|
Which Brexit body is likely to be the most effective in the run-up to the referendum? Not UKIP I fancy. How about leave eu, supposedly grassroots; Vote Leave, Tory big noises; Get Britain Out or None of the Above?
|
I trust none of them will be effective.
Travelling through Europe on business in the 60s, with a car loaded with equipment, was a nightmare.
Similarly, shipping and importing goods. Paperwork madness.
|
|
Given the Brexit bodies could not agree amongst themselves to organise a picnic, they'll be as effective and useful as Nigel Farage is at becoming a Westminster MP.
|
|
At the moment the refugee crisis is doing the job for them.
|
|
...or tightening his nuts.
|
...or tightening his nuts nut.
|
Nigel' s book sold loads of copies. UKIP paid someone to buy them .. Yes really..
He really is a tool.
|
If the UK exits the EU I would expect prices to rise. First, in revenge the EU will place tariffs on our goods, then our Govt. would not hesitate to place tariffs on many goods from the EU, so expect many things to become more expensive like wine, imported beers, imported cars etc. etc.
In my previous job I visited dozens of clients in Europe and a colleague visited hundreds, these visits would not have been practical without the freedom to trade and work in these countries including access to specialist licences which were difficult enough to get hold of within the EU and would likely be impossible out of the EU.
I reckon we are better of in, especially when you look at the people that want us out!
|
|
Your post Mr. Zippy has made more sense in 30 seconds than the acres of Shi I have waded through on this subject. Chapeau.
|
Here's the truth about Cameron’s EU “Dealâ€
✓ No treaty change
✓ No repatriation of powers
✓ EU law remains supreme
✓ £55m handed over every day
✓ Open borders
|
So don't vote for it.
Although I doubt your understanding of the word "truth", at least on this subject.
|
Open Borders?
You try travelling to France/Spain with no passport as see how far you get.
Also, worth every penny to have HMG answerable to a higher court.
Anyone who thinks we would have 'more freedoms' as citizens of a soverign state outside the EU needs their head examined.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 2 Feb 16 at 17:57
|
|
Or even Southern Ireland without some form of official photo ID
|
|
Re Southern Ireland. Nae bother if you travel by car, aeroplanes different.
|
>> Open Borders?
>>
>> You try travelling to France/Spain with no passport as see how far you get.
That is clearly not the meaning of open borders in this context.
|
Anybody who thinks the Norway model is the way to go might try listeninig to this episode of BBC R4's From Our Own Correspondent:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06wg9gr
Around 16mins in.
In brief Norway, part of free market but not in EU, has abundant cheap electricity from hydro generation. Local firm makes electric boilers which use that electricity.
EU, assuming electricity to be CO2 generator, proposes rules which would make the boilers much more expensive. Rules will apply to any nation in the free trade area but as Norway is not in EU it has NO say.
Bacon saved in event by the French who have lots of carbon neutral nuclear power.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Feb 16 at 18:05
|
Open Borders?
5k asylum seekers at Calais might disagree with you.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Feb 16 at 18:33
|
|
Roger doesn't think anyone should be let into Europe except Donald Trump.
|
"5k asylum seekers at Calais might disagree with you."
Is this the same 5k that you wanted to let in 3 months ago on the basis that there was only 5k of them? At 5k per day, we'd have 0.5M here by now.
'e do make oi larf!
|
|
I never wanted them let in.
|
>> Here's the truth about Cameron’s EU “Dealâ€
The relevant quote is:
"I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved"
|
>> In my previous job I visited dozens of clients in Europe and a colleague visited
>> hundreds, these visits would not have been practical without the freedom to trade and work
>> in these countries including access to specialist licences which were difficult enough to get hold
>> of within the EU and would likely be impossible out of the EU.
>>
>> I reckon we are better of in, especially when you look at the people that
>> want us out!
Couldn't have put it better myself.
|
|
Given the time left this is probably a lost cause. In any case the Brexit movement can have no chance unless it forms a coalition of the numerous outfits involved and selects a noteworthy head for it.
|
The fear of change is all that is needed to keep us in the EU, and it probably will.
I give no special weight to the supposed clamour of business leaders saying we will be better off in. Businesses generally want a stable environment.
Sebastian James, CEO of Dixons Carphone, gave a characteristically honest answer last week - "We're still in a wait and see mode, but if you ask any business person they would say 'better the devil you know' and let's not run the risk of the unknown".
Incidentally, following that remark, the Independent characterised James's position as
The chief executive of the company behind Currys PC World and Carphone Warehouse has thrown his support behind Britain remaining part of the European Union, adding that most businesses are also in favour of staying in.
It didn't sound quite like that to me.
goo.gl/5Vo2FY
|
|
Oh, is Nige still part of the real world? I thought he'd been silenced by the tail between his legs.
|
>>The fear of change is all that is needed to keep us in the EU, and it probably will.
Like the Scottish referendum then.
The EU needs Great Britain more than we need the EU (there's a BIG world out there)
I will vote that we leave the EU, but I know fool well that if the majority of Britain follows suit, there will be years of negotiating to follow, and probably another referendum until we 'get it right', like Ireland but, in the final analysis, I also know that whichever way it goes, it won't really impact my life now so, best to vote for a Great Britain which you would prefer for your children to inherit IMO.
|
|
I agree. Cameron has negotiated next-to-nothing, as he must have known would be the case. Or perhaps, like Corbyn, he doesn't understand the real world!
|
|
I'm quite pleased with the reforms Mr Cameron appears to have negotiated, but of course I'd have voted to stay in anyway. There is no rational argument to leave in my book, none of the arguments in favour of leaving hold much water.
|
>> There is no rational argument to leave in my book, none of the arguments in favour of leaving hold much water.
Howls about what Nigel Lawson said two years ago:
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/07/lord-lawson-uk-better-outside-eu
|
>> I agree. Cameron has negotiated next-to-nothing, as he must have known would be the case.
>> Or perhaps, like Corbyn, he doesn't understand the real world!
He seems to understand the electorate well enough. (well actually he only needs to know it better than his opposition), which is all that counts.
|
I'll vote to stay. Why?
Most of our industry services and financial sector is now used to dealing with Europe and is set up to trade within the market. How they will trade or how well they will proposer outside the EU is an unknown. There is no guarantee that we can be given favoured trading status. Why would they?
We have quite large foreign investment on these shores, mainly there because of the access to the EU market. How the investment rational holds up outside the EU is an unknown. I can't be sure, but i suspect lots will be run down.
China is a resource and trade threat, I'd far sooner face them from within a larger club with more clout then from outside.
Similarly, the USA. They are only our friends when they want our help. The rest of the time they will screw us rigid at every opportunity.
And finally, we have prospered, and continue to proposer within the EU. Outside its an unknown, and the "out" faction can't remotely prove otherwise in any way.
S'nuff for me and no-one has a hope in hell of providing facts to change that view. The fact that most of the "out" protagonists are a bunch of racist nutters is no help to their cause either.
|
|
I think that Zero has it.
|
|
Pretty much, yeah. Perhaps a little too positive, but sensible throughout.
|
>> I think that Zero has it.
