***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 5 *****
=============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 1 Mar 16 at 21:36
|
>> peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-concise-brexit-arguments.html?m=1
>>
>> A very simply explained view of the pros and cons.
No. It's a "leave" rant. e.g. "That the media is presently more excited by Boris Johnson than the fact the PM has just told the biggest political lie for forty years is in part a symptom of our gradual political decay - and very much a consequence of outsourcing key policy making." In no sense is it a balanced viewpoint; and it worries me that you think it is.
And anyway it can't be explained simply.
Movilogo. It might hurt the EU more than it hurts the UK. But that financial hurt will be spread 26 ways whereas our hurt is spread 1 way only. Why would they do it? Pace Humph's note above, because that's what people do when they get divorced. Do you really want to have to trust the EU to play fair when we've rejected them?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 26 Feb 16 at 17:35
|
>>In no sense is it a balanced viewpoint; and it worries me that you think it is.<<
Nowhere did I say that I think it is, and it's interesting than any opinion from one you disagree with becomes a 'rant'.
It's been called lies, disingenuous, wrong and inaccurate but no-one has taken the trouble to explain the various parts, and why they think that.
It's almost like burying heads in sand and thinking that if you dismiss an opposing opinion as wrong, it makes it so.
I'm with Fluffy on this one, let's have a debate about it:)
Pat
|
|
You and Fluffy debating that article should be fun to watch.
|
>> peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-concise-brexit-arguments.html?m=1
>>
>> A very simply explained view of the pros and cons.
>>
>> Pat
Maybe, but its actually full of mistruths and lies.
|
It really does look like a monkeys and trees scenario. The monkeys who want to go back to only looking after their own tree utterly failing to recognise that by cooperating with all the other families of monkeys they can look after the whole forest and benefit from all that it provides. The ones then looking after only their own heretofore fruitful tree are completely stuffed when it fails to bud one year.
|
Oh good, that hit the spot then! Home truths often offend.
;-)
|
|
I cannot believe you got a frownie for that. There are some seriously sad people around.
|
Aye well, more to be pitied than scolded eh?
;-)
|
On the other hand...when all the other monkeys are mismanaging the forest that supports them, hanging on to your own bit and looking after it properly might be a good idea.
Just saying, a little parable does not truth and wisdom make.
Not my frownie of course.
|
>> It really does look like a monkeys and trees scenario. The monkeys who want to
>> go back to only looking after their own tree utterly failing to recognise that by
>> cooperating with all the other families of monkeys they can look after the whole forest
>> and benefit from all that it provides. The ones then looking after only their own
>> heretofore fruitful tree are completely stuffed when it fails to bud one year.
There's a difference between co-operating with the other monkeys and having the other monkeys start to dictate what you can and can't do.
There are many people who will vote 'out' who'd be perfectly happy with inter-monkey co-operation (which obviously has to involve give and take)... but are not happy with another monkey troop take over.
|
>>A very simply explained view of the pros and cons.
Inaccurate, disingenuous, subjective garbage.
|
|
I want a proper debate. What are the facts about the In/OUT referendum?
|
I am surprised how people are getting sad faces for perfectly harmless statements!
|
>> Do you really want to have to trust the EU to play fair when we've rejected them?
Do you really believe EU is playing fair now??
If UK leaves, some other member states will follow suit. Whole EU will collapse and new EU agreement will be drafted (and UK might lead that instead of Germany).
|
>>and UK might lead that instead of Germany
And how, or indeed why, would that happen? A truly ridiculous motivation for voting for anything.
|
I wonder how many of these oft quoted Big Business leaders who tell us it would be a disaster if we left the EU were telling us the same if we didn't join the ERM? Well we did join and THAT was a disaster, we had to pull out. And how many of them then told us we would be finished as a major economy if we didn't adopt the Euro? Well, we didn't and we're the ones who are laughing now. No one in their right mind is still in favour of it.
The EU is a mess and will implode in it's present form if we leave, and that will be a good thing for everyone concerned IMO.
|
Here's a good article i thought.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35615604
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 27 Feb 16 at 08:50
|
>>What are the facts about the In/OUT referendum?
