron Curtain, but it also put it up in the first place. Franco-German issues were the key to three European wars, the EU was not the only reason they didn't go for it again, but it went further than keeping the peace, it made the two enemies the closest allies in Europe.

The Cold War may therefore have been a better option than what might have otherwise been. Better jaw jaw than war war.

QUOTE
Ask the French, will they want to retain/renew the agreement which creates them problems? I can't see what incentive they would have to keep it going.

What one do they have now? As far as I can see it is a non argument.

Posted by: On the edge May 15 2016, 07:28 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 14 2016, 08:24 PM) *
Sorry about the 'Cod' - but you got the idea. The Cold War may have brought down the Iron Curtain, but it also put it up in the first place. Franco-German issues were the key to three European wars, the EU was not the only reason they didn't go for it again, but it went further than keeping the peace, it made the two enemies the closest allies in Europe.


Ask the French, will they want to retain/renew the agreement which creates them problems? I can't see what incentive they would have to keep it going.


Allies may be, but close? Hardly! Much of what's wrong with the European administration is down to the standoff between German and French attitudes. The expensive and crass stupidity of regular Brussels / Strasbourg administrative swap is just one example. Like the LibDim/Tory coalition, it's simply a marriage of convenience and nothing more.

In reality, the EU (EEC) was born as the mechanism to ensure that the new post war German State could grow and exist without French obstructionism. Yes, it did that perhaps, but now it's had its day; what purpose does it now serve?

World trade should be the free market we are striving for; a third party collective simply complicates and confuses matters. The EU is time expired and no longer serves its purpose.

Posted by: gel May 15 2016, 10:10 AM

PCC on side of Brexit:

Our PCC in today's National Papers eg

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670325/Organised-crime-gangs-exploiting-Britain-weak-borders-claims-police-chief

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 28 2016, 07:30 PM

So it looks like Dave's scare tactics will win the day.
He will go down in history.
In 10 years Blair will have a better rep.






Posted by: x2lls May 28 2016, 09:23 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 28 2016, 08:30 PM) *
So it looks like Dave's scare tactics will win the day.
He will go down in history.
In 10 years Blair will have a better rep.


https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/videos/936903666407875/?pnref=story

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2016, 09:30 PM

Rent a liar?



https://www.facebook.com/100003662834496/videos/815593328572754/

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 29 2016, 07:50 PM

Blair was awful on the Marr show today. Possibility the most discredited politician in the world with no answers.😠

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 29 2016, 10:32 PM

Cos like most Labour politicians, he's a ****.

Posted by: On the edge May 30 2016, 08:36 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 29 2016, 08:50 PM) *
Blair was awful on the Marr show today. Possibility the most discredited politician in the world with no answers.😠


Almost desperation! They've also wheeled out John Major to give us his sage advice!

There was a very good programme on Radio 4 early Saturday evening. Sadly, I suspect it had a very small audience.

However, the contributors were a couple of business people, one against, one for, a female for MP (whose name I didn't catch) and a Swiss investment banker.

The against businessman and the Swiss banker ran rings round the other two, who just ended up totally lost. The Swiss banker had the last word, which was go it, you'll be like us, much better off.

Key point, if you are in business and can't cope with the trading rules imposed by any nation states and Europe isn't that different, you don't deserve to be in business; how do you think multi nationals cope?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2016, 09:50 AM

I didn't see Blair's performsnce as that bad; he was only really asked a couple of questions. He balked at the question of seeing the report on his war FUBAR.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 30 2016, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 30 2016, 10:50 AM) *
I didn't see Blair's performsnce as that bad; he was only really asked a couple of questions. He balked at the question of seeing the report on his war FUBAR.


Personally I think he is poison and should be treated with the same contempt as the Islamic fundamentalists that murder innocent people. Should be not allowed air time


Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2016, 10:53 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 30 2016, 06:57 PM) *
Personally I think he is poison and should be treated with the same contempt as the Islamic fundamentalists that murder innocent people. Should be not allowed air time

I tend to agree, but he didn't shy from the big decision; our current Tory douche did and some argue the result was just about the same.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 7 2016, 09:10 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Feb 20 2016, 08:38 PM) *
I'm out. Not because of immigration. I just like to think of us as an independent nation who can make laws
that are not overruled.

The problem with being in the "out" camp is that you are instantly branded as racist by small minded people.

Now we'll get 3 months of "***" from both camps scaremongering... angry.gif

Out leads 3-0 amongst the forumisters.