>>
Indeed. It leaves the only remaining objection - I don't want more foreigners allowed to come here. And the impact of immigration has been shown to be a slight positive in financial terms, so that must mean there are other reasons for the argument. None of the ones I can think of are any good.
|
So the argument for staying amounts to fear of change. I thought so.
I suppose I should have added "and avoiding being called a racist".
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 3 Feb 16 at 14:24
|
Thing is, Manatee, the outies are so keen to (wrongly) wail about British pounds being poured in to the European "black hole", yet they're willing to wager the livelihoods of thousands of businesses, and by default their employees, in Britain, on their "feelings" about the matter.
Pot, kettle, black.
|
>>Pot, kettle, black.
You have done three things there, first to reduce the out argument to the payments; second to say it is based on emotion, and by implication not on logic or principle; and thirdly that there is a material economic risk to leaving, and by implication no such risk in remaining in the EU.
I suppose I asked for that by suggesting that the in argument is just fear of change.
Isn't the fundamental question whether the UK should be an independent country or not?
I don't have a problem with being in a federal Europe, but the chances of that happening from here are very low. Meanwhile we are all stuck in the constipated bureaucracy that is the EU, indefinitely, while democracy is subverted at every level.
On the economics, there are more countries not in the EU than are in it.
Whilst the Norwegian way might not be the answer, I'd give it a try as a 'safe' half way house. They aren't signed up to CAP, which accounts for most of the 'black hole' payments, and the disadvantage of not having a vote is fairly minor since the erosion of the vetos.
goo.gl/mQ9UtO (Torygraph, 29.10.15, article by Norwegian outie))
|
>
>> I don't have a problem with being in a federal Europe, but the chances of
>> that happening from here are very low. Meanwhile we are all stuck in the constipated
>> bureaucracy that is the EU, indefinitely, while democracy is subverted at every level.
Both gross exaggerations
>>
>> On the economics, there are more countries not in the EU than are in it.
Fatuous statement, there are more people starving than not, which would you rather be.? And before you say that is fatuous as well, most of the nations outside the EU are the poorer ones.
>> Whilst the Norwegian way might not be the answer, I'd give it a try as
>> a 'safe' half way house. They aren't signed up to CAP, which accounts for most
>> of the 'black hole' payments, and the disadvantage of not having a vote is fairly
>> minor since the erosion of the vetoes.
No vote is Fairly Minor? and there you were complaining about the lack of democracy - Blimey whats your democratic model then?
|
>> Isn't the fundamental question whether the UK should be an independent country or not?
It is to me... and it is why i'm most likely to vote 'Out'.
I like the idea of a trade link up.... I very much do NOT like the idea of the US of E.
I want this country to make its own decisions, for the MPs we elect to decide what we do, not someone from elsewhere. I don't mind the people from elsewhere, in fact the visits I've had abroad have shown me that 'people are people'* first, but I have no understanding of why we would want others to say what we should do...... and vice versa.
It greatly annoys me when this country has to ask Brussels if it can do something, how on earth did we allow that to happen?
As for where we will end up with an 'out' vote, the answer is wherever we end up. If there's short term pain for some long term gain, so be it.
There's plenty of places to trade with in the world: US, Brazil, India, China, Russia are all current main players...then bung in Australasia, Canada etc... there's no reason why we should stumble... and the EU would want some of our trade and probably quite a bit, I can't see them totally ignoring a major economic country right on their doorstep.
* quote stolen from NoFM2R
|
>> >> Isn't the fundamental question whether the UK should be an independent country or not?
>>
>> It is to me... and it is why i'm most likely to vote 'Out'.
This is so baffling to me. What am I missing? We ARE indepemdent. I thought we all liked to shout "Woo, yay, The Queen, she's our Leader!". Mr Cameron has further obtained a get out from ever closer union, what's non-independent about that? If we weren't independent, what do you think would be happening?
>> If there's short term pain for some long term gain, so be
>> it.
Any sign of the long term gain in leaving? Where's the evidence? It strikes me that most of the people who spout this cobblers are beyond the age when being gainfully employed and well remunerated by solvent businesses, essential to even maintain the standard of living we have let alone aspire to greater things, matters any more.
I'm a bit non-plussed by the generation below me, but you know what? Broadly, they seem to be in favour of IN and I hope this carries the votes over those of more advanced age than I, who will not be the ones dealing with the consequences of their short-sighted opinions.
|
>> So the argument for staying amounts to fear of change. I thought so.
Its less a fear of the unknown but more biased towards happy with the known.
>> I suppose I should have added "and avoiding being called a racist".
You didn't need to add that at all, because thats not a valid conclusion, nor was it implied. The implication was that the racist element of the "out" camp use the immigrants argument as a bad thing, and its been proven not to be. So as its not an economic factor, it has to be a racist one.
|
>> The implication was that the racist element of the "out" camp use
>> the immigrants argument as a bad thing, and its been proven not to be. So
>> as its not an economic factor, it has to be a racist one.
>>
A bit of circularity there, I think.
A racist element use an argument as a racist factor? Well, they would, wouldn't they?
|
>> the constipated bureaucracy that is the EU
It has been particularly costive over the past four months over the EU widows pension a British 92 year old wife of a former colleague has been trying to get. In all, it has taken five of us to get to the point where a four-page questionnaire has been sent to her. In the foreign language, of course.
|
Eh?
Funny how few people - and none of the major campaigners - will admit to making an emotional decision first and rationalizing afterwards. But I'm pretty sure that's what most of us have done - I know I have. I'm above all an internationalist: the more humanity can unite and avoid factionalism, the better and safer for all of us. This, to me, is what the EU is for, and why stepping away from it would be a grave mistake. The pounds and pence arguments - which Zero marshals so well here - are secondary to that.
Conversely, I think those opposed start from their distaste for things 'foreign' and then look for justifications. But their arguments won't work on me because they're arguing against something I believe, whatever its problems, is essentially good and necessary. And I won't convince them because their decision, like mine, is primarily an emotional one, not a rational one.
|
In the beginning there were monkeys, mainly formed into family groups who looked after their own and fought with their rivals for territory. Then some of the monkeys evolved into humans who carried on in much the same way but started to think of themselves as tribes who also looked after their own and fought with their rivals. Eventually, the smarter tribal leaders worked out that it was in their interests to form alliances with neighbouring tribes and this, while it had its complications made them stronger, safer and more efficient.
In time those alliances became nations, stronger still and able to achieve so much more than the primitive tribes. Sadly along the way, some of those nations decided to feel superior to other nations and forcibly took their territories and goods.
This arrangement continued for a very long time with with much loss of life and a growing mistrust between the nations.
Then some of the smarter nations decided that by joining forces with their neighbours they could learn to relax a bit about the fighting thing and would be stronger still provided all the nations cooperated.
This worked really quite well for a while and wars between those neighbouring nations were a thing of the past and the ordinary people of the nations began to travel to each other's nations on a regular basis both for leisure and business.
This was all good. But then, some of those people decided that the monkey's ways were better, that they should just look after their own, should mistrust the others and should only accept them into their territory reluctantly and with many caveats.