A great many, on both sides and it is asking a lot to know what they all are. The Telegraph rides to the rescue this morning, main section, page 6. It promises to keep us fully informed, commenting that "The best answer can seem dauntingly opaque..." but pledges that "by the time they reach the voting booth, our readers can vote with greater clarity." Questions and comments can be dealt with at eufacts@telegraph.co.uk
|
|
Hahaha though kettles is an interesting one anyway, as I understand it it takes the same amount of leccy to raise the temp of water by x degrees however many watts you throw at it, it just does it faster the more you use. So when I'm feeling really frugal (= tight) and the sun is shining I use a low power kettle because it's entire consumption can be provided by my solar panels.
|
Of course it does, as anyone knows who has an O-level or GCSE in physics or chemistry. In fact, I'd go further and say that a 3kW kettle will use less electricity than a 2kW one as the water will have less time to lose the heat it's gained to the atmosphere.
Of course, some people insist on boiling water on an Aga and heating the whole neighbourhood at the same time. Will the Telegraph be taking up arms against that now?
|
There was at least some rationale behind the vacuum cleaner decision, in providing an incentive to make cleaners efficient.
But not too efficient, apparently...
www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11075490/James-Dyson-suggests-leaving-the-EU-over-vacuum-cleaners.html
|
Tom Bower's business is controversial unauthorised biography (see his works on Brown, Branson and several others).
In fact he's previously been sued by Express proprietor Richard Desmond over writings about Desmond's business methods.
|
An elderly relative had a real racist rant as a reason for leaving the EU yesterday - there are too many foreigners here!
The UK has 2.6 immigrants per 1,000. Norway has 8 per 1,000. Finland has 0.8 per 1,000 and Sweden has 5.5 - these are countries that we are often compared with.
She then moaned that we are too cramped - we have about 650 per square mile, Macau has 73,350 so they can moan about being cramped!
But the real issue came about when a person becomes English. So an Indian or Syrian immigrant comes to the country - they are not English, granted. But what about their children born here? No they are not English either. Ok, what about a Canadian, no the immigrants wont be English, what about their children born here - she said oh, as you can't tell them apart then they would be English!
Foreigner - all of them damaging the UK, earning money here and sending it abroad not only the individuals but the companies to she sighted Nissan, Honda, Toyota how dare they send their profits back to Japan, wiping out our companies - never mind that they weren't good enough (she owns a Micra!!!!)
She sees foreigners everywhere - by the way, from a population of over 90k in our local town there are less than 1k non whites - just over 1%
I just pray that people like her are the exception rather then the rule.
|
>> An elderly relative had a real racist rant as a reason for leaving the EU
>> yesterday - there are too many foreigners here!
>>
>> The UK has 2.6 immigrants per 1,000. Norway has 8 per 1,000. Finland has 0.8
>> per 1,000 and Sweden has 5.5 - these are countries that we are often compared
>> with.
>>
The point about immigration is that it depends where you live. I grew up in London Borough of Newham where migrants from different cultural backgrounds outnumber the indigenous population to such an overwhelming extent that the 2.6 per 1,000 overall figure is meaningless. That is the case in many areas of the country and you can understand people feeling disquiet when they see the area they have lived in all their lives becoming unrecognisable.
|
|
The indigenous population? Or do you mean the immigrants who got here earlier?
|
>>The point about immigration is that it depends where you live. I grew up in London Borough of Newham where migrants from different cultural backgrounds outnumber the indigenous population to such an overwhelming extent that the 2.6 per 1,000 overall figure is meaningless. That is the case in many areas of the country and you can understand people feeling disquiet when they see the area they have lived in all their lives becoming unrecognisable.
But were those migrants from the 50's to 70's when we had a lot of immigration from the former colonies and had little to do with the EU?
|
>> >>
>> But were those migrants from the 50's to 70's when we had a lot of
>> immigration from the former colonies and had little to do with the EU?
>>
I wasn't making a point about the EU, but how not everyone was effected to the same extent by immigration and why many of those who were most effected were not happy about it.
|
How far back do you want to go? Italians, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Normans, Vikings, Romans, Saxons...all came to 'England' as 'immigrants' and loads more besides. Mankind has always moved around the planet since the dawn of time and let's not forget that 'we' moved quite a few of them entirely against their will and in chains or drove them off their own lands or simply exterminated them without exactly asking permission.
We no longer ( if we ever did ) live in a chocolate box lid scene of thatched cottages and village greens populated only by worthy countrymen and hay carts.
Culture evolves and changes with the times and so it should and will be.
