***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 19 *****
==============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 5 Jun 16 at 04:11
|
>> Remainers = driven by self interest alone.
>> Leavers = wider vision of the future of the UK.
>>
I really don't understand that comment. Surely you can see that you can want both the UK and Europe to succeed and prosper and that that is a much broader ambition than simply caring exclusively about your home patch.
I feel European both geographically politically and culturally. I do not wish to ignore that fact.
|
|
Isn't it odd that two of those on here supporting leave benefited from being in the EU when they lived in another country. I suppose now you've done that you feel happy to deny others the opportunity. Because it might be a lot more difficult to be an expat in Europe if we're no longer part of the EU.
|
>sn't it odd that two of those on here supporting leave benefited from being in the EU when they lived in another country.
No, no no, Roger has a "wider vision" do try and keep up.
|
|
I must admit I find that strange.Living in Spain,back to the UK and hating those nasty Mainland Europeans.
|
|
I don't recall Roger ever saying he hated Europeans Dutchie.
|
I'm a fence sitter at the moment. There are some points I have considered:
For some Immigration is their main concern. Well it had to happen. The boats full of migrants are now starting to cross the Channel. Out of the EU? The French would have no obligations and would be providing outboard motors. Our UK Border Agency is already stretched under cutbacks. Would there suddenly be more investment? Err, no chance.
Many in the Out camp are suggesting our ancestors who gave their lives and fought in 2 World Wars would turn in their graves. In the WW2 didn't they fight to free EUROPE from the tyranny of the Natzis after the invasion of Poland??
Are other members watching with interest the outcome as they are also on the brink of leaving? If that were the case then the EU would collapse or could restructure more to our liking. But then we would have voted to leave. I have heard that Cameron has been spending a lot of time in Denmark recently. I wonder why? Perhaps he is forging alliances?
|
Ran out of time on 'Edit'
My 19 year old daughters are firmly in the Remain camp, They see a different UK than we are nostalgic for. Its their future we are voting for.
I had a conversation with my 98 year old Uncle the other day regarding the vote. Now he has all his marbles and even drove us to a pub lunch :S Even has a current licence to test and inspect wooden framed aircraft! Anyway he was going to disown me of if I voted remain :). His argument were that we were being lied to because of the self interest of those promoting the Remain campaign and that I only had to look at the loss of manufacturing and such industry as the coal mines. I didn't argue but that is maybe the mindset of his generation. They seem to forget that the militant labour forces, lack of investment and shoody quality that prevailed at the time didn't help the cause. As for the lies well that comes with the territory.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 00:55
|
|
Well said Fullchat and Dutchie. I really don't get these people who want out who've taken advantage of the EU and lived in other European countries. There was a photo of some WW1 soldiers in a trench the caption being along the lines of that our forefathers didn't fight for the UK to remain in a Franco-German dominated Europe. I'm sure our fore-fathers would have been happy to l have lived in a peaceful united Europe rather than one of industrial warfare.
|
I'm sure that many people from the UK went to live in mainland Europe before the EU was even thought about. Whether we are in or out won't affect my holidays in Europe, I've been going for the past 50 years. I don't see a conflict between wanting out from the EU but wanting to visit France, Spain, Italy on holiday.
I don't think I could up sticks and go off and live in Europe at the moment, but several weeks away during the winter months are now de rigeur.
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 09:36
|
Well, I'm going to dip out of this debate now too. If some want to vote for a departure from the EU then so be it. I can only express astonishment and deep regret that they seem unable to grasp the enormity and naivety of their actions and do so despite strenuous advice to the contrary from some of Britain and the world's very best informed people and organisations. Instead they are going to vote for isolationism without a plan and the only people set to benefit are some second rate career politicians who are using this as a platform in an attempt to further their personal prospects.
I'm just too cross with it all to comment further and I really don't want to be in my leisure time.
Look before you leap people. It's a long way down.
|
And that's just the point, Humph. Some will dismiss it as 'scaremongering', and will say things like 'we are Great Britain' ('we built an empire', as someone here said) or 'we managed just fine before 1973', which both hark back to a vanished world that we cannot possibly return to.
I've been trying without success to find out how many Brits had a passport at the time of the 1971 census, but in 2011 it was over 70%. Between 1970 and 2008 (a year depressed by the financial crisis, remember) our number of foreign leisure trips went up by a factor of seven. Air passengers in the UK went up by more like eight times (2011 data from the House of Commons Library.) So it's fanciful to suggest that because we managed in isolation before, we can do so again with no ill effects.
On the subject of ill effects, we all remember the 2008 recession, when the UK's worst quarter, 1Q2009 (OECD data on parliament.uk) saw a reduction in GDP of 2.6%, and a drop of 5.0% for the full year of 2009. We all know how bad that was, and yet Outies here say breezily, "Oh, it doesn't matter if there's a bit of a hit in the short term, it'll be all right in the end."
Call it scaremongering if you must, but the fear is real - just as fishmongers' fish is no less real for being mongered. And it is for the Outies to tell us why we shouldn't worry.
|
>> Well, I'm going to dip out of this debate now too. If some want to
>> vote for a departure from the EU then so be it. I can only express
>> astonishment and deep regret that they seem unable to grasp the enormity and naivety of
>> their actions and do so despite strenuous advice to the contrary from some of Britain
>> and the world's very best informed people and organisations.
... and I think it is you that is naive... because leaving the EU will not mean we fall into an abyss. There may well be a knock backwards, who knows? However, there's no reason whatsoever that we cannot make our own way in the whole world, not just tied unecessarily to one inefficient part of it.
You are too wrapped up in your game, as are some others. Your company trades in Europe, your company's prospects might have a knock back for a while...so you understandable wish to avoid it.
Well, there's a bigger picture than that.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 12:46
|
Oh... and "seem unable to grasp the enormity and naivety of their actions" is condescending and rude.