The other nations shrugged their shoulders, told them that they could do what they liked but by and large stopped trading with them or supporting them in any way. The monkey-style nation stumbled along for a while, trying to pretend it didn't need friends but eventually...
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 3 Feb 16 at 18:00
|
>> Conversely, I think those opposed start from their distaste for things 'foreign'
You are coming from the wrong angle (with me, anyway) because you are thinking only from your perspective.
You want 'A' so therefore 'B' is wrong.
I have been told by many people that I am a 'people person'. I think so too. That sentiment isn't confined to 'my own type of people', it's across the board.
I don't have any distaste for things foreign (unless we are talking about backwardness, suppression or a lack of compassion for other people or other things). In fact, I actively like things foreign, I find them interesting and i'm nosy, so I want to know more.
My distrust of the EU is because there's been considerable underhandedness in moving the 'project' to where it is and some want to go further without the proper consent of those they claim to represent..and ..I want my tribe to be making the informed decisions about my tribe (country), because they have half a chance of understanding what the real issues are here... and they are the people I vote for.
By all means have an understanding with the other tribes (trade agreements, etc) just not having the other tribe's elders ruling us... and I think it perfectly reasonable for another's tribe to think likewise.
|
>
>> I have been told by many people that I am a 'people person'. I think
>> so too. That sentiment isn't confined to 'my own type of people', it's across the
>> board.
Really? are there two people called Westpig on here then?
|
>> Really? are there two people called Westpig on here then?
>>
Oh, I've also been told I don't suffer fools gladly either.
|
>> >> Really? are there two people called Westpig on here then?
>> >>
>>
>> Oh, I've also been told I don't suffer fools gladly either.
Is that you or the people person Westpig?
|
" So as its not an economic factor"
If the economy grows and, at the same time, the number of immigrants grows - do we have the proof that the two are related? I'm not an economist, but I can't think that the Eastern Europeans selling Big Issues in our town are contributing a great deal.
|
>> " So as its not an economic factor"
>>
>> If the economy grows and, at the same time, the number of immigrants grows -
>> do we have the proof that the two are related?
Throw the falling unemployment number into the mix.
|
"Throw the falling unemployment number into the mix."
Ah - so it's nothing to do with immigration?
|
>> "Throw the falling unemployment number into the mix."
>>
>> Ah - so it's nothing to do with immigration?
Exactly the point. Immigration is not an economic problem.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 3 Feb 16 at 21:58
|
|
Immigration is first and foremost an emotional issue.
|
"Immigration is first and foremost an emotional issue."
For me, it is first and foremost a population density issue and, secondly, a cultural issue.
|
Cultural = emotional. You want the 'culture' you grew up with, not the one that's developed from it - nor, presumably, the one that it developed from. Because, apparently, your version of 'original' is the right one.
As for population, we have a zillion oldies who all demand - or soon will - services that can be paid for only out of taxes. Someone has to do the work that generates those taxes because your generation took the proceeds of the false boom for themselves and spent them on buy-to-let houses and poxy caravans. So it falls to my generation and the one behind me to produce the GDP to keep you cared for, and there aren't enough of us because - amazingly - 35 years of work followed by 40 years of retirement doesn't add up - but you'd rather we did it without spoiling the nice, all-white view from your front window?
So can you accept a few more people in the country, or would you prefer to stop complaining and go back to work?
|
"Cultural = emotional"
Only in as much as I recognise that cultures don't necessarily mix and, when they don't, things get uncomfortable for all concerned. I don't have grandchildren, so I don't really have to worry about that too much.
Sure demographics is a massive issue, but any ideas about increasing the population to take care of the old 'uns is based on Ponzi-scheme logic. Have you thought about what happens when they get old? It happens to everyone, you know.
BTW I still work part-time. And I'm glad that someone else has recognised that 35 years of work followed by 40 years of retirement doesn't add up - certainly not for everyone.
|
It would seem to me WdB that you have a problem with old people in the same way that some on here have a problem with foreigners.
Personally I don't remember engineering a false boom and pocketing the proceeds and I don't have a buy-to-let house or a caravan. Like many other I do have pension paid into over my working life and a sufficiency of savings acquired over 50 years of work.
You are scapegoating a generation in the same way some scapegoat immigrants. It is silly and wrong and smacks of self pity.
|
Problem with old people in general, CGN, of course not; but I'll admit to a problem with the idea that a group of people should be politically and economically untouchable simply because they're old. If I express that occasionally in terms that court controversy - well, what's the Internet for?
To a first approximation, the older half of the UK adult population has the capital while the younger half does the work. I'm just in the lower half, although fortunate enough to have (just) begun my working life in the magical, unrepeatable 1980s and caught the tailboard of the final salary pension wagon.
As for HW's Ponzi idea, if a Ponzi is a scheme that promises future returns but actually spends current income on paying current recipients, then National Insurance has been one of those for a generation, possibly two.
More later, but first I've got to go to work.
|
Better deal with 'self pity' too. I'm not especially concerned on my own account because I'm fortunate enough to be a high earner and to have benefited from the tail end of the Magic Eighties (at least the bits that endured into the Grim Nineties.) More than half my pension contributions to date - admittedly from my less well paid years - have gone into the final-salary scheme that has kept Z in dog food and video cameras since his mid-fifties, although I'll have to wait till 62 for mine. Assuming I can maintain something like my current income for a few more years, I have a reasonably comfortable retirement to look forward to. Those even five years younger than me are not so lucky.
But just to show what a difference the Eighties made, I've just collected on the with-profits endowment that I was assured in 1991 would pay off my first mortgage with plenty to spare. At Eighties rates it would have done just that, but it came up 30% short, an annual return of barely 4% - not disastrous in isolation but it shows the absurdity of the original idea. (Long since disconnected from the mortgage, the proceeds are going towards the Beestlings' university fees and maintenance - another cost I escaped by a whisker.) But anyone over about 57 today who makes the 'I've saved all my life' claim needs to put it the context of a time when more was wrung out of the financial system than it could ever sustain, at the expense of those who rely on it today.
The new citizens HW is so suspicious of will not get lavish pensions at 60 or huge unearned gains in their property values. They will have to earn every penny, using the skills they acquired at another country's expense, and save as much as they can towards a retirement that may not come till they're 70 or more. Assume for the moment they're kept out; how much longer does he want the rest of us to go on working to support his old age?
|
*round of applause for WDB*
>> Those even five years younger than
>> me are not so lucky.
*friendly wave from someone who started working in 1993*
I don't know anyone my age, apart from successful business people, those with family money/assets or high earners with no children, who will be able to retire much before 70.
Balls to the boomers. Yah boo sucks. They seem to think they've done the right, old fashioned thing, but fail to understand completely the issues outlined so well in your posts. I know on a individual level nobody can be pointed at and blamed - for they knew not what they did and I'm sure I'd be in the same category if I were 20 or so years younger.
The Great Pink Pixie in the Sky alone knows how my children's generation is going to cope. In my own case I think we're going to have to sell our home and downsize when they graduate from University (inshallah), and give them some bunce to get their own homes.