Guess I was wrong about the scaremongering back in February. We better vote in or better vote our or we are all............doomed. zombie apocalypse I tell ya.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 7 2016, 09:11 PM

any body watch the debate tonite? DC came over as a one trick pony headed for the knackers yard. NF was coherent and presented the better case.

Posted by: x2lls Jun 7 2016, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jun 7 2016, 10:11 PM) *
any body watch the debate tonite? DC came over as a one trick pony headed for the knackers yard. NF was coherent and presented the better case.


Saw it and haven't changed my mind. Out.
The accusation of racism was utter row locks.
DC's 'little Englander' jibe was also utter crap.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2016, 06:02 AM

I see Archbishop Welby has called Farage a fear-mongering racist.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 8 2016, 06:16 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 8 2016, 07:02 AM) *
I see Archbishop Welby has called Farage a fear-mongering racist.

So? It's the old guard trickery, use the word immigration and get called racist. All from a man who lives in a palace and worships a being that lives in the sky! Scary stuff, enough to convince me. NOT!

Posted by: x2lls Jun 8 2016, 06:24 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Jun 8 2016, 07:16 AM) *
So? It's the old guard trickery, use the word immigration and get called racist. All from a man who lives in a palace and worships a being that lives in the sky! Scary stuff, enough to convince me. NOT!



I liked the response it was given. Try reading the article and not the headline. Even then though, a bag of salt comes to mind.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2016, 06:34 AM

I lost interest when Cameron started trying to say that if we stayed we could lead Europe in the electric car industry. ? I mean, to lead within an industry you first need to have one. All he bleated on about was how we would magically cause a word recession if we left laugh.gif

I'm afraid that after a lifetime of voting for the Tories I've finally had enough, their lies and scare mongering over this issue have lost them my vote at the next election.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2016, 06:46 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jun 8 2016, 07:34 AM) *
I lost interest when Cameron started trying to say that if we stayed we could lead Europe in the electric car industry. ? I mean, to lead within an industry you first need to have one. All he bleated on about was how we would magically cause a word recession if we left laugh.gif

I'm afraid that after a lifetime of voting for the Tories I've finally had enough, their lies and scare mongering over this issue have lost them my vote at the next election.


And mine. We always knew Cameron came from an elitist background but the EU referendum has shown just how totally out of touch he is.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 8 2016, 07:55 AM

And now the remain camp are in panic as, believe it or not, half a million people left it until the final 2 hours to register to vote.
The web site crashed.
Cameroon and the "In Camp" are now calling for an extension to the deadline as they believe the wallies that left it so late would have voted "in".

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2016, 08:22 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 8 2016, 08:55 AM) *
And now the remain camp are in panic as, believe it or not, half a million people left it until the final 2 hours to register to vote.
The web site crashed.
Cameroon and the "In Camp" are now calling for an extension to the deadline as they believe the wallies that left it so late would have voted "in".

I imagine Brexitiers would be in a panic too if there is an extension.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2016, 08:23 AM

I've tended to be Brexit, but have been disappointed by the arguments from them for a good reason to leave.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 8 2016, 08:29 AM

I note that the Remainers are bleating that the Leave campaign has no polices, economic or otherwise, if we vote to leave.

They seem to miss the point that this is a referendum and not an election.

Once the vote has taken place and the results known, it is for the government of the day to set the necessary policies in line with the referendum vote

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2016, 10:54 AM

A classic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629418/European-court-rules-France-T-imprison-migrants-trying-cross-Channel-raising-prospect-freed-try-again.html

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2016, 11:45 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jun 8 2016, 11:54 AM) *
A classic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629418/European-court-rules-France-T-imprison-migrants-trying-cross-Channel-raising-prospect-freed-try-again.html

Although in fairness this isn't really the EU's fault as it was Blighty that introduced the right to a fair trial and habeas corpus back in the thirteenth century, but hey.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2016, 12:04 PM

Its the EU interfering and overruling a members right to enforce its own laws.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2016, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jun 8 2016, 01:04 PM) *
Its the EU interfering and overruling a members right to enforce its own laws.

Is see it more that a country is forced to be fair and organise its laws properly. In the old days, Liverpool fans, Irish Republicans and miners were 'yob scum' that deserved to be treated lower than the law demanded.

Like I said, I have not heard any good argument for what will be fixed by leaving.