It might surprise you to know that some have taken a great deal of thought before coming to their decisions and have more than a modicum of sense and IQ.
I hadn't put you down as a 'your way is the only way' type of person.
|
Oh... and "seem unable to grasp the enormity and naivety of their actions" is condescending and rude.
Well, it might be, but it looks more like fair comment when you can read what I wrote earlier about how a 5% drop in GDP felt, then glibly dismiss the risk with 'There may well be a knock backwards, who knows?' You and your index-linked pension might not suffer, but millions of others would.
|
>> Well, it might be, but it looks more like fair comment when you can read
>> what I wrote earlier about how a 5% drop in GDP felt, then glibly dismiss
>> the risk with 'There may well be a knock backwards, who knows?'
There's nothing glib about it, it's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons. A drop in GDP might well be worth it in the long run.
>> You and your
>> index-linked pension might not suffer, but millions of others would.
>>
So being in that position I can make my informed choice for the country and my children's future, without having to consider my own short term personal circumstances.
|
|
Or regard for implications that others might suffer.
|
>> Or regard for implications that others might suffer.
>>
..or have regard for a lot of things, but am willing and capable of making tough decisions even if it does affect people.
|
How very brave and altruistic of you. You can vote for what your ideology demands, knowing that others will bear the cost of it on your behalf.
'Recession a price worth paying for Brexit,' says rural ex-policeman, 'provided someone else does the actual paying.'
|
>> How very brave and altruistic of you. You can vote for what your ideology demands,
>> knowing that others will bear the cost of it on your behalf.
>>
>> 'Recession a price worth paying for Brexit,' says rural ex-policeman, 'provided someone else does the
>> actual paying.'
>>
That's just being unpleasant.
I cannot help my circumstances, they are what they are, based on decisions I made when I was 17 years old, 36 years ago.... not that I'd wish to change them.
Are you saying I should automatically abstain or vote for something I disagree with, just because I receive a pension paid for by the State? Does that disqualify me from having a view? What other disqualifications are there?
Do bear in mind the country is fairly well split on the matter and over 40% (at least) think something along the lines of what I do.
|
Either you don't know what a recession is - so you don't understand that it might be a catastrophe - or you do but you're prepared to risk creating one because it might lead to the kind of new Anglo-Saxon golden age your ideology appears to dream of. And that's OK because you don't stand to lose out personally, although millions of others do? Doesn't seem very admirable to me.
Incidentally, is it significant that your pension is paid for by 'the State', but social housing, for example, is paid for by 'the taxpayer'?
|
>> Either you don't know what a recession is - so you don't understand that it
>> might be a catastrophe -
Well I'd have to be particularly out of it not to have noticed the 2008 banking led recession, wouldn't I?
or you do but you're prepared to risk creating one
>> because it might lead to the kind of new Anglo-Saxon golden age your ideology appears
>> to dream of.
That shows you up, not me. By going for the overly ridiculous and trying to put words in my mouth that have never been there, is not an overly impressive way of debating.
>>And that's OK because you don't stand to lose out personally, although
>> millions of others do? Doesn't seem very admirable to me.
Admirable or not, that's my view and that point is going nowhere, because it can easily be turned the other way and said you are only voting 'in' for your selfish personal reasons.
The other thing is, you don't seem to have answered my previous query. Am I not allowed an opinion due to my personal circumstances... and who else is disqualified likewise?
>> Incidentally, is it significant that your pension is paid for by 'the State', but social
>> housing, for example, is paid for by 'the taxpayer'?
I can't work out your point, they are obviously both the same, the taxpayer funds the State.
|
>> A drop in GDP might well be worth it in the long run.
Yeh a drop in that figure won't mean we're into recession, jobs probably lost, etc. It's just a number. We won't be having to do more QE and cutting back on services and generally more austerity.
|
I think there will be an initial fall in real GDP.
After that the recovery will begin after about two quarters of negative growth.
In the long run our economy will be Europe best.
Eventually we will have Europe biggest economy.
|
>> two quarters of negative growth.
So recession then.
|
>> there's no reason whatsoever that we cannot make our own way
Why do large corporations grow, make huge profits and control their markets but little independents have to battle their way through, making barely enough to continue?
And when there is a successful little independant, what do they try to do to protect and build on that success? - become big corporations. Why do you think countries would be different?
>> your company's prospects might have a knock back for a while
They might. They might also be permanently crushed. Where do you draw this "for a while" from? What do you believe would facilitate a recovery?
All I hear from the outies is this ridiculous jingoistic fantasy about being controlled by somewhere else or some equally insubstantial shangri-la in which the UK becomes a colonial power again.
Ridiculous. And desire it or not, where is there any evidence, even a clue, that it could happen, never mind will?
And don't point me towards intelligent people like Boris as some kind of evidence or justification, I've met Boris more than once and he is certainly intelligent. He is also ambitious and his political stance on anything always takes into account his ambitions and the most likely path to his personal success.
The INs have the status quo to point to, whatever its failings. What are the OUTs pointing to other than this nationalistic "paradise", which doesn't appeal to me anyway?
>>... and I think it is you that is naive... because leaving the EU will not mean we fall into an abyss
Runfer is an international businessman trading with the EU. He is successful. You might think he is wrong, although I don't think he is, but I bet you my last dollar that he's not naive.
Neither am I. Nor WdB.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 13:11
|
Oh, and in case you throw that silly "wrapped up in your own world" or "my way is the only way" stuff;
There are many things I do not like about the EU. Significantly I am very concerned with what the EU might like or try to become.
But I can see nothing, absolutely nothing, on the OUT side which would make me comfortable with that path.
So I shall vote IN. Not because I love the EU, but because it seems to me that OUT is a deeply unattractive, uncertain, limiting and probably dangerous path.