Kudos to Zero for getting it though, it's pleasing to see that not all pensioners are one-eyed Outies, asking others to take the risk of this "short term pain", as Westpig put it. If it was your personal "short term pain" we were talking about WP, would you be quite so quick to tick the "OUT" box? Jolly easy to play the risk game with other people's livelihoods.
|
WDB and Alanovich are right on one thing. Those born after 1945 and before about 1960, at least the ones who got into salaried jobs in the warm and dry with no heavy lifting, were the golden generation. We didn't go through WW2, we could buy a house on moderate wages, and many of us (but by no means all) have some defined benefit pension with at least some RPI protection.
Our pension schemes and the government made us promises that turned out to have cost more than they expected. Companies and the public sector face massive pension deficits.
The main culprit is longevity. It doesn't seem so long ago that men died around 70, and women around 74. Life expectancy has increased by 10 years since 1977. Some of the problem was self inflicted; it was common once for companies to allow people to retire early on full pensions while there was a deficit in the pension scheme, and my mother (b. 1927) retired at 55 on a full, inflation proof, teacher's pension.
But immigration is not the answer, for Britain at least.
Britain already has one of the youngest populations in Europe, and a rapidly rising population. Germany is in a far worse position, which a much worse projected dependency ratio and a falling population, which is why it makes much more sense for them to encourage migration, in economic terms at least (see below link)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729
and a Guardian article from 2008, before the later increases in immigration, stating the UK was already on track to become the most populous country in Europe by 2060, based on the lower average age of its population and its birth rates.
www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/27/population.eu
The idea that the UK should try to solve its public finance problems and pension shortfalls by encouraging further immigration now does not stack up against that IMO (I am ignoring population density). Population forecasting isn't easy but it seems likely that Haywain is right, and funding pensions now by importing more working age people looks like a Ponzi scheme.
Forgetting the overhang of those foolish promises for a moment, if people want to work for 35-40 years and have 25-30 years of active retirement, then saving 5%, 10% or even 15% of their wages won't be enough.
My daughter (34) is quite bright, and she is well aware of that. 25% is nearer the mark, and that is what they are doing. They are not counting on the government or an influx of immigrants to support them.
The government's answer of course is for people to work longer; not entirely unreasonable if they are living longer. The difficulty with that is apparent to many of us; I would have carried on in all probability until nearer 65 had I not been chucked out at 59 - and I was a survivor, there weren't many left older than I was despite the pension scheme retirement age being 65.
The tough part for my son and daughter of course is that as well as funding their own retirements, they will have to help pay my state pension. That is why I will be giving my son a house deposit soon, and I will be looking at how best to anticipate at least some of their inheritance so they don't have to wait too eagerly for us to fall off our perches.
|
>> >> My daughter (34) is quite bright, and she is well aware of that. 25% is
>> nearer the mark, and that is what they are doing. They are not counting on
>> the government or an influx of immigrants to support them.
I hope she doesn't suffer an Equitable Life moment.
Over 25% of our joint income is going on private school fees. Serious pension contributions of that level are out of the question for us.
Am I bright or dim? Dunno. Time will tell and hindsight will of course be a wonderful thing. I am not counting on the government nor the immigrants either. I'm just not planning on going on 6 cruises a year when I retire.
|
"Over 25% of our joint income is going on private school fees. Serious pension contributions of that level are out of the question for us."
We all make financial choices in life, but I do know that we could never, anything like, afford to send our children to private school; I know that because my wife now teaches at an independent school and we are aware of the fees and all the 'extras' that go on top.
Those who have benefitted from a private education are clearly more self-assured, and the school encourages that side of their education. I wonder sometimes, though, just how much of that confidence is learned from home, or even to be found lurking in the genes.
|
Yes, you're quite right Haywain. The value of private education is an elusive concept indeed. I'm not entirely comfortable with it (old Communist that I am), but to use someone else's terminology my Project Manager is quite the convert. It will have a hugely detrimental effect on my retirement, of that I have no doubt. Should I be fortunate to achieve one, of course. And there's the other side of it. What with the Project Manager's brush with potentially fatal illness recently, she's not the keenest on saving up huge, inaccessible amounts for an uncertain future.
We pays our moneys we takes our chances.
|
>>know that because my wife now teaches at an independent school
Most of the Independent schools up here offer substantial discounts to staff (60-75% off fees being typical)
I went to an Indy School and for most of the time benefited from the 'Assisted Places Scheme' which paid a portion of my fees on a means-tested basis - the rationale being if I didn't go there, then the council would be footing the bill for my education (currently £5k or so per pupil per year at State school I believe).
|
"Most of the Independent schools up here offer substantial discounts to staff (60-75% off fees being typical)"
Yes - something like that is, I believe, available at my wife's school. However, as my wife only started teaching there 8 or 9 years ago and the offspring are now aged 31 - 36, the offer isn't much use. She plans to retire at the end of this school year.
|
>>but I do know that we could never, anything like, afford to send our children to private school;
Best learn how to use a past tense then!
|
">>but I do know that we could never, anything like, afford to send our children to private school;
Best learn how to use a past tense then!"
The implication being that I couldn't afford it then ........ and I couldn't afford it now i.e. 'never'.
|
>> >>but I do know that we could never, anything like, afford to send our children
>> to private school;
>>
>> Best learn how to use a past tense then!
Mapmaker - apologies for being picky, but why not click on the 'Reply to this message' link of the post you are replying to? As it is, it makes it difficult if like me you want to see the whole of the post you were replying to. Well ok, not difficult, but I did have to use the browser's search page function instead of just moving my mouse to the up-arrow at the start of your post's title.
|
I did click on the 'Reply to this message link' of the post to which I was replying.
Thanks for the suggestion, though.
|
>> I did click on the 'Reply to this message link' of the post to which
>> I was replying.
Well, that is odd; hovering over your up-arrow now does indeed now show the post you quoted, which wasn't the case yesterday. Ho hum.
Last edited by: Focusless on Sat 6 Feb 16 at 22:33
|
>> can towards a retirement that may not come till they're 70 or more. Assume for
>> the moment they're kept out; how much longer does he want the rest of us
>> to go on working to support his old age?
Well I'd like you to keep on working for a fair while yet old boy, I haven't got to Old Age pension age yet. That reminds me, pondering buying a new video camera now I know I am not getting a cactus.
AT least I now know I have a date, albeit further away than i was expecting a few years ago, some of the youngsters on here have a state pension age finish line that is galloping further away.
As far as endowment mortgages go, my first was one of them beasts. Projected to pay off my mortgage with handy lump sum to boot. Of course it wouldn't have, coming in 4k short of a 44k mortgage. Still having left that mortgage behind, I was happy I kept the endowment bit going, it was a handy amount to rake in at early retirement day.
|
|
You have got to go to work that sounds condescending to me.I had to go to work for more than fourty years.Started at sixteen and finished due to illness at sixty.Don't you think I have earned my pension over all those years working.What do you want to do with old people finish them off in a gas chamber?Wildebeest.
|
>> To a first approximation, the older half of the UK adult population has the capital
>> while the younger half does the work.