I like the recent meme I read about where Brexit meant being left alone on a small island with the Monster Raving Tories.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2016, 12:33 PM

Well you would cool.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 8 2016, 05:32 PM

[quote name='Turin Machine' date='Jun 8 2016, 07:34 AM' post='109936']
I lost interest when Cameron started trying to say that if we stayed we could lead Europe in the electric car industry. ? I mean, to lead within an industry you first need to have one.
[/quote

"Dark was that day when Diesel conceived his grim engine that begot you, vile invention, more vicious, more criminal than the camera even, metallic monstrosity, bale and bane of our culture, chief woe of our Commonweal. How dare the Law prohibit hashish and heroin yet license your use, who inflate all weak inferior egos? Their addicts only do harm to their own lives: you poison the lungs of the innocent, your din dithers the peaceful, and on choked roads hundreds must daily die by chance-medley. Nimble technicians, surely you should hang your heads in shame. Your wit works mighty wonders, has landed men on the Moon, replaced brains by computers, and can smithy a "smart" bomb. It is a crying scandal that you cannot take the time or be bothered to build us, what sanity knows we need, an odorless and noiseless staid little electric brougham."

W.H. Auden (1907-1973), A Curse:

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2016, 05:36 PM

" England has saved herself by her exertions and will, I trust save Europe by her example."

Pitt the Younger.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2016, 06:21 PM

You lot are forgetting a few things..

A) Britain will be in a permanent economic recession and all our houses will be worthless.
B The British pound will be worthless. All capital will leave the Country and we will have Zimbabwe like hyper inflation. You will all need wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread.
C) Europe will declare war on Britain.
D) A plague of locusts will visit and eat all our crops leaving us to starve.
E) The NHS will fail and any one getting ill will die.

Doomed... we are all doomed.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 8 2016, 06:47 PM

Your forgetting a few things, The Sun is predicted to stop spinning, the death of every firstborn and last but not least we will all have to help in planting a prickly hedge round the coastline to keep out the hordes of rampaging Mermen. It's gonna get tough.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2016, 07:30 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Jun 8 2016, 07:47 PM) *
Your forgetting a few things, The Sun is predicted to stop spinning, the death of every firstborn and last but not least we will all have to help in planting a prickly hedge round the coastline to keep out the hordes of rampaging Mermen. It's gonna get tough.


We need new legislation as well. Votes should be weighted. Anyone under 30 should get two votes. Any foreign born person with a British passport should get 2 votes. White indigenous English born people over 50 should be banned from voting. It's best all round.

I had to laugh at the uni today that banned white straight people from attending a conference. It's for the greater good....

Posted by: spartacus Jun 8 2016, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jun 8 2016, 07:21 PM) *
You lot are forgetting a few things..

D) A plague of locusts will visit and eat all our crops leaving us to starve.

...no that's not right.... once we've voted 'Out' we'll have better control of our borders..... so no more of these scare stories of African bees coming across, or deadly Giant Asian Hornets... or foreign mosquitoes carrying the Zika Virus. Any plagues of locusts would be stopped at the border and sent back on the rubber ring they came in on...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2016, 07:40 PM

QUOTE (spartacus @ Jun 8 2016, 08:33 PM) *
...no that's not right.... once we've voted 'Out' we'll have better control of our borders..... so no more of these scare stories of African bees coming across, or deadly Giant Asian Hornets... or foreign mosquitoes carrying the Zika Virus. Any plagues of locusts would be stopped at the border and sent back on the rubber ring they came in on...


The Chinese in the UK may welcome the locusts. Imagine all that protein. We need one of those Springfield type domes over the UK. LOL!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2016, 09:51 PM

Fortunately, the pandered leftist youth will save the country from all that.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 9 2016, 12:48 AM

You assume of course that the young lackeys of the imperialist running dogs won't be bothered getting out of bed?

Posted by: x2lls Jun 9 2016, 09:59 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Jun 8 2016, 11:54 AM) *
A classic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629418/European-court-rules-France-T-imprison-migrants-trying-cross-Channel-raising-prospect-freed-try-again.html



According to the Sun newspaper, this occurred in 2013

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 9 2016, 10:10 AM

A classic!

Posted by: HJD Jun 10 2016, 08:39 AM

I don't think Eddie Izzard's behaviour on Question Time last night did much good for the remain camp laugh.gif .