I very much subscribe to the "fix it from within" position. And over the last month I have been with a variety of European businessmen, politicians and ambassadors. Not all of them impressive, but some of them were. And we (The UK) CAN and DO change things from within. And if we don't alienate people too much over the next month, then we WILL be able to change things more in the future.
We will be less important, less significant and less involved from the outside and over time the EU and the rest of the world will gradually lose interest in us. Much is made of our trading figures and the *naive* belief that they will protect us. I believe that they will help in the short term but will decline over time. If nothing else, why would *ANY* other country want our figures to remain favourable?
And if our trading figures decline, where will be this much lauded international significance that the Outies seem to rely on?
I am no fool. I am not naive. I doubt that I am wrong.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 13:29
|
>> I am no fool. I am not naive. I doubt that I am wrong.
Would that we could all be so confident FMR. I am sometimes foolish, occasionally naive and alas quite often wrong.
:o}
|
Perhaps AC. But if I asked you something about [inter]national journalism, taking that as a life-long expertise of yours, and then said that your opinion was foolish, naive and wrong, you might respond that you are no fool, you are not naive, and that you don't believe that you are wrong, at least in your field of expertise.
And there is a substantial difference between being a fool and being foolish.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 13:41
|
>> you might respond that you are no fool, you are not naive, and that you don't believe that you are wrong, at least in your field of expertise.
I would be more likely to let them work it out for themselves, if they could.
>> And there is a substantial difference between being a fool and being foolish.
Yes. But a foolish moment can make people think you a fool.
Not that any of this matters a damn. One can't care obsessively about absolutely everything. The world goes its own way whatever we may want.
|
Angela Merkel is also suggesting the UK is "better at the table". www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726
She said: "We work well together with the UK particularly when we talk, perhaps, about new rules for the EU.
"We have to develop those together with the UK and whenever we negotiate that, you can much better have an influence on the debate when you sit at the bargaining table and you can give input to those negotiations and the result will then invariably be better rather than being outside of the room."
She stressed the importance of the single market and said countries outside the EU "will never get a really good result in negotiations".
"It would be not only be in our interest but it could also be in the interest of Britain when it can bring its whole political weight to the negotiating table as part and parcel of the EU."
|
>> when it can bring its whole political weight to the negotiating table
I've heard that several times recently. The suggestion being that we need to take more interest and make more effort in the selection of our MEPs and in paying attention to their activities.
If we vote IN, then the idiot MEPs need to go away and we need to get in serious people who will take their roles responsibly. Not send grandstanding self-interested idiots because we don't care very much.
|
>> Angela Merkel is also suggesting the UK is "better at the table". www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726
... and she also wants a federal Europe
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_PqZrwALcA
About a minute in.
|
>> ... and she also wants a federal Europe
A process which would require negotiation, treaty amendment etc and as such may well be subject to veto. There are several other nations including Denmark, Poland (qv Tusk speaking in last 24hrs) and Hungary who are not up for a USofE or progress in that direction.
While Euro Zone may require more federal approach those outside do not. Isn't that the two speed Europe Cameron has negotiated for us.
NB: Declaration - I personally have no problem with, and with right model would wholly approve of, a more federal Europe.
|
>> NB: Declaration - I personally have no problem with, and with right model would wholly
>> approve of, a more federal Europe.
>>
... and I am horrified at such a thought and find it disconcerting that major players like the German Chancellor are so committed to it.
People like Angela Merkel know very well what public opinion in the UK is like and how many people here do not wish for a federal Europe, (a fair chunk of those willing to vote 'in' wouldn't want a US of E).... yet she/they don't care.... they'll aim for what they want... why wouldn't they?
|
>>prospects might have a knock back for a while...so you understandable wish to avoid it.
I read that to mean there would be a downturn in the economy for a time and job losses. How long it takes us to get back to where we are now (if we can) is anyone's guess.
Of course it will take many years to even leave the EU. But in that time there won't have been sufficient time to setup trade agreements etc. In all this time, the UK probably has become distracted and caused damage to our economy.
|
>> Runfer is an international businessman trading with the EU. He is successful. You might think
>> he is wrong, although I don't think he is, but I bet you my last
>> dollar that he's not naive.
>>
>> Neither am I. Nor WdB.
>>
Well in that case, if the international businessmen are not naive, then they need to ensure they do not post things that look like they are naive...
... and hinting that this country would fall off the edge if we removed ourselves from the EU fits that criteria.
|
|
He didn't. You just naively thought it was. More tit for tat than logic, I suspect.
|
>> He didn't. You just naively thought it was. More tit for tat than logic, I
>> suspect.
>>
So this isn't naive?
"Look before you leap people. It's a long way down".
I think I'm beginning to understand. It's only 'international businessmen' who have the wit to pass comment on this subject matter and the rest of us should doff our caps and do as they say.
|
Well then why don't you try as well?
Because the note I am replying to doesn't seem to exhibit much of the required wit.
Several of us have tried to explain what we think could happen and why we think that. You have just repeatedly said what you want.
Despite your pride in your own decision making capabilities, particularly on behalf of others less able, I'd rather entrust that with someone who listened to, acknowledged, understood and was able to discuss the actual and potential matters involved.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 16:05
|
>> Several of us have tried to explain what we think could happen and why we
>> think that. You have just repeatedly said what you want.
Does that not tell you that despite your post, I do not necessarily agree with you or at the very least all of what you say.
>> Despite your pride in your own decision making capabilities, particularly on behalf of others less
>> able, I'd rather entrust that with someone who listened to, acknowledged, understood and was able
>> to discuss the actual and potential matters involved.
>>
Your call. I'm willing to do all of that, but reserve the right to make my own mind up.
|
>> Does that not tell you that despite your post, I do not necessarily agree with you or at the very least all of what you say.
And there is no reason why you should. But coming out with some old crap about who is allowed to understand and who needs to doff their cap and then complaining about perceived with seems silly.
|
>> And there is no reason why you should. But coming out with some old crap
>> about who is allowed to understand and who needs to doff their cap
Ah, so it hit home then.
|
Yes, that would be it, I thought "damn that hits home"
Silly me, yoy found me out.
