View Full Version : POLL: EU - stay or go?
Arkless Electronics
17-05-2016, 21:14
Well I'm just hoping that the tory twats tear themselves apart over this and we get Corbyn in!! Or someone with similar views and policies in Labour anyway... Corbyn is undoubtedly that rare thing an honest politician... I do worry though that no one was more surprised than him when he became leader and he sees his present tenure as caretaker of the left until someone younger and with more ... well, oomph and political killer instinct comes along.
A new Attlee government! That's basically what I want. Bring it on!
I'd rather share a country with the closet Nazis than people like him.
But Mason is typical of his type - never had a proper job, never been poor, and so has no idea of the problems, let alone the solutions.
Now Martin, I am familiar with your "debating" stye of just dismissing everything anyone else says and declaiming nonsense that you never actually back up with any facts, but here I think you have surpassed yourself.
I posted a link to an article from a left-winger who is arguing for BREXIT (admittedly with the reservation of not just now perhaps) and your reaction is to say that you would prefer the company of nazis. Granted you paddled back and tried to claim it was being facetious, but there it is still: "I would rather share a country with the closet Nazis..." That's what you wrote.
Then you make statements about Mason that suggest you know nothing about him at all. "Never had a proper job"? I mean are you drunk or something? Have you been smoking your socks? Not had a proper job? I suppose there is a list of "proper jobs" that you have drawn up that we are not party to?
The fallacious rhetoric is pitiful, but I have to give you credit for the sheer brass-neck of it!
LOL
:lol:
I know you hate to read things that utterly disprove your wild statements of opinion, but just in case anyone reading this is interested, here is a bit of background on the overprivileged shirker that is Paul Mason...
from wikipedia:
Mason was born in Leigh, Lancashire. His father was a lorry driver, his mother a headmistress. feel the privilege
Mason was educated at St Joseph's RC Primary School in Leigh and Thornleigh Salesian College in Bolton. He graduated from the University of Sheffield O! Topless ivory chimney towers of Ilium!! with a degree in music and politics in 1981 and trained to be a music teacher at London University Institute of Education.
Mason lived in Leicester from 1982 to 1988, working as a music teacher, and lecturer in music at Loughborough University. NB teaching is not a proper job
>
Mason has lived in London since 1988, where, after 1991, he became a freelance journalist. From 1995 to 2001 he worked for Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier, on titles including Contract Journal, Community Care and Computer Weekly, of which he was deputy editor. During the dotcom boom Mason launched E-Business Review and was consulting editor for the launch of CW360.com. He also contributed articles to the Daily Express and the Mail on Sunday.
In August 2001, Mason joined the BBC Two television programme Newsnight as Business Editor. His first live appearance on Newsnight was on the day of the September 11 attacks in 2001.
In August 2013 it was announced that Mason would join Channel 4 News as its Culture and Digital Editor.
In May 2014, it was announced that he would become the programme's Economics Editor at the beginning of the following month, replacing Faisal Islam.
Mason announced in February 2016 that he was leaving his position at Channel 4 in favour of freelancing so he could engage more fully in debates on the political left without the constraints of impartiality placed on broadcasters in the UK. [IE he was giving up his PROPER JOB]
AWARDS:
Mason won the Wincott Prize for Business Journalism in 2003,[12] the Workworld Broadcaster of the Year in 2004,[4] and the Diageo African Business Reporting Award in 2007. His report on the social movements behind Bolivian president Evo Morales was cited when Newsnight was awarded the Orwell Prize (2007).
HE HAS PUBLISHED FIVE BOOKS (I suppose that's not a proper job, writing books? Though it is hard not to note that he wrote all these books at the sme time as holding down full time jobs.) :
Mason, Paul (2007). Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global. London: Harvill Secker. ISBN 0-436-20615-3.
Mason, Paul (2009). Meltdown: The End of the Age of Greed. London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-84467-396-4.
Mason, Paul (2012). Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions. London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-84467-851-8.
Mason, Paul (2012). Rare Earth. Harpenden: No Exit. ISBN 1-84243-846-8.
Mason, Paul (2015). PostCapitalism: A Guide to our Future. Allen Lane. ISBN 9781846147388.
walpurgis
17-05-2016, 23:17
Gawd! I'm losing the will to live with this thread. It doesnt matter what is quoted. EVERYTHING has a slant and an agenda. Therefore none of it can be regarded as the truth!
We are in the dark and simply fed crumbs of disinformation. And it will get worse!
Arkless Electronics
17-05-2016, 23:37
Well that's yer politics for yer innit!
Gawd! I'm losing the will to live with this thread. It doesnt matter what is quoted. EVERYTHING has a slant and an agenda. Therefore none of it can be regarded as the truth!]
There's a difference between slant/agenda and saying things that are demonstrably untrue, surely?
I don't think we are really in the dark. There is plenty of information out there, and it't not very difficult to decipher which arguments are based in fact and which are not. I hasten to add that there are arguments on both sides of this that fit both descriptions. We can read stuff and make up our own minds whic h we believe, and usually due to confirmation bias people will choose to read and agree with the arguments that agree with what they think already, rightly or wrongly.
i.e. I am more ready to believe information that says that immigration actually has a net benefit to the UK, whereas a UKIP supporter is more likely to believe the "we have to regain sovereignty over our borders" argument.
If someone has a LEAVE position that they really believe in, then they should probably seek out solid information to back that position up, rather than just relying on nonsense like "oh but they want to control our bananas" or "we don't elect any of our MEPs".
At the risk of droning on, I have been reading up a lot about the EU over the past few weeks, and I have learnt a lot about it. I still firmly believe that we should stay in, but I am now better placed to actually talk about it - and be critical of it, I think.
In other news, Heseltine was rather wonderful today (fwd it to 2:46 if you don't want to watch it all):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaVO6U8u8-o
To answer my critics here (and elsewhere): With experience, gentlemen, comes wisdom. I'd like to see the same outcomes as you, it is only with the methods of achieving those outcomes where we differ. You can't do it following dogma or by following what it says in a book, even the one written by Karl Marx (another rich kid who never had a proper job).
BTW music teacher is not a proper job. ;)
To answer my critics here (and elsewhere): With experience, gentlemen, comes wisdom. I'd like to see the same outcomes as you, it is only with the methods of achieving those outcomes where we differ. You can't do it following dogma or by following what it says in a book, even the one written by Karl Marx (another rich kid who never had a proper job).
BTW music teacher is not a proper job. ;)
Presumably everybody teaches themselves how to play music. So that's alright then.
What exactly is a 'proper job'? Lorry driver, obviously; headmistress, though? How about picture-framer, or policeman, or clergyman? What are the criteria, and how does your own job measure up against them?
To answer my critics here (and elsewhere): With experience, gentlemen, comes wisdom. I'd like to see the same outcomes as you, it is only with the methods of achieving those outcomes where we differ. You can't do it following dogma or by following what it says in a book, even the one written by Karl Marx (another rich kid who never had a proper job).
BTW music teacher is not a proper job. ;)
That's all very well Martin, but you aren't answering the criticism are you?
You spanked off a load of rubbish (that Mason had a privileged upbringing and never had a proper job, and that you prefer Nazis) and when specifically called out on it, you have replied by simply implying that you are somehow extremely wise and clever, whilst completely ignoring the fact that you have been discovered in your preposterous lie.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I never said he had a privileged upbringing. Your imagination is now running away with you.
The job thing was tongue in cheek.
I never said he had a privileged upbringing. Your imagination is now running away with you.
The job thing was tongue in cheek.
It didn't sound at all tongue in cheek, especially coming hot on the heels to your comment that you would prefer the company of Nazis to him. You actually said that you were being facetious about the Nazi thing, BUT he was typical of his type... Which to me reads as "ok well I didn't mean that, but this is what I do mean"
The problem with trying to use the "but that's not what I said" line on a web forum is that what you did actually say is easily verifiable:
But Mason is typical of his type - never had a proper job, never been poor, and so has no idea of the problems, let alone the solutions.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I never said he had a privileged upbringing. Your imagination is now running away with you.