Have we so quickly forgotten how unpleasant it all becomes when a nation becomes selective about who is welcome and who is not on the basis of some combination of their race, nationality and religious background? There are those who still remember that scenario all too well.
|
>> how unpleasant it all becomes when a nation becomes selective about who is welcome and who is not on the basis of some combination of their race, nationality and religious background? There are those who still remember that scenario all too well.
Yup. Some of my best friends are European Jews who fled here to escape from the nazis.
Of course in earlier times* we too were ant-Semitic. It's in Shakespeare...
The WW2 Jewish influx has done us quite proud in terms of organization and creativity.
*And more recently actually. There was a boy at my last school, nicknamed 'Toad', a short-legged blond kid, who came on as a rabid anti-Semite. And in the sixties (I think) I went to an Oswald Mosley meeting in Kensal Rise or somewhere... there were these East Enders in dirty cloth caps, straight out of the 1930s, cheering the old lunatic on. It was a bit scary.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 27 Feb 16 at 16:58
|
>>We no longer ( if we ever did ) live in a chocolate box lid scene of thatched cottages and village greens populated only by worthy countrymen and hay carts.
Good posts AC.
I think some people still do.
They forget the (and their) past all too easily from their comfortable arm chairs.
What irked me yesterday was that among all the relatives gathered yesterday was a 70+ year old relative who had escaped killings in North Africa in the 60's and made her way her. She had a British Passport as her mother was Maltese and the family escaped one night with nothing as it was all confiscated by the Govt of the Arabian Country from which they fled.
They had lived there for several generations - as long as even the natives could honestly claim given the nature of North African countries.
The family owned a taxi business both cars and horses and traps for goods. They got on well with others in their city but when things went against non Arabic people they woke up in the night to an awful din and found all of the horses slaughtered and a get out message painted on their walls. They were lucky. Several of their friends had been killed the same night.
The family fled to where they had family and ended up split in France and the UK.
Having worked all their life and contributed to the local community it was very upsetting to see some ignoramus rail against non-natives, especially as the ignoramus had been helped out on several occasions by the immigrant.
|
You're right of course AC; sadly the number of Jewish people in your 'influx' was on a scale of 100,000-150,000? in total (I'm guessing) for reasons we know very well.
Similarly - where I lived there were Ukrainian and Polish working men's clubs still thriving in the 70s. A million or so Poles were displaced, many returned after the war and a lot of those were as far as anyone knows shipped off by Stalin and never seen again. I have seen an estimate that c. 250,000 Poles came/stayed in Britain after WW2.
|
>> sadly the number of Jewish people in your 'influx' was on a scale of 100,000-150,000? in total (I'm guessing) for reasons we know very well.
I know little of gross numbers and am pretty vague about the history not being a proper historian. But quite apart from the various 19th century and earlier Jewish immigrations, richer and smarter people were the first to flee from the nazis. Poorer Jews came later, in a hurry, under very difficult conditions, and were given a typically frosty British reception.
Had a German teacher at one school who was a Czech refugee. He was called 'Fritz' and constantly teased with accusations of nazism. He was a sensitive, small, dark cat and really really hated getting this flak from the little fascist carphounds he had to teach.
I'm a bit of an obvious foreigner myself and felt very sorry for Fritz. But even I got carried away and teased him a bit. Schoolboys are very evil. They egg each other on.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 27 Feb 16 at 18:56
|
>> The UK has 2.6 immigrants per 1,000.
Very far from the truth I'm afraid, if you define an immigrant as a foreign born resident.
2.6 per 1000 is 0.26%. The actual number was 11.9% in 2011.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom
In 2014 alone, net migration was about 260,000, or 0.4% on a population of 65m, so even the annual NET number in ONE year was 60% higher than you state. The actual number before emigration was 583,000, or about 0.9%.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30243472
|
What is wrong in having immigrants. The USA is built on immigrants.
My only agreement in that we have too many immigrants is space. We have no space to house too many immigrants.
|
>>What is wrong in having immigrants. The USA is built on immigrants.
We did a lot of immigration too in the 17 and 18 hundreds. I think we immigrated to India, Afghanistan, Asia, Africa and Ireland.
We don't seem to like it when we get immigrated back!
|
Somebody's nationality seems such a little thing to worry about. I really don't get why people care.
Surely only behaviour and character matters?
|
>> Surely only behaviour and character matters?