Well that shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Unless someone young inherits something, it'll always be the case that it'll take quite some time to accrue wealth.
|
"spent them on buy-to-let houses and poxy caravans"
For your information, Will, I deplore the 'buy to let' phenomenon and, I have been accused of some things in my time but NEVER of owning a caravan, poxy or otherwise. Pah!
|
}:---D
I did say 'your generation', which doesn't mean you all did it. Some of you presumably bought those two-feet-in-one sheepskin boots for watching Richard and Judy instead.
|
In my stepfather's case it's an MGB and a Wolseley 1500. And a Nissan Navara. And a JCB digger. And a tractor. Oh, and a caravan.
My Mum also has a caravan, but it's a static one, installed behind the Dutch barn, for accommodating less prestigious relatives when they visit The Estate. And some mightily impressive fur lined slippers.
|
"Richard and Judy"
Are 'two-feet-in-one' the things that you use whilst snow-boarding? And who are Richard and Judy - I suspect they might have been before my time?
|
Well, at one point, I kept hearing the argument that immigration is powering our economy. Where was that coming from - I'm sure that I didn't imagine it?
|
>> >> "Throw the falling unemployment number into the mix."
>> >>
>> >> Ah - so it's nothing to do with immigration?
>>
>> Exactly the point. Immigration is not an economic problem.
Hmm. Too many moving parts to draw that conclusion I think - a significant increase in employment accompanied big falls in real wages, low productivity that anecdotally is linked to a disproportionate growth in low paid jobs, and the growth of part time jobs. It seems likely that an effectively unlimited supply of cheap labour must depress wages for less skilled occupations.
It's possible for immigration to be good for the economy but less good for the individual.
|
>> Hmm. Too many moving parts to draw that conclusion I think - a significant increase
>> in employment accompanied big falls in real wages, low productivity that anecdotally is linked to
>> a disproportionate growth in low paid jobs, and the growth of part time jobs. It
>> seems likely that an effectively unlimited supply of cheap labour must depress wages for less
>> skilled occupations.
Except that wages are now growing again, faster then the inflation rate.
|
>> Except that wages are now growing again, faster then the inflation rate.
+1.9% in 2015, varies regionally. Wales still went backwards, and overall wages are still below 2012 levels. So perhaps equilibrium has been reached.
|
>> >> Except that wages are now growing again, faster then the inflation rate.
>>
>> +1.9% in 2015, varies regionally. Wales still went backwards, and overall wages are still below
>> 2012 levels. So perhaps equilibrium has been reached.
well at least some kind of grudging acknowledgement that things are not quite so bad as you try to paint them. And I note at least you haven't tried to claim that a: the crash would never have happened had we been outside the EU, and b: recovery would have been quicker had we been outside the EU.
|
>> well at least some kind of grudging acknowledgement that things are not quite so bad
>> as you try to paint them.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, just to debate and analyse. I prefer not to start with the answer and work backwards.
>>And I note at least you haven't tried to
>> claim that a: the crash would never have happened had we been outside the EU,
>> and b: recovery would have been quicker had we been outside the EU.
I don't think either of those is true.
|
>> I think that Zero has it.
He sums up my line of thinking too.
|
Another journalistic tour de force from an unbiased observer.
|
>> I agree. Cameron has negotiated next-to-nothing, as he must have known would be the case.
I've maintained since Cameron first promised renegotiation/referendum that he had taken the policy straight from the textbook of Harold Wilson. Nothing since has changed that view.
In fact, the quote I posted at noon on 04 Feb (responding to Roger's take on the treaty) was Harold's not Dave's.
|
Westpig wrote: "I like the idea of a trade link up.... I very much do NOT like the idea of the US of E."
I'm a bit undecided myself. I think we're ripped off by Europe and *some* people who come here for the benefits. I think the influx of Romanian vagrants with their accordians has not improved London. Not one bit.
But would you trust the nutters in Europe to agree to a trade link up? I wouldn't. I think that's the killer for me. They're nutters; we can't control them. So you've got to Remain.
I suspect a good victory for Remain on account of this (thank goodness it's not a Yes/No vote; I could never remember which side was which in the Scottish; how to confuse people!). That there's nobody to lead the Leave campaign (Dr Fox, what's happened to you?) is a significant feature.
I do wonder whether Boris might lead the Leave campaign. He has no political future otherwise, if he won he'd likely become PM as Mr Cameron would have to (surely) resign.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 4 Feb 16 at 12:55
|
>> I do wonder whether Boris might lead the Leave campaign. He has no political future
>> otherwise, if he won he'd likely become PM as Mr Cameron would have to (surely)
>> resign.
I think Boris and Theresa May have both recognised that a Yes vote, while not absolutely certain, is by far the most likely outcome.
Cameron, unless he resiles from the commitment, is going before the next election anyway. Boris and Theresa are both in running & don't want to be identified with the embittered losers when the succession battle is commenced
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 4 Feb 16 at 13:05
|
>> theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/those-arent-giants-theyre-windmills-how.html
Nicely points out that we will have the opportunity to negotiate and to sign 27 new free trade agreements. Sounds like a great opportunity until you realise we've already got a free trade agreement with those countries, so why no just keep that one?
|
|
Make that 31 agreements, to include Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
|
Oh yeah. There goes my maths again.
Biggest free trade area in the world and some of us want to leave it because brown people.
Only in Mittel Inglund.
|
>> Biggest free trade area in the world and some of us want to leave it
>> because brown people.
You keep going on about this angle.
The 'Out' brigade will form a fairly wide spectrum. Whilst there may well be some who don't like things foreign or 'brown people' as you put it (not that I'm aware that there are that many 'brown people' in the EU or does your definition include southern European?), they will undoubtedly be small in number.
There are a whole host of concerns re the EU... why don't you concentrate on all of them, rather than just one thing?...or is it easier for your argument to concentrate on the obvious negative one?
|
>> not that I'm aware that there are that many 'brown people' in the EU
There are rather a lot of 'brown people' in the EU right now - those seeking asylum from Syria et al. A fair few on the anti side seem to believe it would be easier to ignore the biggest refugee/dp crisis since 1945 if we were out of the EU.
|
>> There are rather a lot of 'brown people' in the EU right now - those
>> seeking asylum from Syria et al. A fair few on the anti side seem to
>> believe it would be easier to ignore the biggest refugee/dp crisis since 1945 if we
>> were out of the EU.
There are also those who'll conflate the refugee migrants and migrant workers issues into one big invasion and overcrowding story.
And while the line that we need Brussels permission to breathe is oft trotted out real world examples affecting real people seem much thin on the ground.
|
>> And while the line that we need Brussels permission to breathe is oft trotted out
>> real world examples affecting real people seem much thin on the ground.
>>
Really?
Then why was Donald Tusk here recently?
If this country could do as it wishes, it wouldn't have to negotiate with the EU, would it?
|
>> If this country could do as it wishes, it wouldn't have to negotiate with the
>> EU, would it?
If you want to be in a trade agreement then you have to negotiate the terms and conditions. We'd still have to negotiate the terms of free movement of goods or people if we were outside.
And if we treat domestic goods or people differently it isn't free trade/movement is it?
|
>> A fair few on the anti side seem to
>> believe it would be easier to ignore the biggest refugee/dp crisis since 1945 if we
>> were out of the EU.