The job thing was tongue in cheek.
You need to flag up jokes with smilies.
So he has had a proper job, he didn't have a privileged upbringing, and you wouldn't prefer the company of Nazis to him. What was your point again?
My point;
That he has never been poor (not the same as being privileged) and never had to struggle in life and so, like many of his ilk, he assumes that the reason that some people are poor and struggle is poor government and that in government lies the solution to their problem.
In addition he decries those who do not agree with his views as 'politically immature' and 'closet Nazis'. I find this attitude despicable.
I disagree with him because I regard government as the cause of the problem. Therefore the solution, or at least a step towards the solution, is less government, not more. Since the EU represents an additional tier of government I am opposed to it in principle.
Unsurprisingly I don't really agree with your interpretation, however I am very pleased that you are actually engaging rather than just saying that we don't understand!
I think you can't judge someone's life as you do, and use your judgement to then attack that person's point of view. What you say about Paul Mason's lack of understanding doesn't really tally with what we know: that he is a highly regarded, intelligent hard working journalist who can pretty much name his terms if he wanted a job. I don't really understand what you mean by "like many of his ilk" either. If anything, surely we should be applauding him for having made such a serious career for himself, coming from a grammar school and Sheffield university, rather than prep school and Oxford..?
I also don't really agree that he is simply trying to dismiss people who don't agree with him. The closet Nazis are those like Golden Dawn in Greece, who are barely in the closet. They are extreme right wing, racist, the whole deal. Mason has spent a lot of time in Greece covering what is going on there. Is it wrong to not want to be associated with these type of people? I don't think so.
He also talks about "politically immature electorates" by which I assume he means electorates who have only recently been introduced to democracy. I'm not certain what he meant by that to be honest, but I don't necessarily agree with him. BUT I think to call his attitude despicable based on those two points is unsound.
The reason I posted the link in the first place was that it was a left winger advocating for leaving the EU. Yet you disagree with him?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
As H L Mencken put it: 'Rich people can't help thinking that poor people are either lazy or stupid, and poor people can't help thinking rich people are either lucky or crooked'.
The causes of poverty are manifold, and it's simplistic to think that more or less government will make much difference either way. I am much better off than my parents were; I'd ascribe that mostly to education. Was this in turn due to 'more government'? Dunno.
walpurgis
18-05-2016, 17:22
As H L Mencken put it: 'Rich people can't help thinking that poor people are either lazy or stupid, and poor people can't help thinking rich people are either lucky or crooked'.
There is a degree of truth there. Just as there is in stereotyping. The perceptions that push attitudes are grounded in some fact. Whether folks like it or not!
Arkless Electronics
18-05-2016, 17:40
As H L Mencken put it: 'Rich people can't help thinking that poor people are either lazy or stupid, and poor people can't help thinking rich people are either lucky or crooked'.
The causes of poverty are manifold, and it's simplistic to think that more or less government will make much difference either way. I am much better off than my parents were; I'd ascribe that mostly to education. Was this in turn due to 'more government'? Dunno.
Hence the need for socialism to even the gap somewhat! While one person starves someone else is deciding which Ferrari to use today and that, to me, is the biggest crime/injustice that exists! There is enough wealth and resources in the world so no one need starve or go without a roof over their head...or die from a very easily treatable illness. it just needs taxing from the very rich, whether individuals or corporations.
Surely if we ask ourselves what separates us from the animals it should be that we are above a "dog eat dog, survival of the fittest" type existence.... When I hear that some industrial magnate with wealth in the billions has shut some factory putting thousands out of work just so he can make an extra 2% profit well... my opinions of such a person are not publishable I assure you! Same when I hear someone saying boats full of immigrants should be sunk drowning them all lest their presence here means you have to wait an extra hour to see your GP or whatever... if someone said that to me in a pub I would probably punch them!
Ah... now relax....
There is a degree of truth there. Just as there is in stereotyping. The perceptions that push attitudes are grounded in some fact. Whether folks like it or not!
Not sure what you mean?
Yes, I am sure some poor people are either lazy or stupid, and some rich people are lucky and crooked. But then again, I am also sure that there are some lucky crooked poor people and some lazy and stupid rich ones. but thats not the point that was being made.
The assumption that poor people are lazy and stupid is the reason they are poor is incorrect, and likewise this leads to the assumption that all poor people have to do to become rich is work hard which is clearly not true, and the way education is structured makes it harder for the poor to be not stupid.
and the converse as well.
walpurgis
18-05-2016, 17:53
Oh. Here we go. I said 'a degree of truth'. Not, it's all true or totally true, neither did I imply that it applies across the board, so to speak.
There is an incredible contempt that always seems to come out of top Tory mouths these days, it is getting very orchestrated. We are defined by our experiences, and by never having to deal with real poverty, and growing up with "hard working parents", it is easy to look at the fruits of success and pride to the family, whilst failing to understand how one got there in the first place. Go spend a week with a family without 'inherited power' of 3 on the national living wage in London, Manchester, any big city...
Just seeing Hunt's grin, May, Osborne, Cameron, they just do not care about people who aren't already helped onto the ladder. There is a fundamental disconnect between our establishment politics and public opinion, so we need the EU!
As Mencken also said: 'For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simple, straightforward, and wrong'.
Arkless Electronics
18-05-2016, 18:31
There's often one that's simple, straightforward and right as well!! Usually it's being suppressed by those in power who are themselves put in power for being wealthy etc...
Good luck centuries ago can mean generations of a family are wealthy and powerful... "The system" (strangely enough put in place by the wealthy) makes it so, once wealthy enough, wise investment means you and generations to come basically need never work again. conversely if your ancestors were poor serfs working the land, generations to follow may never get the helping hand needed to climb out of poverty. A friend of mine once made the remark "cleaners beget cleaners" (substitute labourer or whatever for cleaners) which whilst rather un pc is fairly accurate. Ground down and never getting the chance to rise out of poverty. Tories want things to stay this way... and Thatcher was worst of the lot in what she did to cause inequality. My hatred for Tories is almost palpable I assure you :steam:
Oh. Here we go. I said 'a degree of truth'. Not, it's all true or totally true, neither did I imply that it applies across the board, so to speak.
Yes, I know, but by that you are continuing the idea that is slightly true. Its not. Just because it may be true for one person, doesn't make it a degree of truth. The world is not flat, its round, its entirely false to say there is some truth in the fact that its flat, because if you look at a car park it seems to be flat. Extrapolating from a single datum, to generalise to the whole is a logical fallacy. i.e. its seems true, but its actually false.
walpurgis
18-05-2016, 21:27
Yes, I know, but by that you are continuing the idea that is slightly true. Its not.
Ah. I see. Glad you put me right with that. It's reassuring to know that something can't be slightly true. Where did you get your facts from?
There is a degree of truth in most things when we consider people. Stereotypes do exist; in some places more than others
There is a degree of truth in most things when we consider people. Stereotypes do exist; in some places more than others
Plenty of stereo types in hifi forums. A few mono types, plus the odd 5.1 type.
you forgot the 7 dwarfs and our own snow-white;)
Ah. I see. Glad you put me right with that. It's reassuring to know that something can't be slightly true. Where did you get your facts from?
Well, in this case, texts on Mathematics and Logic.
There is a degree of truth in most things when we consider people. Stereotypes do exist; in some places more than others
Yes, but the difference between "is true for some people" and a stereotype is that the latter affects what assumptions are made unseen about people, and can unfairly effect how they are treated and what chances they have in life.
walpurgis
18-05-2016, 22:48
Assumptions and impressions are what create stereotypes. Be it via media blurb or life experience. Stereotyping has nothing to do with 'fair'. It just happens.
walpurgis
18-05-2016, 22:54
Well, in this case, texts on Mathematics and Logic.
Where do "mathematics and logic" apply in relation to the quote from H L Menken?
Oldpinkman
19-05-2016, 05:57
There's often one that's simple, straightforward and right as well!! Usually it's being suppressed by those in power who are themselves put in power for being wealthy etc...