Given your new found perception, perhaps you could hace a go at showing your with and answering *any* of the questionsquestions you have been asked?
|
|
Damned awful typing on my part there, sorry. I was in the back of a rickety taxi typing on a phone.
|
>> Given your new found perception, perhaps you could hace a go at showing your with
>> and answering *any* of the questionsquestions you have been asked?
>>
Ask me a question and i'll answer it..or try to.
|
>> Ask me a question and i'll answer it..or try to.
Well any of the ones that I asked you today, but if not those then in future any question I ask you at that time.
|
>> what we THINK could happen <<
'Think' is the problem for me and where it all falls apart.
Both sides keep telling us what the 'think' could happen but it always comes from inside their own personal bubble.
I have yet to meet many who are capable of looking at this from an unbiased angle and give a point of view based on that.
Add to that, the propensity to hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with what anyone 'thinks', then I decided to make my own decision yesterday afternoon and cast my vote.
I thought long and hard before making the decision and made a conscious effort to try and look at this country in 20 years time (although I won't be around) and voted for what I think will be best for that.
Pat
|
>> Both sides keep telling us what the 'think' could happen
Of course. Because nobody knows. So you listen to opinions, judge the source motivations and knowledge and arrive at your opinion. There's no "falling apart" involved.
>>it always comes frombinside their own personal bubble.
I don't really know what that means. Surely people can only form an opinion within the realms of their own experiences, even when that is experience of other people's opinions?
>> I have yet to meet many who are capable of looking at this from an unbiased angle and give a point of view based on that.
I did. I started out not knowing. Looked at everything I could find, and arrived at my position which i explained earlier, including my concerns.
I had nothing which drove me or limited me to that position, I objectively listened, read or discussed everything I could.
Fortunately because of my work and experience i was able to understand and evaluate everything I found, whether or not I agreed with it.
And we are *all* making a decision on what we believe will be the future. But when I ask an Outie what they think that future will be, the answer is frequently pitiful. Telling me repeatedly what they want the future to be is not useful.
I need to know what they think it will be and why. Which they seem not to be able to do.
By and large I find the INies are much more able to explain what and why they think, albeit often wrong in my opinion.
|
>>There's no "falling apart" involved.
>>
Yes there is, when those learned sources resort to insults of people of different opinions
>> Surely people can only form an opinion within
>> the realms of their own experiences, even when that is experience of other people's opinions?
>>
Exactly what I have done.
>> I objectively listened,
>> read or discussed everything I could.
>>
As did I.
>> Fortunately because of my work and experience i was able to understand and evaluate everything
>> I found, whether or not I agreed with it.
Though it may surprise you, so was I.
>> By and large I find the INies are much more able to explain what and
>> why they think, albeit often wrong in my opinion.
>>
Because they are frightened of change!
....and are getting worried now, see Humph's stress post!
Pat
|
>> >>There's no "falling apart" involved.
>>
>> Yes there is, when those learned sources resort to insults of people of different opinions
But that's *not* what you said. You said and emphasized the word "THINK" as where it fell apart. And that is wrong.
>> >> Surely people can only form an opinion within
>> >> the realms of their own experiences, even when that is experience of other people's
>> opinions?
>>
>> Exactly what I have done.
Good for you, but that is what you just criticised others for.
>> >> Fortunately because of my work and experience i was able to understand and evaluate
>> everything I found, whether or not I agreed with it.
>>
>> Though it may surprise you, so was I.
I do find that surprising, but good for you.
>> >> By and large I find the INies are much more able to explain what
>> and why they think, albeit often wrong in my opinion.
>>
>> Because they are frightened of change!
They are able to explain because they are frightened of change? Tell me again about your objectivity and understanding.
|
This demonstrates perfectly my theory a few posts back, that people's public opinions will be very different to what they actually vote for.
Demands for answers, reasons and if that isn't forthcoming then accusations of being of low intelligence and not understanding what it's all about.
Just in case that fails then resort to hurling insults and sarcasm.
Who could blame anyone for going with the majority of vocal remainers in their company but voting to leave in private!
I voted to leave after wavering quite a bit in the last few weeks.
The final decision was made by trying to see where this country would be in 20 years time if we stay, based quite a bit on where we've got to since I voted to join the EU all those years ago.
I don't like where we've got to or where we're going, and it wasn't what they promised us either.
I want my family of the future to live in a predominately white English speaking country as is our heritage. I want them to be as proud of being British as I am. I want then to learn that nothing comes without a price but sometimes that price is worth paying.
Now you can call me racist too as well as ignorant.
Pat
|
I want my family of the future to live in a predominately white English speaking country...
...Now you can call me racist too as well as ignorant.
Why on earth would we do that?
|
>>I voted to leave after wavering quite a bit in the last few weeks.
>>The final decision was made by trying to see where this country would be in 20 years time if we stay, based quite a bit on where we've got to since I voted to join the EU all those years ago.
>>I don't like where we've got to or where we're going, and it wasn't what they promised us either.
>>I want my family of the future to live in a predominately white English speaking country as is our heritage. I want them to be as proud of being British as I am. I want then to learn that nothing comes without a price but sometimes that price is worth paying.
Precisely why we have both voted out. Not for selfish reasons at all, unlike many of the remainers I've heard from (not here)
I've always gorn my own way, often against the advice of others, and it's enabled us to move on from our humble beginnings of a one bedroom flat in a sowf lunden slum, without a kitchen or a bathroom, to where we are now
[I did it my way]
I'm in no way Anti-Europe, but I just don't like the way the European Union is going, and I honestly believe it will be better if Great Britain makes it's own way in the big-wide world.
|
"I want my family of the future to live in a predominately white English speaking country as is our heritage. I want them to be as proud of being British as I am. I want then to learn that nothing comes without a price but sometimes that price is worth paying."