It's not just the anti's....it's across the board. Figures were quoted on R2 today.... and people's thoughts on the subject are hardening.
|
>>
>> >> theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/those-arent-giants-theyre-windmills-how.html
>>
>> Nicely points out that we will have the opportunity to negotiate and to sign 27
>> new free trade agreements.
Do they (the 27) want to sign free trade agreements with us?
|
Who knows.
Great idea, huh?
|
Neatly summarised. If neither of those two will come forward, then, in spite of earlier reservations, I wonder if Nigel Farage might not be the best qualified to lead the Leavers after all. He is after all the experienced head of a party which has made a lot of progress under him, and a long involvement in "leaving" issues. The UKIP party political broadcast last night, highlighting the issue of Turkey joining the EU, was a well structured, well delivered
and hard hitting.
He would need to act as head of a coalition however and there is scarce time left to organise one.
|
>> He would need to act as head of a coalition however
Never mind the timescale; the words above fully capture the insurmountable hurdle......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 4 Feb 16 at 13:40
|
>> made a lot of progress under him, and a long involvement in "leaving" issues. The
>> UKIP party political broadcast last night, highlighting the issue of Turkey joining the EU, was
>> a well structured, well delivered
>> and hard hitting.
Farage is a liability. He was a liability to UKIP, and he will be a liability to the out camp. Hope he does lead it.
Turkey is not joining the EU, so last nights broadcast was alarmist fiction. Not hard hitting at all.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 4 Feb 16 at 13:39
|
|
The point seemed to be that Britain supports its application.
|
It's quite obvious that we have to "support" it without any intention on the part of the EU to actually go through with it. How long's it been they've been asking? Long before Romania asked and Ceaucescu got final Christmas present from his Grateful People, that's for sure.
Never gonna happen. They're being trolled. It's just Politics.
|
>> The point seemed to be that Britain supports its application.
Does it? can you point us to a definitive source of that? And not because Nige says it is so.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 4 Feb 16 at 15:19
|
>> The point seemed to be that Britain supports its application.
It's all about diplomacy - Turkey is a NATO ally - we want to appear chummy with them.
Step 1 - Support an application to join
Step 2 - Ensure sufficient hoops to be jumped through that would make acceptance to the EU impossible.
|
>>I wonder if Nigel Farage might not be the best qualified to lead the Leavers after all
Well, he'd fit right in with Zero's assessment....
"The fact that most of the "out" protagonists are a bunch of racist nutters is no help to their cause either."
I think the man is such an ass, and the supporters he attracts generally so appalling, that I would struggle to support his "side" in a discussion, even if I thought he was right.
|
"I would struggle to support his "side" in a discussion, even if I thought he was right."
And of course neither he, nor his supporters, could ever be right. Don't worry, I won't ask you to define 'dogma'.
|
I think you'd be better to read what I wrote and understand that first before worrying about more difficult words.
I said "even if I thought he was right" thus kind of acknowledging the possibility.
Mind you, you did manage to offer evidence support my other sentence, so thanks for that.
|
>> I think the man is such an ass, and the supporters he attracts generally so
>> appalling, that I would struggle to support his "side" in a discussion, even if I
>> thought he was right.
>>
So you don't like someone and think the people who do are appalling... well fair enough so far only in that you are entitled to your own opinion, even if it is exceptionally intolerant.
However, the bit I find difficult to grasp is the bit where you say that even if he were to be right on something, you couldn't support it.
Why on earth not?.. he'd be right.
Then there's the bit whereby you don't like his supporters because you think them to be intolerant.... yet you are intolerant??
|
>>However, the bit I find difficult to grasp is the bit where you say that even if he were to be right on something, you couldn't support it.
Why on earth not?.. he'd be right.
<<
That's the bit I couldn't come to terms with.
No chance of respecting Mark's opinions and looking at them to see if they may just be right (even though different from my own) now, as it's all down to a personal like or dislike.
The higher up you are, the further you have to fall.
Pat
|
Does anyone remember Tesco selling Levi 501s for £20 odd?
Tesco got them from a distributor in Mexico.
Levi didn't like that because Debenhams and other shops were selling them for £80.
So Levi took Tesco to court to stop them selling the jeans and won. They won, in simple terms, because Levi owned the copyright to the brand and could say in what market they were sold.
Now, if Tesco could have imported the same jeans from Greece for example, then Levi could not have done anything because there is free movement of goods within the EU and the copyright issue would not apply, because they were already in the single market.
If we left the EU the branded goods imported from around the world that end up in distributors in the EU before they get to Tesco, or Sainsbury or Waitrose would likely get more expensive.
Cars, CNC machines in factories, laptops and computers, these too will get more expensive as will TVs, DVD players anything that is imported really because suppliers will be able to fix the price to the UK and our shops and businesses won't be able to buy from cheaper suppliers within the EU because the copyright holders could legitimately ban the sale here.
I would expect shops like Poundland to really suffer.
The NHS can source patented drugs from anywhere within the EU at the moment and I work with importers that do just that and pass the savings on to the local hospital trusts. They have all told me that this will not be possible if we leave the EU because the patent holder will bar the transfer of goods from the EU to our market.
A CNC manufacturer that I spent sometime with recently commented that his Japanese electronics supplier has indicated that they will no longer be able to buy the relevant components from Germany at a significant discount if we exit as the UK market alone, being much smaller would be expected to pay a premium price.
|
Marc Carney the bank boss didn't look to cheerful the other day.Some of the stuff he was talking about was hard to understand.Maybe the in or out vote regarding the E.U might be the least of our worries if the economy goes down the pan again.
UKIP all they do is spread fear,all about immigration it is all Johnny Foreigners fault.Everything is interlinked these days,big companies soon move to their advantage if they have to.
Starting a Nissan factorie in Antwerp is not that difficult if inport charges go up for the cars we sell into mainland Europe.
I have no say in it according to Mr Cameron I am not allowed to vote on the E.U.referendum.
|
I read up thread about Farage being best placed to lead LEAVE.
That's an interesting lack of awareness of how toxic Mr Farage is to many sectors of the voting public and how he is perceived by them. I an sure REMAIN would be delighted..
Any politician who resigns his post and rejoins 3 days later cannot be accused of lack of ambition or high moral scruples.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 5 Feb 16 at 04:46
|
>>who resigns his post and rejoins 3 days later cannot be accused of lack of ambition or high moral scruples.<<
Bit like a classic car4play flounce we see all the time here!
Pat
|
>>
>> Bit like a classic car4play flounce we see all the time here!
>>
>> Yes much the same. Certain personality types just crave attention and need to be in control.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Bit like a classic car4play flounce we see all the time here!
>> >>
>> >> Yes much the same. Certain personality types just crave attention and need to be
>> in control.
Can't think of anyone on here to whom that applies!
|
>> I read up thread about Farage being best placed to lead LEAVE.
>>
>> That's an interesting lack of awareness of how toxic Mr Farage is to many sectors
>> of the voting public and how he is perceived by them.
As I alluded above Farage is not any sort of Leader. As more or less the sole public face of UKIP and performing in his 'man in the pub' persona he comes over quite well. Move him away from that though and his true colours shine through.