Good luck centuries ago can mean generations of a family are wealthy and powerful... "The system" (strangely enough put in place by the wealthy) makes it so, once wealthy enough, wise investment means you and generations to come basically need never work again. conversely if your ancestors were poor serfs working the land, generations to follow may never get the helping hand needed to climb out of poverty. A friend of mine once made the remark "cleaners beget cleaners" (substitute labourer or whatever for cleaners) which whilst rather un pc is fairly accurate. Ground down and never getting the chance to rise out of poverty. Tories want things to stay this way... and Thatcher was worst of the lot in what she did to cause inequality. My hatred for Tories is almost palpable I assure you :steam:
That's one way of looking at it I suppose. The other is the Alan sugar, Richard Branson, Bill Gates etc way. I think actually a Paul mckenna quote is appropriate. "whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're probably right"
The hand you were dealt plays a part. But in a free country like this one your choices and your actions play a significant one.
Most cleaners choose to stay cleaners because they depend on, and blame others for their lot. Others, like my son, determine to create a better future for themselves, and receive the rewards.
Another Paul mckenna idea is that if you seek to blame others for your situation you become a victim. If you take responsibility for your situation yourself you empower yourself to change it. If your situation is not your fault, it's not yours to control and you are waiting for someone else to change it. Fairy godmothers are in short supply.
Those cleaners begetting cleaners are victims. The likes of sadiq Khan, hardly born to generations of wealth, are an example of what you can achieve if you choose not to be a victim. My son another example. My Sikh client who started selling mobile phone cases from his mum's terraced house living room on eBay, and is now earning over a quarter of a million pounds a year.. He worked in a mobile phone shop to earn the money for his first stock. Anyone on this forum with a pc broadband and a living room could have chosen to do that. It needed no special skills, no bloodline, no starting capital - just graft and determination and a bit of balls.
But most choose to reflect how unlucky they are, how unfair life is, and how somebody else is to blame. There is one certainty if you want to change anything. Somebody else doesn't give a damn about your situation. Only one person can.
Where do "mathematics and logic" apply in relation to the quote from H L Menken?
"It's reassuring to know that something can't be slightly true."
Alan Sugar is a example of what you speak, but not the other two.
Branson was born in Blackheath, London, the eldest of three children of Eve Branson (née Evette Huntley Flindt; born 1924), a former ballet dancer and air hostess, and Edward James Branson (1918–2011), a barrister.[7][8][9] Branson has two younger sisters.[10] His grandfather, the Right Honourable Sir George Arthur Harwin Branson, was a judge of the High Court of Justice and a Privy Councillor.[11] Branson was educated at Scaitcliffe School, a prep school in Berkshire, before briefly attending Cliff View House School in Sussex.[12] His third great-grandfather, John Edward Branson, left England for India in 1793. His father, Harry Wilkins Branson, later joined him in Madras. Through intermarriage, Branson is part Indian.[9] Branson attended Stowe School, an independent school in Buckinghamshire until the age of sixteen.[12] Branson has dyslexia and had poor academic performance as a student, and on his last day at school, his headmaster, Robert Drayson, told him he would either end up in prison or become a millionaire.[12] Branson's parents were supportive of his endeavours from an early age.[13]
Gates was born in Seattle, Washington on October 28, 1955. He is the son of William H. Gates, Sr.[b] and Mary Maxwell Gates. Gates' ancestral origin includes English, German, and Irish, Scots-Irish.[18][19] His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way. Gates's maternal grandfather was JW Maxwell, a national bank president. Gates has one elder sister, Kristi (Kristianne), and one younger sister, Libby. He was the fourth of his name in his family, but was known as William Gates III or "Trey" because his father had the "II" suffix.[20] Early on in his life, Gates's parents had a law career in mind for him.[21] When Gates was young, his family regularly attended a church of the Congregational Christian Churches, a Protestant Reformed denomination.[22][23][24] The family encouraged competition; one visitor reported that "it didn't matter whether it was hearts or pickleball or swimming to the dock … there was always a reward for winning and there was always a penalty for losing".[25]
What has any of this got to do with the EU referendum?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
19-05-2016, 08:48
"It's reassuring to know that something can't be slightly true."
That was just a 'wind up'. I was seeing how far your arguing would stretch! :)
walpurgis
19-05-2016, 08:53
:lol:
The reason I posted the link in the first place was that it was a left winger advocating for leaving the EU. Yet you disagree with him?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Yes I do. He isn't really arguing to leave the EU, quite the opposite really, he is being disingenuous. Essentially his argument is that if we leave now, then evil tories etc but if we had the saviour Corbyn in charge then no problemo.
Of course there is only going to be one referendum, next month, Corbyn's not in charge (and is unlikely to ever be in charge) so the whole point is entirely moot.
And by 'closet Nazis' he is not talking about neo Nazi groups (who are not in the closet) but ordinary people like you and me who might just disagree with his opinions. Because of course anyone who disagrees with him is morally wrong and ideally disagreeing with him should be against the law, so reprehensible is it.
If only we were not evil tories, or brainwashed by Murdoch, we could all be good socialists and all the world's problems would just vanish. That is how these people think.
What they fail to realise is that all of history's bad guys thought they had the moral high ground. Including the Nazis (and the neo-Nazis).
You have reverted to wild statements that bear no relation to what is actually in the article.
Your use of "these people" is very amusing, I can see you fuming as you type it! Who are "these people"?
This is the bit where he used "closet fascists" - quite clearly referring to the hard right. If you really count yourself as having much in common with those people, then that is a very sad state of affairs indeed...
"Hungary is one electoral accident away from going fascist; the French conservative elite is one false move away from handing the presidency to the Front National; in Austria the far-right FPÖ swept the first round of the presidential polls. Geert Wilders’s virulently Islamophobic PVV is leading the Dutch opinion polls.
The EU’s economic failure is fuelling racism and the ultra right...... And this swing to the far right prompts the more basic dilemma: do I even want to be part of the same electorate as millions of closet Nazis in mainland Europe?"
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
They dont like it up 'em Sir...
walpurgis
19-05-2016, 13:50
This is the bit where he used "closet fascists" - quite clearly referring to the hard right. If you really count yourself as having much in common with those people, then that is a very sad state of affairs indeed...
Why? I'm sure there are those who would say that with the state of Europe, facism is the way to go.
Most cleaners choose to stay cleaners because they depend on, and blame others for their lot. Others, like my son, determine to create a better future for themselves, and receive the rewards.
Was your son a cleaner, then?
Landloper
19-05-2016, 15:36
I don't think there is anything dishonourable about cleaners. I'm thankful for them - they do a necessary job.
:)
Why? I'm sure there are those who would say that with the state of Europe, facism is the way to go.
If you really need it explaining to you why that is a sorry state then you are beyond help.
I shall assume that you are trolling me, it's easier that way.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
19-05-2016, 16:34
If you really need it explaining to you why that is a sorry state then you are beyond help.
I shall assume that you are trolling me, it's easier that way.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
You made a statement. I thought you might explain your point of view. If something is "a sad state of affairs", you must have a basis for saying so. Trolling is not really a good word to be using.
You made a statement. I thought you might explain your point of view. If something is "a sad state of affairs", you must have a basis for saying so. Trolling is not really a good word to be using.
You suggested that some people might think fascism is the way to go. Unless you are ignorant about how that worked out last time it was tried, I find it hard to see how its resurgence can be seen as anything other than a 'sad state of affairs', whatever 'some people' might think.
I don't think there is anything dishonourable about cleaners. I'm thankful for them - they do a necessary job.
:)
Yes, it is a huge flaw in our education system that people go on about "you don't want to be flipping burgers or cleaning for the rest of your life." Well, why the hell not? The service industry has a huge role to play in keeping our society ticking over. Not everyone is able to do a medical degree, go to law school etc.
Many families cant afford to send their kids to uni....its expensive...my brother went and even though my dad had good job it put a lot of stress on the family purse..admitedly that was long ago but i am told students are now being sometimes being crushed by debt. Fine if dad makes a packet tbough. So dont go and all of a sudden you a lazy git with no desires... I dunno:doh:
walpurgis
19-05-2016, 16:47
You suggested that some people might think fascism is the way to go. Unless you are ignorant about how that worked out last time it was tried, I find it hard to see how its resurgence can be seen as anything other than a 'sad state of affairs', whatever 'some people' might think.