OK but what exactly does any of that have to do with voting "Leave"
Nearly all those Europeans that you want to stop coming in are white aren't they? No problem on the English speaking surely. Can you really see the UK not being an English speaking nation? Everyone want to learn English. English is really not in danger. A lot of other languages might be though.
As to being proud of being British you don't need to have ancestors dating back to the conquest for that to be so. Conversely there are plenty of native born Britons who don't give a dam about British values or their fellow man. You can make a good argument for someone choosing this as their country having more commitment than some one who is simply born here.
As to the nothing without a price stuff that is just a universal platiitude just a as appropriate to a Lithuanian as a Yorkshireman.
|
>>I want my family of the future to live in a predominately white English speaking country as is our heritage.
And this has nothing to do with the EU.
I guess the influx of West Indians and Asians is the EU's fault.
We still have governmental primacy when it comes to immigration from outside the EU (where the non-whites come from).
>>Now you can call me racist too
Quite.
|
To CG & Lygonos
Had you have read what I wrote you would have both understood that I have waivered for a couple of weeks now and made a determined effort to find as much sensible information as possible to make a decision.
Despite all that, I was till not sure so used the 'vision of the future' to finally decide.
As to it having nothing to do with the EU, you are both wrong.
There have been numerous threads on here telling us that this vote will define the future of Great Britain but we can all wilfully misunderstand, or twist words when we want to.
Having Lygonos call me racist is so typical of that.
I was working yesterday and I had a good mix of lads on the course consisting of 9 English
(including 1 with Aspergers and 1 with Autism, which gave them reading difficulties, they said)
1 Polish, 1 Lithuanian and 1 Scottish.
During a coffee break we did a quick straw poll of how they would vote.
7 English to vote Leave
2 to vote remain
Scot to vote remain
Pole to vote leave
Lithuanian still undecided and may abstain because he's worried about his own position if he voted leave which he favours.
To those on here who think the normal working man doesn't understand, you are also wrong.
There followed a very good discussion on why they voted that way and only one cited immigration (English). Most were for defence and economic reasons with most arguments already been discussed on here.
The Scot made an excellent case of his reasons for wanting to remain.
Now the surprising bit.
The Pole, who has lived here for 6 years loves this 'little' Country so much but has seen it spoiled in that short time. He was passionate that England needs to control immigration to protect it's own people. He feels we are now overcrowded and are suffering because of it.
He also fears his leave vote may mean he has to leave to but feels so strongly that in all honesty he has to 'vote with his heart' and get GB back where it should be.
The Lithuanian agrees with him but can't bring himself to cast a vote which may be detrimental to his own future and neither can he vote to stay because he knows it's not the right thing for this country.
When I say I want GB to be predominately white and English speaking in 20 years time they understood entirely what I meant and didn't think it was at all racist, in short, they felt the same.
Many of our EU drivers are not white, they are not black but they are not English either. They are a dusky, dark Mediterranean colour. So for Lygonos, I will make it clear that I want GB to consist of predominately English people in 20 years time and it's not based on colour but culture.
I heard more unbiased, sensible and thought provoking discussion yesterday than all the volumes of bitter scaremongering we've had here.
Pat
|
>> Pole to vote leave
>> Lithuanian still undecided and may abstain because he's worried about his own position if he> voted leave which he favours.
Not being pedantic but I'm pretty sure eu citizens don't have a vote in the referendum. You have to be British, from the commonwealth or Malta.
>> Now the surprising bit.
>>
>> The Pole, who has lived here for 6 years loves this 'little' Country so much>> but has seen it spoiled in that short time. He was passionate that England needs> to control immigration to protect it's own people. He feels we are now overcrowded and> are suffering because of it.
Its not particularly surprising at all. Happens to many people who settle here . When they no longer feel like immigrants and feel suitable separate from the new wave of immigrants following after. As to the changes, again nothing that surprised me, it's a variation on the 'wasn't like it was in my day' uttered by every generation since the year dot.
One question i would have asked him, I wonder if he thought immigration should have been tighened up before he arrived not after?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 4 Jun 16 at 06:05
|
From the BBC referendum info page:
Who will be able to vote?
British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are resident in the UK, along with UK nationals living abroad who have been on the electoral register in the UK in the past 15 years. Members of the House of Lords and Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar will also be eligible, unlike in a general election. Citizens from EU countries - apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus - will not get a vote.
So unless Pat's Pole and Lithuanian have become UK citizens (which is possible but which Pat doesn't mention) their opinions are interesting but irrelevant.
I was negotiating a mini-roundabout last night when I heard Frankie Boyle say:
Immigrants do the jobs that Brits can't face doing. That's why Farage has a German wife.
I didn't drive into anyone's front garden but it was a significant feat of self-control.
|
>>So for Lygonos, I will make it clear that I want GB to consist of predominately English people in 20 years time and it's not based on colour but culture
Backpedal all you want but this is pretty unambiguous:
>>I want my family of the future to live in a predominately white English speaking country as is our heritage
By your own admission that is a racist statement.
|
>> So for Lygonos, I will
>> make it clear that I want GB to consist of predominately English people in 20
>> years time and it's not based on colour but culture.
So it's about culture not colour?
That is the classic fall back position to justify racist views. It doesn't wash practically, neither will it wash in law as a defence for employment etc practices.
|
"That is the classic fall back position to justify racist views."
So are you telling us that race and culture are the same thing?
|
Europe is far from perfect anybody with any brain cell knows that.To much from Brussel and not always accountability.
It has to change from within and it can be done.When I arrived in the UK it was different for me.Regular strikes workers and management always at loggerheads.Three day week the deceased not getting buried and so on.In the workplace I once made the mistake to change a fuse.There was hell to pay.I was not used to that system of working.