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 10 2016, 10:31 AM

QUOTE (HJD @ Jun 10 2016, 09:39 AM) *
I don't think Eddie Izzard's behaviour on Question Time last night did much good for the remain camp laugh.gif .


What a knob he was. Best thing to happen was when the bloke in the audience told him to shut up.
Respect for his charitable work but he is so full of his own self importance it is untrue. How dare these people TELL us what to do? It's called a referendum.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 10 2016, 11:04 AM

Regardless of the argument its worth having just to see the looks on the faces of Osborne, Cameron, Blair et al cool.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2016, 12:16 PM

That's the rub. This is an opportunity to rub the establishment's faces in it and one of the reasons I'd vote Brexit, but whether it is a better thing to happen to the UK is another matter. As I have said earlier, there has been no tangible argument put forward that means we would benefit from leaving the union, or that anything would get better.


Democracy does have a specious side to it.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 10 2016, 12:36 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 10 2016, 01:16 PM) *
That's the rub. This is an opportunity to rub the establishment's faces in it and one of the reasons I'd vote Brexit, but whether it is a better thing to happen to the UK is another matter. As I have said earlier, there has been no tangible argument put forward that means we would benefit from leaving the union, or that anything would get better.


Democracy does have a specious side to it.


I see it as such.

We may take an economic hit initially but we will get full democracy back. And in 3 to 5 years we will see many benefits.

I see Europe as a failed economic experiment.
Time to pull the plug. We go and it will be like dominoes toppling.

I want to go on holiday and gets some escudos or pesetas. Used to be great fun!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2016, 12:37 PM

We've simply hit the 'my dad's bigger than your's' stage!

There is an intriguing point which is being a little overlooked. That is, the discontent with 'open and free' market rules isn't just one way. I know a good few French and German business people who look askance at our cavalier company and staff rules; which for a true level playing field should be harmonised.

If they were, we'd actually see rather less tooth and claw capitalism which so damages our commercial integrity. The likes of Fred Godwin and Sir Philip Green are far less likely to be able to operate unhindered. In addition, exploitative staff employment contracts and the ever present possibility of sudden job loss don't happen to anywhere near UK levels.

Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn is thinking of the workers by apoarently supporting 'IN'.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 10 2016, 01:32 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 10 2016, 01:37 PM) *
We've simply hit the 'my dad's bigger than your's' stage!

There is an intriguing point which is being a little overlooked. That is, the discontent with 'open and free' market rules isn't just one way. I know a good few French and German business people who look askance at our cavalier company and staff rules; which for a true level playing field should be harmonised.

If they were, we'd actually see rather less tooth and claw capitalism which so damages our commercial integrity. The likes of Fred Godwin and Sir Philip Green are far less likely to be able to operate unhindered. In addition, exploitative staff employment contracts and the ever present possibility of sudden job loss don't happen to anywhere near UK levels.

Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn is thinking of the workers by apoarently supporting 'IN'.


Yep. Cos 35 hour working weeks, countless strikes and loads of public holiday's is doing it for the French..

Posted by: On the edge Jun 10 2016, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jun 10 2016, 02:32 PM) *
Yep. Cos 35 hour working weeks, countless strikes and loads of public holiday's is doing it for the French..


Well of course that's what we are told!

Then again, they still have utilities in public ownership, where energy prices are kept at reasonable prices. Plus both still have mass volume car manufacturers and other major commercial firms headquartered there. Reasonable wages and working hours for the masses that aren't like our bosses. Makes you think, I wouldn't worry about a few strikes for that.

So the benefit seems to be investment to keep productivity up, so we could all work less time and have more holidays at the expense of a little disruption down to strikes.

Umm

We have no investment, static wages, long hours, short holidays, public service cuts AND strikes! (southern Railway this week)

Some deal, heads they win, tails we loose; who is being suckered?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2016, 05:37 PM

Apparently their rent rates and home ownership (and all the false wealth that creates) isn't on the same scale as 'us' either. I to some extent admire the belligerence of the French pleb compared to our former war winning attitude.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 10 2016, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 10 2016, 06:37 PM) *
Apparently their rent rates and home ownership (and all the false wealth that creates) isn't on the same scale as 'us' either. I to some extent admire the belligerence of the French pleb compared to our former war winning attitude.


They have a bit more space than us... And everyone that comes to blighty wants to live down South. Malthus supply and demand.