Some people do think that.
I advocate nothing, I ask questions. I'm not sure what you mean by "last time it was tried". It has never gone away and exists around the world. Still, if somebody won't elaborate on a statement they made..............
Oldpinkman
19-05-2016, 17:29
Was your son a cleaner, then?
Son of a cleaner. My earlier jobs included cleaning out the toilets at Darenth Mental Hospital, cleaning the Longfield Spar supermarket, and Washing up in the kitchens of a canteen for a local industrial company.
Tim had no special start in life. No public school education. No university education (he didn't fancy the debt). At 18 he was about to be expelled for poor results and poor behaviour, and when I found out, and explained that he was suffering badly from an acrimonious 2nd divorce his mother was going through, he was given a second chance. I paid for some maths tutoring (about £400) and he got a C at A level maths with 2 other C's. One grade short of the grades he needed to get an accounting apprenticeship with BDO which was his aim
He found himself a job with a firm in the City (in the actuarial /pension fund investment side) - but didn't feel comfortable with the public school and university educated workmates, so at 19 (nearly 20) left and got a job with a local recruitment business in Maidstone (which again he found for himself). He places "trades" on building sites.
He received 4 promotions, and is now responsible for all sites in half of London, has just bought a 16 plate Audi A5 (very red, very low profile tyres) and is about to buy a house for £250,000. He expects to have £60000 saved in a bank by next year, and will quit his job and start his own recruitment business. He is 21 - 22 in December.
Basically started out with the clothes he was wearing - and, to be fair , a good state education.
The cleaner term was coined in an earlier post - it was intended to be generic for someone not of the noblesse, but having to make their own fortune.
walpurgis
19-05-2016, 19:45
Some people do think that.
I advocate nothing, I ask questions. I'm not sure what you mean by "last time it was tried". It has never gone away and exists around the world. Still, if somebody won't elaborate on a statement they made..............
Nobody biting? One day you guys will realise that nothing I say in debates like this can necessarily be taken at face value. I ask questions about certain statements or standpoints, but may not be particularly interested in the topic. Life shouldn't be taken so seriously, 'cos there's not a lot you can do about much of it!
Enjoy talking to yourself then.
cast off the shoes and follow the gourd :D your not the messiah, your a very naughty boy
Some people do think that.
I advocate nothing, I ask questions. I'm not sure what you mean by "last time it was tried". It has never gone away and exists around the world. Still, if somebody won't elaborate on a statement they made..............
I'm not really interested in elaborating on why I think hard right racist extremists are vile.
In other news, arch communist sponger Paul Mason is on Question Time this evening...
That should give us all something to talk about.
[emoji13]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Stratmangler
27-05-2016, 18:55
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/13304988_1153828841304994_1967539655097330981_o.jp g
Might change my vote then. Always wanted to meet Godzilla.
Got my polling card today. The tension mounts.
its a free vote though. only have to turn up and vote if you want out apparently ;)
Got my polling card today. The tension mounts.
Yes, I can hardly wait... :doh:
;)
Marco.
Virtual-Symmetry
27-05-2016, 20:20
Yeh my card hit the rubbish bin
Yeh my card hit the rubbish bin
Yeah. Voting is for losers, after all.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Incredible that immigration has been responsible for a swing in opinion polls. Worst thing is they probably decided it in a swanky restaurant run by.... immigrants.
I wasn't around for the first generation Bangladeshis / Indians / Pakistani, Chinese, Caribbean immigration to the UK, but what I do know is that they had horrible racial abuse from the British. Nowadays we have incredible work ethic and "graft" from Eastern Europeans, yet (lazy no-hoper) - the now 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants now accepted - people thus complain about better, harder workers "taking our jobs", incredible.
Did you know that the "Phal" curry was invented by Bangladeshis that used to get racial abuse from late night hooligans going to 'Indian' restaurants, they wanted it hot, to they produced a fantastic passive aggressive curry that they knew no one could handle without severe pain and sweats. ;)
People are right to be concerned about immigration and right to be voting 'leave' in order to stop the open borders situation we have now.
So much rubbish talked by the remain camp - we won't be able to trade, we won't be able to bring in foreign labour where it is needed and so on. None of that is true.
My favourite bollox is that without the 'protection' of the enlightened EU we will all be exploited as slave labour by the evil tories. As if the EU gives a rat's ass about you or whether you are being exploited! Just ridiculous fantasy nonsense.
Open borders, good one. :D
Arkless Electronics
31-05-2016, 12:27
People are right to be concerned about immigration and right to be voting 'leave' in order to stop the open borders situation we have now.
So much rubbish talked by the remain camp - we won't be able to trade, we won't be able to bring in foreign labour where it is needed and so on. None of that is true.
My favourite bollox is that without the 'protection' of the enlightened EU we will all be exploited as slave labour by the evil tories. As if the EU gives a rat's ass about you or whether you are being exploited! Just ridiculous fantasy nonsense.
I couldn't disagree more on that point. Tories will do anything they can to make you work harder for less money and with less protection from being fired... it's what Tories do. I want EU legislation there to stop their worst excesses!
Could say its their raison d'etre, as they are good euros
Well it is true - anyone from the EU can tool up here and work or sign on. Wait till Turkey joins... but hey we can easily take a couple more million unskilled people who will never earn enough to make a net contribution to the tax pot but will want to use the schools, hospitals, public transport, roads. You know, all those things that people are always saying are desperately below par and under-funded already?
I couldn't disagree more on that point. Tories will do anything they can to make you work harder for less money and with less protection from being fired... it's what Tories do. I want EU legislation there to stop their worst excesses!
And what EU legislation is there to guarantee this? The minimum wage is UK legislation, not EU. Plenty of EU countries with no minimum or where the minimum is a lot lower than here. Don't see any EU commisars charging in to look after the poor bloody workers there.
There is no difference between the people running the EU and the tories (or any politicians or civil servants for that matter) - imagining that this huge, faceless bureaucracy in any way 'cares' about you is an odd and baseless assumption to make.
Turkey won't join, any EU member state has the power to veto new membership.
Even then Turkey does not meet the criteria for EU membership.
Neither did Greece but they still got in and look how well that went.
Turkey is a done deal behind closed doors - don't kid yourself - the EU breaks its own rules every day and there are plenty of sanctions for member countries not towing the line when it comes to voting the right way
This is timely: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/britain-is-worlds-most-corrupt-country-says-italian-mafia-expert-a3259296.html
“It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital. 90 per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.
“Jersey and the Cayman’s are the access gates to criminal capital in Europe and the UK is the country that allows it.
“That is why it is important why it is so crucial for me to be here today and to talk to you because I want to tell you, this is about you, this is about your life, this is about your government.”
Martin the nonsense that you constantly peddle in these threads is unbelievable. Sometimes I think you must be a Daily Mail Spambot!
;)
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Ahem, let's refrain from the ad hominem, please! ;)
Marco.
This is timely: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/britain-is-worlds-most-corrupt-country-says-italian-mafia-expert-a3259296.html
“It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s not the police, it’s not the politics but what is corrupt is the financial capital. 90 per cent of the owners of capital in London have their headquarters offshore.
“Jersey and the Cayman’s are the access gates to criminal capital in Europe and the UK is the country that allows it.
“That is why it is important why it is so crucial for me to be here today and to talk to you because I want to tell you, this is about you, this is about your life, this is about your government.”
Desperate stuff and he is only some kid anyway : 'union would see Britain even more exposed to organised crime.
He added: “Leaving the EU means allowing this to take place. It means allowing the Qatari societies, the Mexican cartels, the Russian Mafia to gain even more power and HSBC has paid £2 billion Euros in fines to the US government, because it confessed that it had laundered money coming from the cartels and the Iranian companies.