It was a country people wanted to get away from.This time people want to live here.More flexible working different attitudes by the younger generation.I still think being part of a greater community and make it better from within is the way to go.
|
>>It has to change from within and it can be done<<
You see Dutchie, I don't think it can.
The horse has bolted on that one.
Cameron had the perfect opportunity to negotiate hard and get us a deal so many of us would have been pleased with but he is too bothered about his political future after his resignation as PM to worry about the electorate and it will be entirely down to him if we vote to leave.
We've lost all the clout we had, and we'll certainly never get it back if we stay in now.
Pat
|
|
So you've told us what you've voted against, Pat. What do you think you've voted for?
|
I understood the vote was private WdeB, or does that not apply to me too?
Pat
|
|
You're entitled to keep your choice secret, of course, Pat. But you told us you voted Out - well, either that or your previous post was deliberately perverse. I'm just asking what you think the post-exit UK you've voted for will look like.
|
I also said I thought long and hard about it yesterday before finally deciding.
Pat
|
>> We've lost all the clout we had, and we'll certainly never get it back if
>> we stay in now.
If we lack the clout in a group of 28 why will going it alone in a much bigger sea be so much better?
|
Agreed Bromps. The BBC article I quoted earlier also said
"The EU, she said, would never compromise with an outsider in the same way it would with a member state.
"Mrs Merkel's comments may have been timed to coincide with those of other European leaders who've made it plain that they'd be in no hurry in the event of a Brexit to help the UK renegotiate rights and access."
The outies say they need us but I can't really see what for, we don't produce a lot that they don't produce themselves. It also said
"She said: "We work well together with the UK particularly when we talk about new rules for the EU."
So although politicians can't always be trusted you may be wrong (Pat) that we have lost our clout.
|
We've cast our clout
Now May be out
|
|
We still have our clout, but we haven't been committed enough to use it fully. I don't have the figures at hand, but IIRC the UK doesn't engage as much as it could, in terms of resources employed within EU structures. Maybe we need to be more focussed and not leave negotiations and alliances within EU to chance? I'm with Remain, not without some doubts, but if we decide to stay we need to work at it!
|
>>t we haven't been committed enough to use it fully
I whole-heartedly agree, and it seems to be borne out further by the comments from European politicians that I have spoken to.
|
>> If we lack the clout in a group of 28 why will going it alone
>> in a much bigger sea be so much better?
>>
If the EU does trade with say Brazil and negotiates on behalf of its members, who is to say we get much of a look in or get what we really want...we are one of 28.
If the UK negotiates a deal with Brazil, it's one on one for that deal.
If the club of 28 is inefficient, why not go it alone and be more efficient.
|
|
Pat, your lack of understanding is gobsmacking.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 19:51
|
|
Two quarters of negative growth is a price well worth paying to get our United Kingdom back.
|
>> Two quarters of negative growth is a price well worth paying to get our United Kingdom back.
How do you know it will only be two quarters of recession? And what does it been 'get our United Kingdom back' exactly?
|
|
Like he even knows what negative growth is, never mind its implications. He hadn't even heard of the esoterically Catholic.
|
|
Don't start again FM.Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and you know that.
|
|
I fear you may have misinterpreted the intent of my post Dutchie. No sarcasm was intended.
|
>> Why do large corporations grow, make huge profits and control their markets but little independents
>> have to battle their way through, making barely enough to continue?
I've got no idea i'm not an international businessman.. and what relevance is this anyway.
If you're trying to equate the UK to a small company and the EU to a bigger one, then surely the rest of the world is a bigger one again?
So little company could trade with big one, rather than restricting itself to the medium one.. the medium one that has accounting issues and is a bit of a control freak and has unelected people who have a rather unhealthy input.
>> And when there is a successful little independant, what do they try to do to
>> protect and build on that success? - become big corporations. Why do you think countries
>> would be different?
Not every company needs or wants to be a big one.... and see above re 'medium' and 'big'.
>> They might. They might also be permanently crushed. Where do you draw this "for a
>> while" from? What do you believe would facilitate a recovery?
The same thing that all those countries have done since the Great Depression and all other similar incidents, inc the 2008 banking crash.
>> All I hear from the outies is this ridiculous jingoistic fantasy about being controlled by
>> somewhere else
It isn't a fantasy to me and I don't see it as being jingoistic to want my country's parliament to make my country's laws.
>> or some equally insubstantial shangri-la in which the UK becomes a colonial power
>> again.
Never been part of my agenda, so irrelevant to me. I do though see no reason why we couldn't do more trade with the Commonwealth
|
>If you're trying to equate the UK to a small company and the EU to a bigger one, then surely the rest of the world is a bigger one again?
Yes, so how would possibly think that the UK could trade with the World as effectively as the EU could?
>>my country's parliament to make my country's laws.
Your country's parliament makes ALL your country's rules.
>>Not every company needs or wants to be a big one
Really? Since when? I don't think I've ever met such a thing other than some mom&pop type store or business without ambition and they always fail in the end.
|
Actually, I believe I will take Runfer's lead and try and stay out of this thread. Everything has been said I think, and so it would only be repeating the same stuff over and over again.
Its too annoying to enjoy much.
|
>> Yes, so how would possibly think that the UK could trade with the World as
>> effectively as the EU could?
Simple really.
The UK could act for its own interests, whereas the EU would need to consider 28 interests.
So, whilst I'd agree that a 28 country block would have a fair degree of clout in scale, does it have enough relevance to the individual 28 members, every time?
>> Your country's parliament makes ALL your country's rules.
Yes, and some whether they want to or not, in compliance with Brussels.
>> Really? Since when? I don't think I've ever met such a thing other than some
>> mom&pop type store or business without ambition and they always fail in the end.