Look at his performance in the leaders debates during the GE. He couldn't actually debate, rather came over as snarky, nit picking and at times (over HIV for example) downright nasty. More than a whiff of misogyny towards the nationalist and green leaders too.
And then his poor relationships with others in his own party, not least his single MP Douglas Carswell.
If he tried to lead an out campaign, with lots of other strong personalities, they'd be even more ferrets fighting in even more sacks than they are already.
|
>> If he tried to lead an out campaign, with lots of other strong personalities, they'd
>> be even more ferrets fighting in even more sacks than they are already.
I think having more sacks would be helpful, Sir Humphrey. It would mean that they couldn't fight.
|
>>That's the bit I couldn't come to terms with.
Well read what I wrote rather than what Westpig wrote. You'll get there in the end.
>>The higher up you are, the further you have to fall.
I guess its a compliment but I don't know why you would think I am higher up than you.
|
>>
I guess its a compliment but I don't know why you would think I am higher up than you.<<
Oh, I don't, my manners are far better than yours and I still believe that manners maketh man.
See your reply to CG for proof.
Pat
|
"I think the man is such an ass, and the supporters he attracts generally so appalling, that I would struggle to support his "side" in a discussion, even if I thought he was right."
>> So you don't like someone and think the people who do are appalling.
I don't know him, so who knows if I would like him? I think he is an ass and that the supporters he attracts are generally often laughable. Look around you, the proof is here.
>> However, the bit I find difficult to grasp is the bit where you say that
>> even if he were to be right on something, you couldn't support it.
Again, I didn't say that. I said that I would struggle to...
Why is that difficult to understand? It is possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that he might be right about something. I would struggle to support him, because I think he is an ass.
>>Then there's the bit whereby you don't like his supporters because you think them to be intolerant.
Again, not something I actually said. I think they are appalling, but I didn't say that was because they were intolerant.
All in all perhaps you'd find my words easier to understand if you actually read them and stopped making stuff up.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 5 Feb 16 at 12:33
|
>> I don't know him, so who knows if I would like him? I think he
>> is an ass and that the supporters he attracts are generally often laughable. Look around
>> you, the proof is here.
Well I have difficulty with that, as I see no proof. What I do see is a range of people with differing views..... and each of them is entitled to have them.
>> Again, I didn't say that. I said that I would struggle to...
Well that's a play on words that I shan't even bother to continue to reply to.
>> Again, not something I actually said. I think they are appalling, but I didn't say
>> that was because they were intolerant.
>>
>> All in all perhaps you'd find my words easier to understand if you actually read
>> them and stopped making stuff up.
That part of my response relates to your previous thoughts and posts and I've used that knowledge to add to this recent post... so 'yes' you haven't stated that this time...but you have done previously or have intimated it.
|
I'd really like the Outies who would no doubt cite Norway and Switzerland as example to follow to have a look for cost of living figures in those countries, compare them to ours, and then tell me how they think incomes are going to magically increase by substantial amounts to compensate.
Or is this the "short term pain" we're supposed to be welcoming in order that a few migrants be stopped at Calais, like, err, they're already being stopped at Calais and living in bin liners?
[Apologies for the late edit, to amend a potentially offensive comment. Smokie ]
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Feb 16 at 19:39
|
"The UK has come in at number six in the World Bank rankings of the best places to do business, its highest ranking since 2011."
tinyurl.com/p72wjso
It cannot be true .. we keep hearing of all this EU red tape from the LEAVE side..
And it ranks us better than all European countries apart from Denmark . Denmark is a member of the EU as well - that cannot be true either.
:-)
|
A scowlie then, but no answer. Figures.
Consider this: if those boats bobbing between Turkey and Greece were filled with white, British descended people fleeing a conflict in Africa somewhere where the real natives had turned against them (Kenya, for example), how quick would folks be to be wanting the boats turned back, or shot at? Now consider the answer and think "Why?"
And now today we hear perfectly feasible and reasonable arguments from the British border agency that leaving the EU would more likely than not move the Sangatte "Jungle" to Kent.
The economic argument for leaving the EU is non-existent. The immigration argument is being lost. The cultural argument is a dead duck.
We're staying in, folks.
[I suspect your scowlie was due to poor choice of words causing offence, not the content. Smokie]
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 10 Feb 16 at 19:41
|
>> Consider this: if those boats bobbing between Turkey and Greece were filled with white, British
>> descended people fleeing a conflict in Africa somewhere where the real natives had turned against
>> them (Kenya, for example), how quick would folks be to be wanting the boats turned
>> back, or shot at? Now consider the answer and think "Why?"
Because they'd be culturally similar to us. We know and understand residents of former colonies. And they know and understand us. Yes, there are differences, but there are many similarities. This extends to the natives of these lands. Black Jamaicans, for instance, fit in very well here in the UK. Likewise Indians. They are, to an extent, British. Syrians, however, are not.
|
|
Indeed. So being different is good enough reason to condemn them to drowning. Why?
|
"The Price for Freedom
The truth is that a BREXIT WILL BE ECONOMICALLY PAINFUL despite all of the benefits of being outside of the E.U. The cost of BrExit will be anywhere from 2% to as high as 5% of GDP if the euro-zone is determined to make an example of Britain to act as a warning to others by raising punitive tariffs on trade.
However remember that attaining FREEDOM ALWAYS carry's a PRICE, in which respect even the worst case scenario for a 5% loss of GDP in the grand scheme of things does not compare against the infinitely greater price the people of Britain paid for their freedom in both past World Wars and so it is now THIS generations turn to pay a price for the freedom of future generations.
What the people of Britain need to fully understand is that this really is their VERY LAST CHANCE for Freedom!"
www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article53952.html
From a supporter of Brexit! (who has in teh past made some pretty good calls.. and some not so good..
Last edited by: madf on Mon 8 Feb 16 at 12:28
|
Freedom? I have freedom.
Chest beating drivel. With added apostrophe abuse. And shouty capitals. And exclamation marks. !!!!1111!!!
File it under 'B'.
Last edited by: Alanović on Mon 8 Feb 16 at 12:36
|
>>From a supporter of Brexit!
You're not so mad after all then madf. Here's some more ammo for thee:
cyprus-mail.com/2016/02/07/why-the-uk-should-leave-the-eu/
|
>> >>From a supporter of Brexit!
>>
>> You're not so mad after all then madf. Here's some more ammo for thee:
>>
>> cyprus-mail.com/2016/02/07/why-the-uk-should-leave-the-eu/
>>
A man who lives in Cyprus want us to leave the EU.
Quoting him is delusional..
|
>> Indeed. So being different is good enough reason to condemn them to drowning. Why?
You've made some false leaps to reach that statement, haven't you.
|
Roger and Dog and other UKIP supporters should read this.
capx.co/if-nigel-farage-leads-leave-it-looks-like-curtains-for-brexit/
Anyone who is not a supporter of UKIP will realise title tells you something you already know..but just in case you don't I'll quote a key snippet :
"3) From the beginning, Vote Leave wanted to exclude UKIP because (and Faragists cannot understand this) they are toxic with many voters who might otherwise be persuaded to vote for Leave. Really, to get this they need to talk to their fellow citizens who don’t wear Union Jack underpants. For many people UKIP is just beyond the pale, completely."
|
Spot on.