>>
It certainly does, do you have gangs of sometimes aggresive Romanian beggers, cashpoint scammers, and pickpockets often using children, and unlicenced drivers in unregistered and uninsured cars on foreign plates which are very difficult to trace?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 28 Feb 16 at 08:22
|
>> Surely only behaviour and character matters?
Correct. What UK needs a point based immigration system which gives some control of whom we want to allow in the country.
Currently there is no control on EU immigration and asylum seekers/refugees.
None in pro-EU camps ever explained why unlimited migration is good thing and sustainable in long run.
Last edited by: movilogo on Sun 28 Feb 16 at 10:29
|
>> Currently there is no control on EU immigration and asylum seekers/refugees.
EU nationals have the right to come here to take or seek work. While doing so their rights to benefits are on a different footing to those of UK citizens. PLenty are caught in a trap where they cannot afford to stay and cannot afford to go home. Women with young children, abandoned by their partners, are particularly vulnerable to this scenario.
The idea that that there's no control on asylum seekers is nonsense:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/27/theresa-may-criticised-for-compassion-quota-in-asylum-strategy
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/27/gap-year-students-deciding-asylum-claims
Similarly you must be aware of the UK Govt's line on Syrian refugees.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 28 Feb 16 at 10:49
|
"We", Movilogo??
Surely listening to some of the nutters around here you have gathered that your future presence will also be reviewed?
|
>> Currently there is no control on EU immigration and asylum seekers/refugees.
What control of asylum seekers and refugees that you think is missing do you believe will be introduced by leaving the EU?
You seem not to be very well informed.
|
>> An elderly relative had a real racist rant as a reason for leaving the EU
>> yesterday - there are too many foreigners here!
>> .........
>> I just pray that people like her are the exception rather then the rule.
>>
Unfortunately this seems to be at the heart of the argument of a lot of people I know over a certain age. You don't need to talk to them for too long before the good old dislike and distrust of Johnny Foreigner comes to the surface.
There is too much emotion in the whole debate. Whichever way it goes, this decision needs to be taken logically on cold, hard facts.
Last edited by: DP on Tue 1 Mar 16 at 13:51
|
>> There is too much emotion in the whole debate. Whichever way it goes, this decision
>> needs to be taken logically on cold, hard facts.
>>
The trouble is, what are they?
Both sides of the debate nationally, are full of bluster and spin.
|
"The strange pseudo-deal stitched up between David Cameron and his 27 EU colleagues is yet another example of the EU's smoke and mirrors"
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12176234/Nine-deceptions-in-our-history-with-the-EU.html
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12176234/Nine-deceptions-in-our-history-with-the-EU.html
Like most of Booker's pieces it's a mish mash of unevidenced assertions. Wonder how long it took him to knock it off. Just a pick and mix.
Clearly it 'pings' with some of the Telegraph's readership which presumably is why the Barclays keep him on.
|
>> >> www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12176234/Nine-deceptions-in-our-history-with-the-EU.html
>>
>> Like most of Booker's pieces it's a mish mash of unevidenced assertions.
And which parts do you think are untrue? It's a newspaper column, not an academic paper, but I do agree citations would have been nice.
|
>> And which parts do you think are untrue? It's a newspaper column, not an academic
>> paper, but I do agree citations would have been nice.
I don't doubt that Monnet had a vision for a unified Europe and that Schumann had one too. The latter, treating Germany as an equal rather than something to be exploited, was actually the way forward.
Neither do I dismiss his recognition that the objective of a 'USofE' would be a step by step process rather than a 'big bang'. Nether Monnet nor Schumann were underhand; their approach is plainly set out.
The idea that Macmillan, Heath and others were parties to a conspiracy to bring the USofE about by stealth is, for me, where the threshold of credibility is crossed.
|
Let's be honest here, nobody has a clue if we will be better off inside or outside of the EU. You can link to an article by some expert that proves conclusively leaving would be a disaster, and I could link to another expert who tears your ones piece to bits, then you could find someone else who makes a mockery of my expert while I come back with another who makes your second expert look like a clown, and so on and on and on.
In the end it's all down to gut instinct and mine is that we would be better off out. If yours is different, go with that and we'll see who was in the majority in June.
|
Anybody running a business has to deal with the environment they operate in. Most businesses can't do anything to change that environment.
When something happens politically, what they are concerned with is how it affects their competitive position, including how able they are (compared to their principal competitors) to adapt to that.