>>
I'm having difficulty believing that, but as you know, I am not an international businessman, so there's no point me entering an in depth discussion on that subject.
|
Steady on No FM2R
I had a mom & pop type store. Four actually. They all made a decent healthy profit and I decided to stop expanding because I was happy with the status quo. I liked being 'hands on', getting up close and personal with customers and not spending all my time in the office. And I didn't fail in the end. Sold every shop for more than I paid for it and did all right Jack thank you very much.
Not everybody wants a large business empire. And I know lots & lots of other independent businesses similar to my own whose owners sole ambition was to make a half decent profit and remain a small fish in a small pond. Which they all did, and many continue to do, despite the supermarkets and national chains.
|
Fair point, and I'm responding to point out that I didn't mean to offend. Apologies if I did.
However, typically businesses which do not expand and grow ultimately fail. Had you held on to those 4 stores, I suspect that would have eventually happened. Not that I have any knowledge of your stores/businesses at all, so what do I know.
In any case, the point of the outies is not that the UK could be a small fish, which is obviously exactly what it would be, but that by some miracle as a small fish in a huge pond it would somehow have sufficient significance for the rest of the pond to worry about it..
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 23:25
|
>> >>Not every company needs or wants to be a big one
>>
>> Really? Since when? I don't think I've ever met such a thing other than some
>> mom&pop type store or business without ambition and they always fail in the end.
I've been having a little chew on this.
Whilst not being an international businessman and having to be careful not to debate something my knowledge base doesn't support... nevertheless, there does seem to be some anomalies.
I work for a friend. Her florists business was inherited by her from her grandmother... it's been around for at least 60 years... and I know enough about it to know it's a thriving local business, doing rather well. It has a personal touch and takes business from the other similar outfits that don't go the extra mile. It wouldn't work as well if it were part of a large set up.
My brother bought his rural garage from his boss about 18 months ago. The boss owned it for 45 years. It is a thriving local rural garage. It plays on local customer service. It wouldn't work as well if it was part of a large set up.
My friend, the florist, has a husband. He owns a thriving local rural garage...ditto the remarks about my brother's garage.. that has been so, in the same family for over 50 years.
When i'm out delivering in my little van... I often visit small industrial estates, they are full of small businesses. I think you are talking out of your backside.
|
>> Never been part of my agenda, so irrelevant to me. I do though see no
>> reason why we couldn't do more trade with the Commonwealth
>>
Because we burned our bridges with the "Wealth" part of it when we joined the EEC. Canada, Australia and NZ were pretty much frozen out, and in the intervening 40-odd years, have found new trading partners and are doing quite nicely without us, thank you very much.
We could of course trade with the rest of it but I doubt very much if any profits made would offset what we send to them every year in overseas aid. Assuming of course that they'd pay their bills in the first place.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Thu 2 Jun 16 at 23:50
|
What happens if there's a no to EU exit? Will those NO voters all go away and be silenced?
Likewise what if we take the leap into the unknown and vote to leave?
Maybe I should be thankful that I have no mortgage and some savings. :-) Oh and a cellar to seek refuge in.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 3 Jun 16 at 01:18
|
>> Because we burned our bridges with the "Wealth" part of it when we joined the
>> EEC. Canada, Australia and NZ were pretty much frozen out, and in the intervening 40-odd
>> years, have found new trading partners and are doing quite nicely without us, thank you
>> very much.
This chap seems to think we'd do o.k.
tinyurl.com/jlrbhgk
|
The founder of New Zealand's answer to Ukip (although with some electoral success - diminishing recently - and, to be fair, experience in government in a Nick Clegg sort of capacity)
...urged British voters to ignore world leader including US president Barack Obama and New Zealand prime minister John Key.
His is, in other words, a minority view even in his own country.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 3 Jun 16 at 10:31
|
>> The founder of New Zealand's answer to Ukip
If you see that as some sort of negative, i'd like to point out that I see that as a form of positive.
|
|
Er, yes. You probably would.
|
|
Just to show how fatuous the Commonwealth idea is, look at the size of the market it represents: a total GDP, excluding the UK, of about $7.8trn, of which the four countries populated by the nice, white English-speakers with whom some here feel comfortable constitute about $3.2trn. The equivalent for the EU - with which, don't forget, all the agreements we need are already in place - is about $13.4trn. Lose a pound and find 50p - if we're lucky and work extra-hard.
|
|
Just had my DNA analysis back. Seems I'm from a Germanic background on my father's side. Largely French/Spanish/Basque on my mother's side. So I guess that makes me a true European too late to change my vote...hope it makes a difference.
|
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased question of whether it is better to stay in the EU or not be resolved?
Multivac fell dead and silent. The slow flashing of lights ceased, the distant sounds of clicking relays ended.
Then, just as the frightened technicians felt they could hold their breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the teletype attached to that portion of Multivac. Five words were printed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
With acknowledgements to the great Isaac Asimov.
|
"Er..good morning, O Deep Thought" said Loonquawl nervously, "do you have...er, that is..."
"An Answer for you?" interrupted Deep Thought majestically. "Yes, I have."
The two men shivered with expectancy. Their waiting had not been in vain.
"There really is one?" breathed Phouchg.
"There really is one," confirmed Deep Thought.
"To Everything? To the great Question of Life, the Universe and everything?"
"Yes."
Both of the men had been trained for this moment, their lives had been a preparation for it, they had been selected at birth as those who would witness the answer, but even so they found themselves gasping and squirming like excited children.
"And you're ready to give it to us?" urged Loonsuawl.
"I am."
"Now?"
"Now," said Deep Thought.
They both licked their dry lips.
"Though I don't think," added Deep Thought. "that you're going to like it."
"Doesn't matter!" said Phouchg. "We must know it! Now!"
"Now?" inquired Deep Thought.
"Yes! Now..."
"All right," said the computer, and settled into silence again. The two men fidgeted. The tension was unbearable.
"You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought.
"Tell us!"
"All right," said Deep Thought. "The Answer to the Great Question..."
"Yes..!"
"Of Life, the Universe and Everything..." said Deep Thought.