Posted by: gel Jun 11 2016, 05:32 PM

Sound arguments from James Dyson on in or out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/sir-james-dyson-so-if-we-leave-the-eu-no-one-will-trade-with-us/

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 11 2016, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (gel @ Jun 11 2016, 06:32 PM) *
Sound arguments from James Dyson on in or out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/sir-james-dyson-so-if-we-leave-the-eu-no-one-will-trade-with-us/


Hope he hoovers up a lot of votes..... laugh.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 11 2016, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (gel @ Jun 11 2016, 06:32 PM) *
Sound arguments from James Dyson on in or out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/sir-james-dyson-so-if-we-leave-the-eu-no-one-will-trade-with-us/

QUOTE (James Dyson)
If, as David Cameron suggested, they [the EU] imposed a tariff of 10 per cent on us, we will do the same in return. We buy more from Europe than they buy from us, so we would be the net beneficiary and based on these numbers it would bring £10bn into the UK annually.


Would it? Would imposing a 10% tariff on imports bring in £10billion into the UK from Europe? I'd have thought that if Blighty imposed a 10% import duty that it would just get passed on to the UK domestic consumer, and while that might generate an additional £10billion for the Exchequer (which the Tories will divvie up amongst their mates in tax-breaks for the wealthy) that leave the rest of us £10billion worse off.

I think his argument sucks.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 11 2016, 10:32 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 11 2016, 10:31 PM) *
Would it?

I think my argument sucks.


Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 12 2016, 07:04 AM

Latest from dodgy Dave... your pensions are under threat...


The more claims like this he makes the more likely brexit
People don't believe you Dave. You have lost the plot.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 12 2016, 09:41 AM

Stay or leave our pensions are under threat from Dodgy Dave and his Tory chums - they really don't like wasting money on the plebs. They would already have introduced something like means testing to benefits like pensions, bus passes and the NHS if they thought they could get away with it. Brexit will enable them to blame it on someone else.

Personally I am in favour of staying in the EU - despite (not because of) Cameron's support of it.


Posted by: Lolly Jun 12 2016, 09:41 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jun 12 2016, 07:04 AM) *
Latest from dodgy Dave... your pensions are under threat...


The more claims like this he makes the more likely brexit
People don't believe you Dave. You have lost the plot.


I think our pensions are under threat either way, but it's repugnant that they should be used as as a 'bargaining tool' by someone who will undoubtedly not be dependant on one in his old age.




Posted by: x2lls Jun 12 2016, 09:51 AM

QUOTE (Lolly @ Jun 12 2016, 10:41 AM) *
I think our pensions are under threat either way, but it's repugnant that they should be used as as a 'bargaining tool' by someone who will undoubtedly not be dependant on one in his old age.



I seem to recall a right honorable gentleman (NOT) Brown started on pensions.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 12 2016, 11:36 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 12 2016, 10:41 AM) *
Stay or leave our pensions are under threat from Dodgy Dave and his Tory chums - they really don't like wasting money on the plebs. They would already have introduced something like means testing to benefits like pensions, bus passes and the NHS if they thought they could get away with it. Brexit will enable them to blame it on someone else.

Personally I am in favour of staying in the EU - despite (not because of) Cameron's support of it.


Yes, the biggest threat is as you say our very own peers, that's Tories of every hue, tinged with yellow or red. I think many of the continental commercial and working laws and regulations are so much better than ours and protect us, as opposed to them.

However, it's those self same self interested leaders who gain exemptions from these protections. Ironically, for that reason I'm voting no. Keep the present politicians in place and stay in Europe with them meddling by exemption and we are loose / loose everytime.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 12 2016, 12:28 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 12 2016, 12:36 PM) *
Yes, the biggest threat is as you say our very own peers, that's Tories of every hue, tinged with yellow or red. I think many of the continental commercial and working laws and regulations are so much better than ours and protect us, as opposed to them.

However, it's those self same self interested leaders who gain exemptions from these protections. Ironically, for that reason I'm voting no. Keep the present politicians in place and stay in Europe with them meddling by exemption and we are loose / loose everytime.

Voting 'no' what?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 12 2016, 02:39 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 12 2016, 01:28 PM) *
Voting 'no' what?


Sorry, no = out, my slip!

The EU is a great concept, but doesn't work in practice and experience shows never will. If it is this is the way to get a real ''common market' why wouldn't we want to encourage the US to join? Or indeed, why isn't the US even trying to achieve the same thing on its own land mass? It would save them building a wall at least!