Needless to say he has no explanation for why leaving the EU will make it easier for organised crime, mainly because there isn't one. 'He has written a book so he must be an 'expert''. Just more ridiculous scaremongering.
Ahem, let's refrain from the ad hominem, please! ;)
Marco.
Bit unfair, it's all he's got ;)
Oi, don't think you're immune from a botty spank, either! :D
Marco.
TUC chief ridicules 'phoney' Brexit campaigners
http://gu.com/p/4kvqc?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
I feel that I must also defend myself from the accusation of "ad hominem", as my comments were about Martin's claptrap reactionary arguments, not Martin himself.
[emoji41]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Sometimes I think you must be a Daily Mail Spambot!
The use of "you" means you were attacking him, not just his arguments.
Play the ball, not the man, daftees, or it'll be spanks all round, which will of course expose your (I suspect slightly soiled) ladies underwear! :spank: :eyebrows:
Marco.
The use of "you" means you were attacking him, not just his arguments.
Play the ball, not the man, daftees, or it'll be spanks all round, which will of course expose your (I suspect slightly soiled) ladies underwear! :spank: :eyebrows:
Marco.
At the risk of upsetting you, what I was saying was that his crackpot #arguments# remind me of the kind of rubbish one might read in The Daily Mail. If you don't like what I posted that's fair enough, but you can't simply declare it ad hominem when it wasn't. However, I defer to you as the owner of the site, recognise that there is little point in arguing the toss over it, and shall humbly try to be more careful in future when disagreeing with people who are spouting nonsense.
[emoji12]
To get back to the thread, it just struck me that if we do all vote to leave the EU, we'd probably have to give the Elgin Marbles back...
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Robert, give it a rest. Sometimes you really don't know when to STFU and back off ;)
Firstly, no-one's arguments should ever be rudely dismissed as "nonsense", no matter how much you disagree with them. Secondly, you unquestionably committed ad hominem against Martin, and thirdly, if you're not able to debate with others in a polite and respectful way, then I suggest that you stay out of political discussions in future.
<Thread closed>
The topic has long since run its course and I've had enough of this pish!
Marco.
Ok, I'm reopening this discussion on the understanding that there must be NO personal comments made by anyone, with strictly only the subject discussed. If any personal remarks are made, then they will be removed without warning and the offender(s) banned for a week.
On that note, please continue the debate...
Marco.
Firebottle
02-06-2016, 10:53
OK, here is a sensible question. Why can't the protagonists on both sides come out with some facts?
Rather than spewing out dreamt up claptrap about what might happen. Plus it's might in 10 or 15 years time :doh:
walpurgis
02-06-2016, 11:06
Perhaps there are no facts. Just rumours, stories, vague imaginings, suspicions, lies, opinionated and misinformed spoutings and plenty of quotes of biased, slanted studies and political and corporate propoganda.
I guess 'the truth is out there folks'. But who will to tell you any!
Even if 'they' did, would you have a way of recognising that for sure. After all, how could you confirm it?
'Facts? Pah! You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true.'
- Homer Simpson
When you can't be sure of the facts I apply logic and common sense and both those things tell me to vote out.
Nobody knows what exactly 'will' or even 'might' happen whether we stay in or leave the EU; it's all speculation and guesswork, but leaving takes us into terra incognita. I'm voting to stay in partly because George Galloway, Putin and Trump all think we should leave, and partly because I think 'better the Devil you know ...'. Both my daughters will vote to stay in and can't understand anyone voting to leave; they'll (hopefully) have to live with the consequences for much longer than me whatever the outcome.
That's kind of my view on it, and so will be voting to stay. That, and with no kids to worry about, very little of the outcome one way or another will grossly impact on my lifestyle, for the duration of time I have left on this planet :)
Therefore, I'm apathetic, at best, towards the result of the EU vote.
Marco.
Personally I think that even if the vote result was to leave then we wouldn't actually leave. The whole thing is a charade put on for the benefit of those of us who have had enough.
UKIP just couldn't be ignored forever. They tried, but too many millions keep voting for them. So we get this vote as a sop - like they used to say when they had an 'election' in Chile: 'If Pinochet wins, he stays. If he loses, he doesn't go.'
Personally I think that even if the vote result was to leave then we wouldn't actually leave. The whole thing is a charade put on for the benefit of those of us who have had enough.
UKIP just couldn't be ignored forever. They tried, but too many millions keep voting for them. So we get this vote as a sop - like they used to say when they had an 'election' in Chile: 'If Pinochet wins, he stays. If he loses, he doesn't go.'
By the same token, I expect if we vote to stay in, the Brexiters will probably cry 'foul!' and claim the ballot was rigged.
No doubt some will. But we are pissing into the wind in any case. The EU nightmare will continue regardless until we all go into liquidation and get bought by the Chinese.
I reserve the right to say 'I told you so' when it happens ;)
'Facts? Pah! You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true.'
- Homer Simpson
When you can't be sure of the facts I apply logic and common sense and both those things tell me to vote out.
Given the above, I just have to post a link to todays Dilbert
http://assets.amuniversal.com/75c9e3d0fe7a01335e46005056a9545d
Oi I object to that! My life decisions may be a disaster but I'm never wrong at work!
That's odd, as your boss told me you often have the propensity for talking pish... ;)
Marco.
My boss wouldn't know the difference...
That bad? :D
Most of them these days have been promoted via the 'Peter Principle'..... If you're unfamiliar with this, look it up.
Marco.
Govt wants to stay so we will, no matter what folk want. Trust me;)
Yes, just the same as happened with the Scottish referendum... Corruption abounds! ;)
In the end, 'the establishment' always gets what it wants - that is until the revolution.......................................
Marco.
That bad? :D
Most of them these days have been promoted via the 'Peter Principle'..... If you're unfamiliar with this, look it up.
Marco.
Yes I'm familiar with the Peter Principle and it is unfortunately true. I've never been promoted beyond my competence though, as I'm a gobshite.
Yes I'm familiar with the Peter Principle and it is unfortunately true. I've never been promoted beyond my competence though, as I'm a gobshite.
See Dunning–Kruger, nobody thinks the Peter Principle applies to them.
See Dunning–Kruger, nobody thinks the Peter Principle applies to them.
Does that include Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger?
No, but if you omit the "ing", I can think of someone who fits the condition perfectly! ;)
Marco.
UKIP just couldn't be ignored forever. They tried, but too many millions keep voting for them.'
They probably could have been ignored for quite a while longer. The way the polls (including the one that started this thread) are going it seems to be a very close split. Whilst I agree it's significant, I'm not sure calling a referendum is justified when it's so close. If it were felt that the majority possibly wanted to change the status quo it would be different, as it is if the vote is for leave with 51/49 split then that's not going to play well to have such a narrow difference in such a major change.
Cameron is entirely to blame for it. He is now saying that the leave voters are taking a huge gamble with Britain's future, when the reality is that the gamble was his, and only his, when it suited his strategic self-interest to promise a referendum in his 2015 manifesto. It was a cynical bit of electioneering in the hope of winning back a few UKIP voters.
What makes me really shudder isn't that we might leave the EU, but that we might end up with Boris Johnson as PM. He is a vile, vain & nasty piece of work, fuelled only by self interest.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/05/27/dear-friends-this-is-why-i-will-vote-remain-in-the-referendum/
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Actually whilst I can understand you getting that impression of Johnson, I know a personal friend of his and that is not the impression they have given me.
He is a politician, with all that entails so I'm not suggesting he is whiter than white. Just not as bad as he is painted. Politics is always about selecting the lesser of 2 evils, after all.
What makes me really shudder isn't that we might leave the EU, but that we might end up with Boris Johnson as PM. He is a vile, vain & nasty piece of work, fuelled only by self interest.
Sounds like 99% of politicians, especially prime ministers and party leaders, aspiring or not.... And if you think otherwise, you're deluded. Cameron also typifies those traits, but disguises them with faux-charm.
BJ (a rather apt set of initials to own) simply hides his vileness less successfully, or perhaps less willingly! ;)
Marco.