"Yes...!"
"Is..." said Deep Thought, and paused.
"Yes...!"
"Is..."
"Yes...!!!...?"
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.â€
Douglas Adams
|
Arguably the truest words spoken in the whole thread. Everything else is an invention or supposition.
Never forget where your towel is.
|
Well, here’s my take on it.
Migration.
People have always migrated. It is a fact of life. In more modern times it has become easier to do with better transport and infrastructure. The problem that gives is that large numbers can migrate relatively easily in a short space of time. This gives the country that they migrate to, wherever it is, a large infrastructure problem. Western civilization has built itself to expect housing, transport, healthcare, utilities etc to be available. These requirements are sort of planned for by the “authorities†with greater and lesser success. According to our government about 1/3 of a million people migrated to this country last year. This has to have an impact on the existing infrastructure. How do we plan for this?
Trade.
People have always traded. We still do. Before 1975 we were not in the common market yet for at least a couple of thousand years we traded with the rest of the world, spreading our buying and selling market place wider as our transport systems and technologies allowed. For the last 41 years we have been in the EU. It’s a drop in the ocean, time wise.
I retired 3 months ago. The company that I worked for bought and sold goods to countries all over the world. We had no trade deals with them we just bought and sold.
Government.
As far as I know, the European system that we have is:
European commissioners. (Nonelected). They have people reporting to them on issues that they think should become law.
European parliament. (Elected) Their job is to turn the issues raised by the commissioners into law. As far as I know they cannot initiate legislation as an independent body and can only ask for amendments to made.
UK parliament. (Elected). They can initiate laws. They also have to ratify EU laws. If there is a clash of interests then EU law is paramount.
All of the above bodies must have many civil servants, advisors etc. The EU parliament also has 2 bases with all the extra costs that entails. What other organisation would be allowed to continue with its accounts not signed off by auditors for so long?
This government has repeatedly stated that it can control migration and reduce it to acceptable levels. It has repeatedly failed to do so and as long as things stay as they are the objective is unobtainable. This has to end up with the cost of supplying infrastructure being uncontrollable.
Trade (taxation) will have to rise by an unknown amount to cover the uncontrollable infrastructure cost.
So many “expert†financial studies have shown so many different results that they should be ignored. If they are that “expert†why was the 2008 crash not foreseen and avoided?
This is a UK referendum by the British people, for the British people. I therefore ignore input from other nations.
At the moment, the way I see it, we have no control over the destiny of this country. When Nick Clegg was an MEP he stated that most of the UK parliament’s work was ratification of laws passed by the EU parliament. I’ve seen the speech but cannot find a link to it.
I don’t want that, I don’t want uncontrolled infrastructure spending caused by uncontrolled population growth. Trade will be trade whether we are in or out of a market that is not growing in real terms.
So I see “out†as being the best choice.
|
>>Nick Clegg was an MEP he stated that most of the UK parliament's work was ratification of laws passed by the EU parliament
I haven't seen that speech, nor can I find it. Seems a strange position for Clegg to take given his normal stance, but all politicians are capable of significant change, so who knows.
However, maybe this will help;
commonslibraryblog.com/2014/06/02/how-much-legislation-comes-from-europe/
|
>>>>Nick Clegg was an MEP he stated that most of the UK parliament's work was ratification of laws passed by the EU parliament
I still can't find it, but I think it may have been an article he wrote for the Guardian in the early 2000s, rather than an actual speech - if that helps.
|
|
It was definitely Nick wot said it. It may have been one of those group question things. I think it dates from about 2006 or 2008. If I find it i'll post the link.
|
He was an MEP from 1999 to 2004.
This is an article written by him in the Guardian but I've also seen a video where he says just about the same thing.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/dec/08/eu.politicalcolumnists
|
Very well put! - makes more sense than all the "so-called" Experts have spouted so far.
I give you a green thumb Sir!
|
Curious to know how the UK parliament initiates legislation. Yes, there are private members' bills, but they never get anywhere; the rest comes from Downing Street via Whitehall - i.e. an indirectly elected executive not so very different from the European Commission.
The 'two thirds of UK laws' canard mostly refers to regulations necessary for the free movement of products and services across the Single Market, and adopted into UK law by means of statutory instruments. Boring but necessary, and hardly undemocratic, and most would still be necessary post-exit to retain access to EU markets.
The Out campaign has been very good with this kind of disinformation - possibly because it has so many newspaper proprietors on its side. But it's still mostly wrong.
|
"Well, here’s my take on it."
For some reason, I see the EU as being an organisation run along the same lines as FIFA.
|
|
For some reason, that doesn't surprise me.
|
"For some reason, that doesn't surprise me."
Ah, so you get that impression too, Will. Great minds, eh!
|
"If only!"
Don't despair, Will, you have plenty of time to grow up.
;-)
|
|
Not if I have to spend it undoing the damage your generation wants to do.
|
>> Not if I have to spend it undoing the damage your generation wants to do.
>>
>>
What utter rubbish. Do you actually believe people want out so they can do damage to the country or is that comment just a fit of pique because we don't agree with you?
|
|
No. If I could have been bottomed I might have written '...undoing the damaging consequences of what the older generation wants to do', but I hadn't imagined anyone would be so slow on the uptake.
|
No doubt you were saying the same when you thought we should adopt the Euro.
Oh sorry I forgot, the Eurozone crisis is our fault for not joining it. Silly me.
|
Again, you might try reading (properly) what I wrote about joining the euro. If it helps, I was in favour of joining a euro with the other countries that fulfilled the fiscal criteria (ie not Italy or Greece, who were admitted on political rather than economic grounds; a mistake) and that that would have produced a Eurozone very different from what we actually got.
Complicated, certainly; possibly still wrong - I don't know, nor do you. Just not the simplistic caricature of my views you came up with.
|
just to change things a bit. - CGNorwich