UKIP voters will vote leave whatever happens. So UKIP don't need to campaign. People who won't vote UKIP won't vote for UKIP's baby.
|
|
You just couldn't make it up when it comes to those nutters.
|
|
Already exposed as a hoax.
|
>> Already exposed as a hoax.
Link? reference?
|
|
I think he meant UKIP. Cruel prank to play on all those gullible oldies.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Wed 10 Feb 16 at 18:26
|
>>on all those gullible oldies<<
You'll be one soon, never fear!
Pat
|
>> You'll be one soon
If you're lucky.
|
Old? Yes, eventually, I hope.
Gullible? Maybe, but people believe what they want to hear and I hope none of Ukip's poison ever falls into that category. Not that it'll still exist in ten years, never mind 25.
|
People do believe what they want to hear but it's also very apparent on this forum alone, that people also close their minds to anything they don't want to hear too.
Having choices is good, making decisions is good but making informed choices and decisions is far better.
Pat
|
>> >> Already exposed as a hoax.
>>
>> Link? reference?
Roger? any news on that source for proving its a hoax?
|
I googled 'ukip poll hoax breitbart'. Nothing. If it's not there, where is it?
Better wash my hands now.
|
Doubt it's a hoax.
Plenty of 'kippers are more interested in keeping the foreigners out than leaving the EU.
(although xenophobia is far from a monopoly for UKIP)
|
"(although xenophobia is far from a monopoly for UKIP)"
Would I be over-simplifying things, then, if I said that the nation is divided into 'Corbynistas' and 'Xenophobes'?
|
>>Would I be over-simplifying things, then, if I said that the nation is divided into 'Corbynistas' and 'Xenophobes'?
Heh - yes, very much. I'm using xenophobia as a trait rather than a personal label.
Plenty of Tory, SNP, Labour (and maybe even Lib Dem) supporters would love to close the gates to immigrants and foreigners (perhaps even throw some out).
I'm not particularly xenophobic, and see most of Corbyn's ideas as insane/unworkable buffoonery.
|
"I'm using xenophobia as a trait rather than a personal label."
All a bit vague, then - rather like NoFM who, with a flourish of his arm, applies the word 'racist'.
I see, from today's Telegraph, that a woman is calling for misogynists "to be sniffed out". On Tuesday evening, whilst walking down a street in town, I automatically stepped out into the road to allow a woman to pass by in a spot where the pavement narrowed. Afterwards I wondered if my innate courtesy had been interpreted as patronising. Oh dear, am I now a misogynist as well?
It's hard bein' an English gentleman, innit?
|
|
Don't be disingenuous, HW. You put another person's needs before your own, which is no part of any kind of -ism. Foreigners do it too, you know.
|
"Don't be disingenuous, HW. "
Blimey - I am now a disingenuous, xenophobic, racist misogynist. And I thought I was a regular sort of bloke.
Never mind, my morale continues to be buoyed by the success of the great Leicester City FC!
Come on the Foxes!
|
>> "Don't be disingenuous, HW. "
>>
>> Blimey - I am now a disingenuous, xenophobic, racist misogynist. And I thought I was
>> a regular sort of bloke.
>>
>> Never mind, my morale continues to be buoyed by the success of the great Leicester
>> City FC!
>>
>> Come on the Foxes!
>>
A bandwagon jumping, disingenuous, xenophobic, racist misogynist then.
|
"A bandwagon jumping"
?
I am from Leicestershire and I have followed Leicester City since I was a teenager at Filbert Street. FYI, I also follow Coalville Town FC (where I was at school) and I am a season ticket holder/member at Bury Town FC (where I live now).
As you are a leftie though, Alano, I fully understand that you are able to use a word, or expression, to mean anything that you want it to mean. Your insult has already run off my back and lies in a small puddle on the floor. Pah!
|
I was only pulling your leg, HW.
I wish your team all the best this season.
|
"I was only pulling your leg, HW."
Don't worry, someone will be along shortly to sniff-out leg-pullers!
"I wish your team all the best this season."
Now who's jumping on the bandwagon? ;-)
We'll be going over to the ol' man's on Sunday to watch the LCFC match with a***nal. He's 90, but I think his heart is bearing up well to the tension. I thought the Man City game was vital, but THIS is the real crunch match. My forecast is a 1-1 draw.
|
"www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/leicester-city-reinforce
s-suspension-on-bandwagon-20160209106031"
The whole thing stated rolling a year ago when Leicester, after being bottom at Christmas '14, won a succession of matches that gave them the best form of all the top-flight leagues in Europe; they survived.
Amazingly, even though Leicester were top of the Premier League this Christmas, the pundits and papers were still only talking about Man U, Man City, Liverpool, the troubled Chelsea, arsenal until a few weeks ago. BUT now, even they have woken up and jumped on board!
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 12 Feb 16 at 01:31
|
Remember Newcastle Utd?
"I'd love it if we beat them, LOVE IT......................"
|
Think positive Haywain, we will end up at the top of the Premier League.
Pat
|
>>Blimey - I am now a disingenuous, xenophobic, racist misogynist. And I thought I was a regular sort of bloke.
At least you're not a homophobic bigot like some people I can think of.
^_^
|
>> At least you're not a homophobic bigot like some people I can think of.
Really? We have a homophobe in here? I thought that was the only one we were missing for the full set of possible human ignorance.
|
|
Tedious b***** software
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Feb 16 at 19:58
|
>>
>> Blimey - I am now a disingenuous, xenophobic, racist misogynist.
>>
Typical I find once you cross into Suffolk.
|
>>I'm using xenophobia as a trait rather than a personal label.
>>All a bit vague, then...
Not so much vague, as a spectrum of ideas (I'll refrain from saying "It's not a black or white issue"... oh, hang on...)
Do you feel strongly enough/are you afraid enough about an issue for it to make you vote in a particular way.
As with any trait there will be some who are strongly positive or negative and whose behaviour is thus directly affected, and others with a weaker stance who are more likely to get fence marks on their backsides, or move from camp to camp.
|
Dunno about a flourish, but when i see a bottom feeding scumbag racist I point it out.
I can only think of one reason that would bother someone - presumably a preference for anonymity.
But then, you say you don't even understand the word, so I'm not sure how you deal with it.
|
"But then, you say you don't even understand the word, so I'm not sure how you deal with it."
Ayup - he's off again!
|
>> >> >> Already exposed as a hoax.
>> >>
>> >> Link? reference?
>>
>> Roger? any news on that source for proving its a hoax?
>>
Is that a no then Roger? can we safely assume it was not a hoax and 25% of Kipper voters want to stay in the EU?
Now, I wonder, what was the real reason for being a kipper voter?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 Feb 16 at 14:44
|
"Democracy requires an intimate link between people and power. The EU has severed that link and turned itself into a club for big business"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/feb/11/the-levellers-and-the-diggers-were-the-original-eurosceptics
|
My Brexit cheque - Aretas