Extending that to a country (a large collection of businesses covering every conceivable size and sector) what matters economically is (a) how that affects the ability of "UK PLC" to compete with business domiciled elsewhere, both in and out the EU; (b) how well those businesses can adapt etc.; and (c) how the UK government can influence favourably conditions for business - tax rates, trade treaties, tariffs and so on.
Businesses will adapt - the good ones always do. The bad ones just fail quicker in a hostile or changing environment. The great imponderable is to what extent the UK will be better able to make conditions for business more favourable, i.e. to what extent will it have the increased freedom to do so, and the competence to do it effectively.
In Runfer's analogy, will our monkeys, given the opportunity, be better than their monkeys? They should certainly have more freedom to act, and ability to act more quickly - for good or ill - the EU is a giant sloth, if only because it has to keep 28 countries in step.
I have an innate preference for internationalism, openness and cooperation over isolationism and insularity; that does not necessarily mean that the EU is the answer. In some respects it is isolationist itself; it is a club that has realised there are certain prospective members that it cannot easily admit - it has been able to digest, more or less, some essentially non-compatible, low productivity economies because they are small, but e.g. Turkey would give it severe dyspepsia. It isn't yet a country, it is an alliance in which a great deal of energy is expended on internal workings rather than progress, which may well be arrested for some time - it is by no means certain that the eurozone can even survive, let alone expand - how will the 'global shock' of eurozone collapse compare with that of Brexit?
I am in no great hurry to take a firm position here one way or the other; this issue has a lot of rumbling to do between now and June 23rd.
Meanwhile I just don't accept the idea that the argument (discussion if you prefer) is between enlightened, cooperative internationalist goodies and unrealistic, isolationist, racist baddies. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
|
|
Very good post, Manatee. My own feeling is that the EU won't survive in it's present form and a Brexit will merely hasten that.
|
"the EU won't survive in it's present form"
That would be a terrible pity as it has recently demonstrated its incredible usefulness by bringing in legislation concerning small electric appliances - a matter of extreme international importance. For tiddling trivialities such as a mass-migration of biblical proportions, every leader went their own way depending on their own personal whims. Ah - so much for unity!
The Realists among us are still shaking our heads in disbelief.
|
>>In the end it's all down to gut instinct and mine is that we would be better off out. If yours is different, go with that and we'll see who was in the majority in June.
I largely agree with that. I would add to it though, that one should have an eye on the type of environment / approach / thinking that one would prefer, if all other factors were equal.
So when you say "better off", I think it depends what you mean by that phrase.
Economically and financially, whichever decision is made it will be perhaps negative in the very short term, probably neutral in the medium time and then who knows in the long term.
Unless something unexpected happens, I doubt if we will ever be able to pin a financial figure on better off or worse off, in or out.
I think you have to add in a social context, which is to decide whether you prefer the head in the sand, protectionist, barriers against foreigners, a mythical Brit, thou shall not pass approach, or if you prefer a more international, open, everybody is equal, get on together, and free approach.
Again, there is not necessarily a right or a wrong, just a preference.
And I not only prefer the second, I prefer the company of those who prefer the second. So my choice is probably clear.
And, quite honestly, those who come fervently out in favour of the first, pretty much affirm my position.
|
>> >> I think you have to add in a social context, which is to decide whether
>> you prefer the head in the sand, protectionist, barriers against foreigners, a mythical Brit, thou shall not pass approach, or if you prefer a more international, open, everybody is equal,
>> get on together, and free approach.
>>
>> >>
>>
There is no reason Britain or any other country can't have that approach whilst being a completely independent nation. And what is the EU but a protectionist bloc with trade tariffs against non members?
|
>>There is no reason Britain or any other country can't have that approach whilst being a completely independent nation. And what is the EU but a protectionist bloc with trade tariffs against non members?
Oh entirely!
However, how many of the"Outs" are saying "we want to leave the EU because we want to welcome foreigners more"??
And how many because they want to stick their head in the sand and pretend the rest of the world is bad (and foreign).
There's idiots on both sides, but come the revolution which type of person would you rather be counted with?
|
We pay £55 million a day to the E.U.
What about spending this money on something worthwhile.
Maybe on improving our transport.
Where I live we need £275 million for our local road to be widened
|
>> I think you have to add in a social context, which is to decide whether
>> you prefer the head in the sand, protectionist, barriers against foreigners, a mythical Brit, thou
>> shall not pass approach, or if you prefer a more international, open, everybody is equal,
>> get on together, and free approach.