Liked the yes minister line....i dont want the truth, i want something to tell parliament;)
If you want to understand how politics works just watch Yes Minister and read Private Eye. You'll never bother voting again.
Indeed, so can you understand my innate apathy towards all this stuff, especially towards a system which, fundamentally, is corrupt to the core?
I simply can't get 'excited' over something, the outcome of which will ultimately only be of any *REAL* significance to a tiny minority of the population, which certainly doesn't include you or I, or likely anyone else posting on this thread.
In the end, the establishment will get what it wants, no matter how you vote - and you'll simply have to live with it. That, my friends, is the reality!
Marco.
Well that isn't really true. If we do vote to leave and we actually do leave as a consequence (which I still think unlikely) it will change quite a few things and you will notice the difference after a time. It will affect the other countries in Europe, too.
It is unlikely to affect you financially, though, unless you are heavily committed in Euros. I'd expect a run on the Euro if the leave vote wins, given that it is only Germany and Britain who actually pay for the EU. Indeed it might bring down the EU and by extension the Euro. So as these things go there could be quite sweeping consequences to our leaving.
Well that isn't really true. If we do vote to leave and we actually do leave as a consequence (which I still think unlikely) it will change quite a few things and you will notice the difference after a time.
Absolutely, but as the 'powers that be' wish to remain in the EU, and thus will exert whatever control is necessary in order to force that outcome, your point is moot! ;)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 12:20
IMHO it was a really stupid idea to offer a referendum in the first place! The issues are too complicated for any lay person to understand (and even experts so it seems) and the possible repercussions severe. In the absence of true understanding and perspicacity, knee jerk reactionary xenophobia is likely to be what the average voter makes a decision on.....
IF it's "out" then I hope it brings the tories down and lets Corbyn in, every cloud has a silver lining.
You really don't want Corbyn. I know you think you do but you really don't. Not if you are hoping to get wealthier anytime soon, anyway. He has spent his whole life in lah-lah land.
In any case, why do the Left always put their faith in some messiah when without exception they always turn out to have feet of clay? Blair being the most recent (and classic) example; but it is soon forgotten and they are on to bigging up the next one. It's faith-based politics and I don't understand it at all.
IF it's "out" then I hope it brings the tories down and lets Corbyn in, every cloud has a silver lining.
There's no legal or constitutional reason why it should, especially as the official Labour view, and indeed Corbyn's own view, is that we should stay in the EU.
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 13:01
You really don't want Corbyn. I know you think you do but you really don't. Not if you are hoping to get wealthier anytime soon, anyway. He has spent his whole life in lah-lah land.
In any case, why do the Left always put their faith in some messiah when without exception they always turn out to have feet of clay? Blair being the most recent (and classic) example; but it is soon forgotten and they are on to bigging up the next one. It's faith-based politics and I don't understand it at all.
Oh I do I can assure you! Yer see the difference between a socialist like me and a Tory like you is I don't care about getting wealthy... nor do I particularly care as to how wealthy the country is in international terms. I believe it was Gandhi, amongst others, who said something on the lines of "The true measure of a nation is how it treats its impoverished, it's prisoners and its animals". I don't expect you to "get" that as you're a Tory :D
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 13:03
There's no legal or constitutional reason why it should, especially as the official Labour view, and indeed Corbyn's own view, is that we should stay in the EU.
Indeed but there is plenty of reason why it could happen due to Tory infighting if leave win! It's been said by several political analysts that dodgy Dave would probably have to go if he loses this...
Indeed but there is plenty of reason why it could happen due to Tory infighting if leave win! It's been said by several political analysts that dodgy Dave would probably have to go if he loses this...
Oh, Cameron would certainly have to go, and then there would be a Tory leadership election. But there's no way on earth IMO that the new Tory leader would go for a General Election with four years still to run. It's never been the case that a 'new' leader has called a General Election; not Brown when he replaced Blair, or Major when he replaced Thatcher, or Callaghan when he replaced Wilson, or Douglas-Home when he replaced MacMillan. Governments usually hang on until the last minute, especially when they have only a narrow majority.
I'm not a Tory, and I'm also not a socialist because, contrary to received wisdom, I am aware that socialism has been a disaster for ordinary people like you and me.
However I do consider the Tories to be the lesser of the two evils, but I don't vote for them. As per the CS Lewis quote, the Tories are robber barons, but will occasionally pause for rest, or because they are temporarily sated. But the socialists will persecute you without end as they do so with the permission of their own conscience.
Only the rich socialists of which there are many
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 13:17
I'm not a Tory, and I'm also not a socialist because, contrary to received wisdom, I am aware that socialism has been a disaster for ordinary people like you and me.
However I do consider the Tories to be the lesser of the two evils, but I don't vote for them. As per the CS Lewis quote, the Tories are robber barons, but will occasionally pause for rest, or because they are temporarily sated. But the socialists will persecute you without end as they do so with the permission of their own conscience.
As usual, on politics I couldn't disagree more strongly with you!
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 13:18
Oh, Cameron would certainly have to go, and then there would be a Tory leadership election. But there's no way on earth IMO that the new Tory leader would go for a General Election with four years still to run. It's never been the case that a 'new' leader has called a General Election; not Brown when he replaced Blair, or Major when he replaced Thatcher, or Callaghan when he replaced Wilson, or Douglas-Home when he replaced MacMillan. Governments usually hang on until the last minute, especially when they have only a narrow majority.
A week is a long time in politics! I can hope....
I'm not a Tory, and I'm also not a socialist because, contrary to received wisdom, I am aware that socialism has been a disaster for ordinary people like you and me.
However I do consider the Tories to be the lesser of the two evils, but I don't vote for them. As per the CS Lewis quote, the Tories are robber barons, but will occasionally pause for rest, or because they are temporarily sated. But the socialists will persecute you without end as they do so with the permission of their own conscience.
Did you feel 'persecuted' under Tony Blair or Gordon Brown? I honestly don't notice much difference in my day-to-day life whichever party is in power; maybe slightly higher taxes under Labour, but never to the extent that I'd leave the country to avoid paying them.
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 13:25
They were Tory Lite anyway Joe!
They were Tory Lite anyway Joe!
I doubt whether anything other than Tory Lite would stand a chance of winning a General Election, tbh. The very worst thing Labour could do right now would be to tear itself to pieces in some vain attempt to make itself 'truly Socialist'.The party needs to accept that it's either a broad coalition of socialists and social democrats that can win elections, or it's a truly socialist party with only marginal support doomed to permanent opposition.
I would agree that a left wing party will not win now and may never again. More chance of country going far right, and its where many in the party want it to go. Sadly!
It is this that made me want to move from my beloved Britain to Scotland tbh. Ive been British first most of my life but i feel so marginalised by the westminster of today, it feels pretty much worth going down fighting now. But understand those that just want to get what they can out of it.. The old and young have own houses etc and were fearful of losing them etc.
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 13:55
I doubt whether anything other than Tory Lite would stand a chance of winning a General Election, tbh. The very worst thing Labour could do right now would be to tear itself to pieces in some vain attempt to make itself 'truly Socialist'.The party needs to accept that it's either a broad coalition of socialists and social democrats that can win elections, or it's a truly socialist party with only marginal support doomed to permanent opposition.
I certainly don't recognise any difference between socialists and social democrats!!!!!!!! Absolutely no way!!!!!! The last thing I or any other socialist I know want is any diminution of democracy!
I think an Attlee type government would be very popular and and it is this that I passionately want to see. Much more investment in the NHS, building of council houses, taxing of the rich and big corporations to pay for it, bank of national investment, huge investment in infrastructure projects, nationalisation of everything the Tories privatised (and no I don't care about compensation to the shareholders etc... they never had it so good for decades!), proper care and provision for the disabled, unemployed etc.
A caring government and country which does not "rate" the "value" of human beings purely by their capability/capacity/potential to earn money or be exploited by others to earn money! An end to Neo-liberal economics and laissez faire unregulated capitalism!