Sure, there are some good things, but we never seem to get them. As for our own, today, they are unprincipled and untrustworthy. However, I do know who they are and I do have a real chance of getting rid of them now and again.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 12 2016, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 12 2016, 12:36 PM) *
Keep the present politicians in place and stay in Europe with them meddling by exemption and we are loose / loose everytime.

Is that "cut loose" or, for example, a "loose cannon"? wink.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 12 2016, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 12 2016, 05:04 PM) *
Is that "cut loose" or, for example, a "loose cannon"? wink.gif

I was hoping for more foot loose!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 12 2016, 05:30 PM

Yes, should be lose, very sorry, sadly the results of a 1960s state education when I was a children.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 12 2016, 07:04 PM

Split personality?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 12 2016, 08:49 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-brexit-leave-campaign-10-point-lead-remain-boris-johnson-nigel-farage-david-a7075131.html suggests a strong lead for Brexit.

For me there are some good principled reasons not to support the EU, and chief amongst them is that I don't like self-serving bureaucracy, but I'm worried by the intolerance and fear that it seems to me is behind the strength of the Brexit vote, and whatever the consequences for the UK of what is now looking like our inevitable departure from the EU, I do worry that this intolerance will work itself out badly over the next twenty five years.

Posted by: x2lls Jun 12 2016, 10:09 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 12 2016, 06:30 PM) *
Yes, should be lose, very sorry, sadly the results of a 1960s state education when I was a children.



Wrong!!!!

Check my signature.

I had a state education too when I was a child, not a children.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 12 2016, 11:32 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Jun 12 2016, 11:09 PM) *
Wrong!!!!

Check my signature.

I had a state education too when I was a child, not a children.

I wouldn't confuse carelessness with a lack of education.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 12 2016, 11:43 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 12 2016, 09:49 PM) *
For me there are some good principled reasons not to support the EU, and chief amongst them is that I don't like self-serving bureaucracy, but I'm worried by the intolerance and fear that it seems to me is behind the strength of the Brexit vote, and whatever the consequences for the UK of what is now looking like our inevitable departure from the EU, I do worry that this intolerance will work itself out badly over the next twenty five years.

Im not sure it is over yet and even if Brext are triumphant, I'm not sure we will go independent.

Posted by: x2lls Jun 12 2016, 11:54 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 13 2016, 12:32 AM) *
I wouldn't confuse carelessness with a lack of education.



Neither would I AC.
But two mistakes? firstly loose/lose and then child/children. Carelessness twice? or a failing of 1960's education?

I see it on many public forums. The misuse of loose and lose are consistent. Why else would I make it the content of my signature?
I would also add another observation. Many of those in academia, when interviewed, start their answer with the the word 'so'. It may well be an example of the influence of the group of which you are a part, or not.




Posted by: Biker1 Jun 13 2016, 05:06 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 12 2016, 06:30 PM) *
Yes, should be lose, very sorry, sadly the results of a 1960s state education when I was a children.

Nice one OTE!
We all do it.
You know I'm only joshiing with you. wink.gif
Nothing as bad as the result of a 2000's state education eh? ohmy.gif

Back on subject I see the boss of BT has now written to it's employees recommending a remain vote.
What do folks think about employers telling their people how to vote in a referendum?
What if they did it in, say, a general election?? angry.gif

Posted by: x2lls Jun 13 2016, 07:40 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 13 2016, 06:06 AM) *
Nice one OTE!
We all do it.
You know I'm only joshiing with you. wink.gif
Nothing as bad as the result of a 2000's state education eh? ohmy.gif

Back on subject I see the boss of BT has now written to it's employees recommending a remain vote.
What do folks think about employers telling their people how to vote in a referendum?
What if they did it in, say, a general election?? angry.gif



Bad decision on the companies part, very bad. A company has no part to play in anyone's private life.]

Addition

Good point just made on The Wright Stuff. Why not the employees write a letter to the management telling them why they should stay out..

Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2016, 09:39 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 13 2016, 06:06 AM) *
Nice one OTE!
We all do it.
You know I'm only joshiing with you. wink.gif
Nothing as bad as the result of a 2000's state education eh? ohmy.gif

Back on subject I see the boss of BT has now written to it's employees recommending a remain vote.
What do folks think about employers telling their people how to vote in a referendum?
What if they did it in, say, a general election?? angry.gif


That's an intriguing question; particularly right now with the BHS questions before us. Arguably a Company is a person at law and can do just what it likes, subject to a few rules. If its employees don't like it, there is a simple remedy, they just leave. That's UK capitalism in a nutshell.