I hate repeating myself, but I don't think the characterisation of 'eurosceptics' generally as having a "head in the sand, protectionist, barriers against foreigners, a mythical Brit, thou shall not pass approach" is helpful, or valid. Obviously the 'leave' view will be the one that appeals to people with that mind set, but it isn't necessary to join a club to be a good citizen.
>> And, quite honestly, those who come fervently out in favour of the first, pretty much
>> affirm my position.
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy! I like to think that people who agree with me are the most intelligent and enlightened too.
|
>>but it isn't necessary to join a club to be a good citizen.
True. But that wasn't my point. However, those are generally not people I would wish to be counted with.
>> I like to think that people who agree with me are the most intelligent and enlightened too.
Don't we all, but again, not my point. Intelligent, enlightened or not, I prefer not to be grouped with them.
If that doesn't bother you, and why should it, then why care about my point?
I think it though.
|
I really don't follow that reply, but never mind.
In general I prefer not to be grouped with people who insult my intelligence, which at the moment includes Osborne, who with the arrogance of his cadre seems to think he can win an argument by suggesting people who disagree with him are stupid. It won't work, on anybody.
I voted for collaboration with the EC countries in 1975. In spirit, not just for a common market (which whatever anybody says, was what was written on the paper), but for real alignment and common aims.
I still feel that way. What I don't know is whether the EU as it exists is the best way of doing it. It feels very dysfunctional to me, its biggest problems are undoubtedly of its own making, and it doesn't seem to be capable of tackling them.
I will keep an open mind until much nearer to 23 June, whether or not I am insulted and disparaged for not leaping into the 'remain' camp.
|
>> I think you have to add in a social context, which is to decide whether
>> you prefer the head in the sand, protectionist, barriers against foreigners, a mythical Brit, thou
>> shall not pass approach, or if you prefer a more international, open, everybody is equal,
>> get on together, and free approach.
>>
>> Again, there is not necessarily a right or a wrong, just a preference.
>>
>> And I not only prefer the second, I prefer the company of those who prefer
>> the second. So my choice is probably clear.
The trouble is, the parameters you have set are far too inflexible and are at an extreme.
It is perfectly reasonable to have your head well and truly out of the sand and have no problem mixing with people from elsewhere... and.. still wish for your country to have more control of its own destiny.
Preventing unskilled or unsuitable migrants isn't the same as not liking foreign people, in fact it can be far from it.
However, it's a known tactic for those that disagree with someone's stance to throw an extreme into the pot or concentrate on an extreme, to try to discredit your viewpoint.
Same with protectionism, I don't agree with that.. yet isn't that what is being said about the UK leaving the EU?.... We'd be worse off if we were outside the club?
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 28 Feb 16 at 19:46
|
Westpig -
As I found out when I misjudged you a while ago, there are many reasons why one might hold a particular opinion or stance and one should be careful of assumptions. As a general rule, although not without exception, whilst I do not agree with your position I usually have some sympathy with your thinking.
However, there are many who hold similar thoughts or views to you, for much less admirable reasons. And, without offence to you, I perceive them to be the majority within the "Out" movement.
And I prefer to distance myself from them.
|
"And I prefer to distance myself from them."
Yes, but fleeing to Chile was a bit extreme, though ;-)
|
>> However, there are many who hold similar thoughts or views to you, for much less
>> admirable reasons. And, without offence to you, I perceive them to be the majority within
>> the "Out" movement.
I have no doubt that the 'out' camp will have a chunk of ignorant Little Englanders in it... but there will also be a load of people who think what they think for perfectly acceptable reasons and who do not wish to be lumped in with the extreme elements... as is usual in most aspects of life.
I'd be surprised though if the ignorant and/or unpleasant are anywhere near a majority and they could easily be fairly few in number.
So you could easily be distancing yourself from normal, reasonable people.
|
>>So you could easily be distancing yourself from normal, reasonable people.
Perhaps.
However, economically I believe that it will sort itself out. That it will be, at least in the medium time, a wash. What difference it makes over 20 years is impossible to predict. Despite the fact that I spent most of last week writing a report purporting to predict exactly that.
Consequently, it could be a political decision. I think virtually all politicians are gits, and I don;t agree wholly with even one of them. My views are split across the parties. So a political decision doesn't really work for me, unless I prefer to make a negative decision. Which I mostly try to avoid.