PEOPLE BEFORE PROFIT is my maxim ;)
I must admit, I haven't read through the entire thread but my opinion is get out. Why ? Because the EU is becoming more and more like a large multinational company in which the EU citizens are morphing into EU consumers. Just listening to the current (and previous) crop of EU commission politicians give me the creeps and scare mongering Mr. Cameron still hasn't given any proper reasons to stay. All he ever talks about is the market, the economy, the security, etc. Nothing new really.
just my 2 cts.
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 14:14
I would agree that a left wing party will not win now and may never again. More chance of country going far right, and its where many in the party want it to go. Sadly!
It is this that made me want to move from my beloved Britain to Scotland tbh. Ive been British first most of my life but i feel so marginalised by the westminster of today, it feels pretty much worth going down fighting now. But understand those that just want to get what they can out of it.. The old and young have own houses etc and were fearful of losing them etc.
Erm ... rather disjointed but I think I get you.... :) The rise of the far right is deeply worrying. As you already live in Scotland I presume you mean an independent Scotland? If it gets independence then I may well have to move there myself.... There is a vocal minority (I hope it's a minority but I could be wrong!) who are on the rise at the moment and who believe they should be able to shout "nigger" at a black person, "puffs" at a gay couple, piss on a homeless person in a doorway etc with impunity... they probably also think all foreigners should be deported and the homeless and unemployed euthanised ... and probably read The Daily Heil (which I would ban as a propagator of hate and intolerance! Yes I'm intolerant of the intolerant!). I would be willing to take up arms against such sub human slime.
They apparently think they should have a "right to hate" :steam:, it was even on the bbc news site yesterday!
As with anyone who really cares about such things I'll no doubt be accused of naivety and "college level idealistic politics". I completely reject this.
Only the rich socialists of which there are many
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It is the rich ones who run that show and always have. Corbyn not exactly a poor kid from the gutter is he? At least the poor ones have an excuse for believing in socialism, the rich ones are just dangerous idealists who think they're better than everyone else.
WRT Cameron - he's already said he won't be running again so doubt he cares either way, he has done enough to get his tax-free sinecure in the EU already.
Also I thought with the fix term act a government cannot call an election early?
I honestly don't notice much difference in my day-to-day life whichever party is in power...
Ditto, which kind of makes getting 'het up' about politics (and voting) all a bit pointless, other than to exercise your right to voice an opinion.
Marco.
Also I thought with the fix term act a government cannot call an election early?
The government can't call an election early, but Parliament can force one, under the terms of the 2011 Parliament Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011
Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".
In either of these two cases, the Monarch (on the recommendation of the prime minister) appoints the date of the new election by proclamation. Parliament is then dissolved 25 working days before that date.
Right. So it is possible but unlikely then.
What we need is a new party, not labour or Tory, but a "democratic" party focussed on moving power away from Westminster and into local councils. Frequent "mini referendums" at council level would help get the community more involved in shaping policy. Problem is this doesn't help the establishment, quite the opposite...
I would also make it a legal requirement for every citizen to vote, even if it was to check a "no vote" box.
Completely agree there, Neil. That's also reality talking :thumbsup:
Marco.
You really don't want Corbyn. I know you think you do but you really don't. Not if you are hoping to get wealthier anytime soon.
From everything Jez has posted I think that he does, unless you're making a Harry Enfield "you don't want to do that" gag?
Corbyn and McDonnell aren't proposing anything that radical, but it seems that to question the current government policy is made out to be deluded by much of the press.
To refer back a few posts, would you not also expect a run on the pound if leave wins the vote?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Arkless Electronics
03-06-2016, 16:13
From everything Jez has posted I think that he does, unless you're making a Harry Enfield "you don't want to do that" gag?
Corbyn and McDonnell aren't proposing anything that radical, but it seems that to question the current government policy is made out to be deluded by much of the press.
To refer back a few posts, would you not also expect a run on the pound if leave wins the vote?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Yep, as I said I do!
The question of the press is a difficult one.... A free press is important in a democracy... but it ain't free! It's controlled by right wing wealthy types who use it to disseminate anti left wing propaganda to those who's life's would be so improved by a left wing gov! It's the Alf Garnet effect.. make a 'paper out to be the rag of the working class bloke down the boozer then use it to get them to vote for parties that will exploit them... you couldn't make it up.. and how folks are so stupid as to be taken in leaves me speechless!
Re: Johnson a nice man?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/29/boris-johnson-channel-4
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I read this article this morning, and thought that it presented a very interesting view of the EU, whilst telling me a lot about its history that I was not aware of.
The author is German, and is a professor of politics at Princeton University, so clearly he has no idea what he is talking about.
I might have to read it again, but the UK under Cameron seems to have squandered a strong diplomatic position.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/jan-werner-muller/europes-sullen-child
To refer back a few posts, would you not also expect a run on the pound if leave wins the vote?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Yes I would. Not that it would matter since supposedly everyone in Europe would immediately stop selling their goods to us the second we leave ;)
Yes I would. Not that it would matter since supposedly everyone in Europe would immediately stop selling their goods to us the second we leave ;)
I thought the plan was that we were going to buy everything we need from Kenya, The Falklands, Peru and Pakistan?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Was just watching a program and it was saying that there is more than a billion people in world who are squatters now. I think that is a sad reflection on the human race. It is perhaps more of an issue than this tbf.
I thought the plan was that we were going to buy everything we need from Kenya, The Falklands, Peru and Pakistan?
And Ireland. I'm not doing without my Guinness.
Was just watching a program and it was saying that there is more than a billion people in world who are squatters now. I think that is a sad reflection on the human race. It is perhaps more of an issue than this tbf.
I'm sure there are many things facing humanity that are more important than this, but there isn't a referendum on any of them in the next three weeks.
I think your Guinness will be safe whatever happens. It will probably go up to £8 a pint mind you if we exit the EU, but on the plus side this might make them reopen their London brewery and bring some much needed employment to our devastated capital.
[emoji41]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Yep, as I said I do!
The question of the press is a difficult one.... A free press is important in a democracy... but it ain't free! It's controlled by right wing wealthy types who use it to disseminate anti left wing propaganda to those who's life's would be so improved by a left wing gov! It's the Alf Garnet effect.. make a 'paper out to be the rag of the working class bloke down the boozer then use it to get them to vote for parties that will exploit them... you couldn't make it up.. and how folks are so stupid as to be taken in leaves me speechless!
That's why I stopped reading papers years ago.
I question the assumption that the only reason we are not all socialists is the media.
It's a bit like in the Ragged Trousered philanthropist where he advises us in the preamble that the reason people do not agree with socialism is that they do not understand it.
There's nothing that amusing in the rest of the book, though.
I question the assumption that the only reason we are not all socialists is the media.
It's also remarkably condescending wrt to readers/viewers of the media: 'All these poor people are brainwashed by the media. I am immune from such brainwashing because I'm sharper than them'. I guess some people might be socialists were it not for the media, but surely only a small, exceptionally gullible, minority?
Not sure where you are going with that, Joe.
Not sure where you are going with that, Joe.
The fallacy that 'people would be socialists were it not for the media' is based on the false and insulting premise that people are gullible enough to be persuaded against socialist beliefs by a right-wing media. The people putting forward this fallacious view are themselves socialists, so must regard themselves as immune from this nefarious media persuasion. Or summat like that.
Right. It's like everyone thinks advertising doesn't affect them.
But the media does affect those who subject themselves to it the same as advertising does. So if we accept that the media is generally 'right-wing' (although that is too simplistic for me) then there must be no question that there are less socialists because of the media. It just isn't as many as they would like to think, and the reasons that the rest are not socialists are far more complex.
walpurgis
04-06-2016, 22:07
I'm sure there are many gullible people and many too lacking in education to formulate proper opinions. Not that anything in the media (or elsewhere) can be taken at face value. A properly informed opinion is something nobody can be sure of having anyway, since there is so much misinformation.
Duh, Stay of course.
Storm in a Euro Teacup.
Do we really want a Boris/Nigel coalition with Gove as Home Secretary?
Do you really want some foreign blokes you've never heard of and who you can't vote out?