The comments and statements made by a firm's Board and Executives are pretty powerful. Its arguably stunningly poor practice to make controversial statements which are not likely to be well received by a majority to the business stakeholders. From then on, its likely that appeals to workers for loyalty and to give good service will be met by deaf ears. It says the bosses think all the workers are here for nothing more than the money and are just resources.

Its rather ironic then, that some firms are preaching stay; that's because without the exemptions our Dave isn't likely to get harmonisation of company and employment practices in the continued quest for further and deeper union would inevitably mean the German and French business models. That includes worker directors, consultations, more job security etc. etc. etc.

Knowing what a company thinks like this, however unpalatable, is pretty useful, the big question we ought to have is why they'd want to stay in if they are eventually going to have to give far more to the workers.

In BT's case, the answer is simple, its under massive threat because of the distinct possibility that its network and its sales operations will be separated. Europe, which is protecting the old State enterprises would be a bastion against this. Why would other organisations want to stay in? well, minimum wage UK workers are thin on the ground, but with free movement, there will always be a ready supply of incoming people who'd be willing to take the absolute minimum.

(There is, of course, a way in which the workers can show the boss just how much they think of him. That's the French way, which used to be pretty popular round here at one time! It seems British management hasn't learned too much since Mrs T. slew the Union dragon!!!)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 13 2016, 12:11 PM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Jun 13 2016, 12:54 AM) *
Neither would I AC.
But two mistakes? firstly loose/lose and then child/children. Carelessness twice? or a failing of 1960's education?

I see it on many public forums. The misuse of loose and lose are consistent. Why else would I make it the content of my signature?
I would also add another observation. Many of those in academia, when interviewed, start their answer with the the word 'so'. It may well be an example of the influence of the group of which you are a part, or not.

It doesn't stop it from being carelessness.

Verbiage like 'so' is often employed to enable the speaker to compose their thoughts.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 13 2016, 12:17 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 13 2016, 06:06 AM) *
Nice one OTE!
We all do it.
You know I'm only joshiing with you. wink.gif
Nothing as bad as the result of a 2000's state education eh? ohmy.gif

Back on subject I see the boss of BT has now written to it's employees recommending a remain vote.
What do folks think about employers telling their people how to vote in a referendum?
What if they did it in, say, a general election?? angry.gif

I don't believe they told them how to vote, so it is a false premise; your anger appears misplaced.

"The letter encouraged staff to vote in the referendum whatever their point of view."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36514054

Posted by: blackdog Jun 13 2016, 12:44 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 13 2016, 06:06 AM) *
Back on subject I see the boss of BT has now written to it's employees recommending a remain vote.
What do folks think about employers telling their people how to vote in a referendum?
What if they did it in, say, a general election?? angry.gif


But it's not as simple as that - it is not the boss of BT writing - it is the board of BT and the two main unions representing BT workers.

And they are not telling people how to vote - just reccomending a vote for remain - I am sure many of the workers will choose to disregard the reccomendation.

As it is extremely unlikely that the Board and unions would agree on a reccomendation during a general election it is unlikely to ever happen.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 13 2016, 02:35 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jun 13 2016, 01:17 PM) *
I don't believe they told them how to vote, so it is a false premise; your anger appears misplaced.

"The letter encouraged staff to vote in the referendum whatever their point of view."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36514054

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 13 2016, 01:44 PM) *
And they are not telling people how to vote - just reccomending a vote for remain - I am sure many of the workers will choose to disregard the reccomendation.

OK. More Cameron style scaremongering then.
"The firm's chairman and chief executive and the leaders of the CWU and Prospect unions, said the vote would have a big impact on the economy and company."
Vote how you like BUT.........................
(Did they say whether it would be a positive or negative impact? Who knows?) unsure.gif

Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2016, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 13 2016, 03:35 PM) *
OK. More Cameron style scaremongering then.
"The firm's chairman and chief executive and the leaders of the CWU and Prospect unions, said the vote would have a big impact on the economy and company."
Vote how you like BUT.........................
(Did they say whether it would be a positive or negative impact? Who knows?) unsure.gif


Frankly yes, it is exactly as you say.

Sadly, much of British management think Dave can rescue them from the horrors of European labour legislation by opting out. Similarly, the trades unions think by keeping in the place of trades unions will be restored eventually. So both sides see combining is the lesser of two evils. My view, if it's a choice between evils, reject both - so vote out.