So then there is socially; Well there will be people on both sides of the fence whose thinking I agree with, so not much point in trying to use them as a differentiator.
And ultimately, the unpleasants on the Out side seem, to me, a great deal more unpleasant than the unpleasants on the In side. I mean seriously, align myself with some of the people we have in here who support the Outs? Good God, I would die of shame.
Socially, I prefer the thinking that goes with the open approach.
|
>> And ultimately, the unpleasants on the Out side seem, to me, a great deal more
>> unpleasant than the unpleasants on the In side. I mean seriously, align myself with some
>> of the people we have in here who support the Outs? Good God, I would
>> die of shame.
Hmm.
So there's some unpleasantness in the 'out' side... and some unpleasantness on the 'in' side. Because the 'out' unpleasant are perceived (or are) worse than the 'in', you'd go with the 'in'???
What about the actual meaning of 'out' or 'in'?
|
>> What about the actual meaning of 'out' or 'in'?
Seems to me that I have commented quite extensively on that.
|
>> Seems to me that I have commented quite extensively on that.
>>
Yes, you have...and useful too.
Which makes the your perceptions of the supporters of one side a tad irrelevant. It's the guts of the issue that counts.
|
>>Which makes the your perceptions of the supporters of one side a tad irrelevant
That's the thing, I don't think so. I believe that this is mostly a political and social issue, not a financial or economic one.
Consequently, with politics and sociology, attitudes, feelings and behaviour become very important. Along with social environment, perception and relationships.
Clearly it is the resulting environment that matters much more than those who originally supported it, but it seems to me that one can give an indication of the other.
|
"What about the actual meaning of 'out' or 'in'?"
NoFM isn't terribly good at articulating definitions, WP, so please allow me to assist ...........
Voting 'out' = lousy, intolerant, xenophobic, racist, furriner-bashing scumbag.
Voting 'in' = jolly decent, considerate, broad-minded internationalist.
Does that help?
|
I think that deserves a smiley Haywain:)....it's also about the most ill informed way of making a decision on this I've heard yet!
Pat
|
Cynically ( moi? ) I have this sneaking suspicion that certain politicians are hanging their hats on ( either side ) of this issue not through altruism but simply in an effort to raise their profiles and gain future votes.
We the proles, have to navigate our ways through the hyperbole and cast our pencil marks accordingly.
The truth is our beds were made long ago, for better or worse etc, we're in the marriage now, leaving it will lead to us being miserable and alone in a bed sit with no friends.
|
>> The truth is our beds were made long ago, for better or worse etc, we're
>> in the marriage now, leaving it will lead to us being miserable and alone in
>> a bed sit with no friends.
That is your statement of personal belief!
Here is mine.
We will not be miserable and alone in a bedsit with no friends.
|
>>
>> We will not be miserable and alone in a bedsit with no friends.
>>
But many (say 50%) believe you are wrong Roger, that your position is driven by an emotional response to a changing world and that your alternative is not sufficiently attractive, I hope that you can see that however passionate you are regarding your own views.
The demographic research implies younger and more highly educated people want to remain in the EU more than other demographics and arguably it is younger people who have more at stake. All votes count equally of course, that is not the issue.
If the 'out' wins you'll potentially have younger and better educated people (the ones the country needs for its future) at best resentful and at worst voting with their feet. I suspect that there'll be few international friends in the short to medium term either with the UK having lost strategic relevance.
The marriage analogy is a good one, building bridges after this campaign both inside and outside the UK will be important and possibly quite difficult.
|
"The demographic research implies younger and more highly educated people want to remain in the EU"
Young, highly educated people are idealists with little experience of life. I know - I know because I've been there ......... and I'm honest enough to admit that I was wrong. Yes, I was stomping around in Grosvenor Square in '68 etc etc.
|
>> "The demographic research implies younger and more highly educated people want to remain in the
>> EU"
>>
>> Young, highly educated people are idealists with little experience of life. I know - I
>> know because I've been there ......... and I'm honest enough to admit that I was
>> wrong. Yes, I was stomping around in Grosvenor Square in '68 etc etc.
>>
It's both the young and the more highly educated from what I have read. Both of which are arguably needed if a newly independent UK which lacks other natural resources is to succeed.
|
>>It's both the young and the more highly educated from what I have read.
I've read that too. This isn't current, but it is probably still directionally correct.
"in summary, younger, middle class, graduates tend to be pro-EU, older, working class, less well educated people tend to be anti-EU"
yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/22/eu-referendum-state-public-opinion/
Note the word "tend". That means that a smaller proportion of older people are pro-EU than are younger people, and vice versa. It does not mean that a large proportion of both arbitrary groups do not have the opposite opinion.
It's probably more a function of age than anything. Higher education is much more frequent amongst the young anyway, so that 'trend' might well just follow the age profile.
This sort of profiling has a lot to answer for!
If the young people own the future, they need to get out and vote. Historically, they have been less likely to do so than older folk.
One thing I have noticed though - in other contexts - is that contrary to the old-and-stuck-in-a-rut stereotype, the young are often very averse to change.
That might not apply here of course, but in my working life, I have been 'restructured' a number of times. It was usually the young who were most bitterly opposed or in floods of tears.
The only reason for that I could think of was that for the young (I mean say <=25) the status quo bias may be stronger - often it is the only one they have known, whereas when you have been through the mangle a few times you are more likely to think that nothing is all bad.
The status quo bias (of all ages) may well in the end be the deciding factor, given the difficulty in getting getting information and understanding the issues.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 29 Feb 16 at 12:09
|
>> The status quo bias (of all ages) may well in the end be the deciding
>> factor
IN = Rockin' All Over the World
OUT = Dirty Water
;-)
|
Maybe that is the main problem understanding the issues.
Immigration is upsetting a lot of people and that will problaby be the main item they will vote on.
I wouldn't worry to much about Britain status in Europe.We are not part of the Euro.We didn't sign up to the Schengen Agreement.
The majority of laws in the U.K are decided by a British government based in London.
There is a lot of ill feeling towards politicians distrust is number one on the list.Who to believe for or against the E.U.Economist are divided so many different opinions.Unless you have some interest in politics .The vote will be ini mini mini mo on the ballot paper.
|
|
I do hope they don't draw a small Islamic prophet driving a small car from Cowley on the ballot. There will be hell to pay.
|
>> I do hope they don't draw a small Islamic prophet driving a small car from
>> Cowley on the ballot. There will be hell to pay.
>>
OK I know I'm a bit slow but
????
|
It was very simple when it used to be a coal and steel agreement.The Benelux.
|
Me and the missus are in the iron and steal business.
Just saying like.
:}
|
|
I wouldn't put it past you Dog any room for one more.>:)
|
|
I've retyred the much-used acetylene torch Dutchie, but there's plenty of vroom left in my Subaru ;)
|
|
It still is. Its called the United Kingdom.
|
>>
>> >>
>> The demographic research implies younger and more highly educated people want to remain in the EU
>>
Never make the mistake of equating "Highly educated" with intelligent. Most of the people who screwed the economy come from that group and it wasn't people who went to the Nelson Mandela Community School that decided it would be a great idea to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
>> Never make the mistake of equating "Highly educated" with intelligent. Most of the people who
>> screwed the economy come from that group and it wasn't people who went to the
>> Nelson Mandela Community School that decided it would be a great idea to invade Iraq
>> and Afghanistan.
>>
I like your analogy with the decision regarding Iraq.
But, the people who have recently left those same schools arguably (albeit taking something of a leap from the demographic research) have the same sentiment towards the highly educated and intelligent leadership advocating for Brexit now? If they represent common sense as I think you suggest then your argument seems not to reinforce your point (which I assume to be that a well educated minority have made mistakes so why believe them now) ? It's the future of the young which will be impacted the most whatever the outcome.
Clearly beliefs on this matter are strongly held and I would suggest include some emotional rather than solely rational elements, I expect the result will be close and as far as I can see there is no good outcome to this, I would suggest that the demographic aspect is the key to how that might play out.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 29 Feb 16 at 23:04
|
It was highly educated people who caused the financial collapse.
Investing in sub-prime and junk bonds did not help either.
|
Reads well.
Not all former military commanders agree. Several, including the admirable admiral Michael Boyce (who told Blair to go and get a legal review before he agreed to follow his instructions to invade Iraq) and the admirably named Jock Stirrup, both former chiefs of the defence staff, Mike Jackson and others have put their names to a round robin to the effect that UK is safer in the EU.
You pays yer money.
|
|
Mmm, because putting a military man in charge of military policy has always gone soooo well.
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 - Volume 3 - Pat