Why are certain British firms so scared of standing on their own in a World market? Have we really lost our national pride and capability?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 14 2016, 05:04 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 13 2016, 06:06 AM) *
Nice one OTE!
We all do it.
You know I'm only joshiing with you. wink.gif
Nothing as bad as the result of a 2000's state education eh? ohmy.gif

Back on subject I see the boss of BT has now written to it's employees recommending a remain vote.
What do folks think about employers telling their people how to vote in a referendum?
What if they did it in, say, a general election?? angry.gif


2000s education... like it's like so like great. Have you heard like kids these days like speaking like? I'm like so going to like vote brexit like.

Posted by: newres Jun 14 2016, 05:29 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jun 14 2016, 06:04 AM) *
2000s education... like it's like so like great. Have you heard like kids these days like speaking like? I'm like so going to like vote brexit like.

Actually they are more likely to vote remain as the Brexit demographic is generally the old and uneducated.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2016, 07:45 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Jun 14 2016, 06:29 AM) *
Actually they are more likely to vote remain as the Brexit demographic is generally the old and uneducated.


Ah, you mean 'the people'!



Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 14 2016, 10:11 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jun 14 2016, 08:45 AM) *
Ah, you mean 'the people'!

No! Daily Mail readers! Do catch up at the back.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 14 2016, 01:36 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jun 14 2016, 06:04 AM) *
2000s education... like it's like so like great. Have you heard like kids these days like speaking like? I'm like so going to like vote brexit like.

Aye, English doest has't a habit of changing and not at each moment in a way one wouldst approveth.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 15 2016, 10:34 AM

The in/out debate has been notably poor and I've not been convinced by the arguments on either side, but I came across the following in the Independent which I think has clinched it for me: "Nigel Farage is a suppurating anal fistula of a man".

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2016, 10:44 AM

Osbo is putting the frightners on so its obvious it's getting serious. Frankly, the tepid, lukewarm response from Brother Corbyn is beginning to seem exactly right. The sub text of that seems to be the average pleb has got more to gain by staying in than he has by coming out and trusting the Tories to do the right thing. Let's be really honest, our day as a powerful or even influential nation state have now gone and aren't ever coming back; so if you can't beat them!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 15 2016, 11:28 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 15 2016, 11:34 AM) *
The in/out debate has been notably poor and I've not been convinced by the arguments on either side, but I came across the following in the Independent which I think has clinched it for me: "Nigel Farage is a suppurating anal fistula of a man".

Ahh, personal insults, the last refuge of the politically inept. laugh.gif

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 15 2016, 12:18 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Jun 15 2016, 12:28 PM) *
Ahh, personal insults, the last refuge of the politically inept. laugh.gif


And voting to stay in because you don't like one of the outers..... rolleyes.gif

I see the multi millionaire Geldof has been campaigning for in... why do all the millionaires want to stay in?Is it because they don't live the real world?

Independence day. 24th June. And the film is released on the same day!😉

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 15 2016, 12:28 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Jun 14 2016, 06:29 AM) *
Actually they are more likely to vote remain as the Brexit demographic is generally the old and uneducated.


So if you vote out you are either old or uneducated. What a stupid thing to say. That must make all the remainers dictators (the EU has unelected "leaders"). The whole remain campaign has been ill judged. Slagging people off for voting a certain way smacks of desperation. I always look at bookies odds and brexit is looking more and more likely.... I will love it.

Posted by: x2lls Jun 15 2016, 01:01 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jun 15 2016, 01:28 PM) *
So if you vote out you are either old or uneducated. What a stupid thing to say. That must make all the remainers dictators (the EU has unelected "leaders"). The whole remain campaign has been ill judged. Slagging people off for voting a certain way smacks of desperation. I always look at bookies odds and brexit is looking more and more likely.... I will love it.


Like! 👍

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2016, 02:59 PM

Being old and uneducated I will also admit to being temped. Harmonisation of business and employment legislation based on the German model in particular would suit me very well. But hold on, this is just the legislation our clever peers go off and get exemptions from. Of course, with age you get experience and I actually voted in the last lot and well remember what our beloved leader Mr Heath, the man who'd taken us in (more ways than one) had told us. I think the words I'm looking for to describe what was said are something like lies and half truths. in this case hindsight definitely is twenty twenty and so it remains an OUT for me. Once bitten twice shy.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)