Better the devil you don't know than a bunch of dicks you do
walpurgis
04-06-2016, 22:32
Better the devil you don't know than a bunch of dicks you do
:lolsign:
The thing about having a bunch of whatsits in power you don't like in theUK, if you leave, is that in a free democracy you can simply vote them out next time round. That's what democracy is...having your say. We can't do that with the EU..it's rapidly having to become federalised in order for the ideology that it was built upon surviving and that will only lead to further corruption of the original ideology.
Monet, when he first found allies for his federalist notions always intended that it should start as a common market (the lure) but end as a united states of Europe. This was something that the USA backed then and still backs now, as it suits their needs, not our interests.
Churchill famously said in a post war speech that for peace in the world, there needed to be 4 pillars in order to balance world peace. One of them was the USSR under Stalin (simply because it existed and needed balance) the other, the USA, the third was a "united states of Europe" and the fourth, very conveniently omitted by the "stay" camp was a strengthened commonwealth which had shown it's worth during the war. This was to be led by a strong but independant United Kingdom. The UK, Churchil argued, MUST support a United States uf Europe, remain as its best friend, BUT, importantly, not become part of it. Another part of that speech conveniently omitted and taken out of context by the "stay" camp. These were "the 4 pillars". We also had fabulous trading agreements with the commonwealth until we entered the EU but that spelt the end of the commonwealth as a large trade organisation (yet it still remains our best opportunity for trade now though).
Never mind the media, it is our own politicians and selfish manipulators that are trying to brain wash us for their ideals...on both sides of the argument. On the one side, to say that we have no trade opportunities and cannot stand on our own two feet is a damned lie and scaremongering, as is the assertion that military-wise we will suffer reduced protection. Wake up and smell the coffee...at the minute we have cut the armed forces budget so badly over the past 20 years that should another Falklands happen, we would not have the means to fight it effectively and defend our borders, never mind that we have no real coastguard or effective navy protection for our own shores...that is a national disgrace so how, exactly, could that be worse by leaving?
In the other camp, we have lies about the sudden cessation on illegal and uncontrolled immigration. That wont happen either as we have no resources nor the framework as yet to enforce that. If anything it will get worse before it will get better, but better it has the possibility to become at least.
Lastly we have the lies on the economy, in both camps. As if that is all that matters in the bigger picture? It is only one part of a much larger overview where democracy itself is at stake. As hard as it is to visualise that we do have the skills and the means to go it alone, and the frameworks globally upon which to rebuild a global world trade equivalent to that we enjoy presently, albeit at more short term cost, we need to have that confidence. We simply do not have the clout to stay and make a difference as no-one in the EU is interested in what we have to say. We are the embarrassing relative at the table, the one no one wants to talk about or to talk to. It is naive to consider that we have any serious clout left to change the course of the EU...it is and will remain on a path of self destruction as the Euro needs a federal republic to work and that means all countries need to be on the same economic level. People otherwise follow the money which is why we have the immigration issues we have. It is a sign of our own success and a sign of warning of what lies ahead of we remain (ie we will lose out economically and slide doen to the lowest common denominator).
Long story short....the press nor their right wing masters control us. They may try and steer us, but the real puppet masters are in the EU parliament and in Nr10. By voting to leave we can, ironically, build stronger long term relations with the EU who should remain as our close allies and friends, but importantly, we will have a freer and more democratic society without the shackles and bonds of the EU machine where to enforce democracy is like swimming against the tide of centralised power and ideals set in treacle. All we need to is to have confidence in ourselves.
Firebottle
05-06-2016, 07:26
:clapclapclap: Excellent post Paul.
Unfortunately so true:
'Never mind the media, it is our own politicians and selfish manipulators that are trying to brain wash us for their ideals...on both sides of the argument.'
Indeed a excellent post Paul couldnt agree more with every word you have said
I firmly beleive that if we let th EU rule us, this once great country is doomed
We simply do not have the clout to stay and make a difference as no-one in the EU is interested in what we have to say. We are the embarrassing relative at the table, the one no one wants to talk about or to talk to. It is naive to consider that we have any serious clout left to change the course of the EU...
Very nicely written Paul, but you don't address why it is that you think we don't have much clout in Europe. I'm guessing that you didn't read the Jan-Werner Muller piece I linked to? It is rather long but very well informed and addresses some of the points you raise with considered historical analysis, such as the "end-state" of what the integration project is supposed to be.
"The very fact that the Brexit debate is almost exclusively about Britain indicates the extent to which Cameron has removed the UK from the project of determining the Union’s future as a whole."
He is also very good on sovereignty and the rule of law, and where the national populism that is on the rise in Europe might turn it's grievances once it has got rid of the "unelected dictators" in Brussels.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/jan-werner-muller/europes-sullen-child
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Ali Tait
05-06-2016, 10:40
Certainly correct about the armed forces. My step father ( though he was civilian, he used to coordinate all the air,land and sea rescue for the UK) told me of an instance a few years ago where a Russian spy plane came into our air space and we had no planes to send, we had to go cap in hand to the French to get them to send a fighter to intercept.
Very nicely written Paul, but you don't address why it is that you think we don't have much clout in Europe.
Prior to the referendum Cameron went to Europe and spent several days negotiating only to come back with nothing. They were not prepared to offer any permanent concessions despite knowing this would trigger a referendum in the UK.
To me this implies a couple of things:
1) we do not have much clout in Europe
2) Either the EU are confident that we will vote to stay, or that even if we vote to leave we still won't go.
I'm not disagreeing with it, Martin, I'm just asking why people think that we don't have much clout these days.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, the article discusses this and Cameron's negotiations in some depth, saying that the other states were not prepared to budge on free movement and that things being demanded were not things that our usual allies in Europe wanted to back. It doesn't say this but it seems to me that either Cameron is an idiot or he is deliberately sabotaging our place within Europe.
It also makes the good point that were we to leave, the EU has to give us a hard deal, to discourage the others...
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
In reality we should have a lot of clout. We are a big net contributor of funds and we take far more of their imports than they do of our exports. They will certainly miss the funding if we leave.
So clearly more to it than meets the eye.
Cameron is fully committed to EU and all of the future federalism that is planned. Again I have no idea why, it is certainly out of step with most grassroots Tory voters. No surprise he did not achieve any concessions. Thatcher only managed it by droning on at them for hours until they gave in. I understand that the French President was reading the newspaper whilst she talked and another one fell asleep.
You should try reading the LRB article, Martin. You might find what it says about the future of the EU and our influence in it interesting.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
You should try reading the LRB article, Martin. You might find what it says about the future of the EU and our influence in it interesting.
I did read it, although it was almost a tl:dr
It is certainly too long to critique in any detail. He moves from the particular to wild speculation a bit too easily on a couple of occasions. And the argument that Brexit will be good for the 'far right' nationalists in Europe, and so is therefore a bad thing, leaves me cold.
Essentially (I think) he is saying that if we were a bit more enthusiastic about the EU we would have more say.
To which I would respond who is interested in having a say in something they are not enthusiastic about? Why be involved at all?
And the argument that Brexit will be good for the 'far right' nationalists in Europe, and so is therefore a bad thing, leaves me cold.
So this brings us back to where we were earlier when you had said you preferred "closet Nazis" to Paul Mason.
It seems that what you are saying is that far right nationalism (I'm not sure why you used quote marks?) is not a bad thing. Am I wrong to read it like that?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Very nicely written Paul, but you don't address why it is that you think we don't have much clout in Europe. I'm guessing that you didn't read the Jan-Werner Muller piece I linked to? It is rather long but very well informed and addresses some of the points you raise with considered historical analysis, such as the "end-state" of what the integration project is supposed to be.
"The very fact that the Brexit debate is almost exclusively about Britain indicates the extent to which Cameron has removed the UK from the project of determining the Union’s future as a whole."
He is also very good on sovereignty and the rule of law, and where the national populism that is on the rise in Europe might turn it's grievances once it has got rid of the "unelected dictators" in Brussels.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n11/jan-werner-muller/europes-sullen-child
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I have only summarised some of the extensive reasoning in factual publications, one such being the excellent treatise written on the subject by Christopher Booker and Richard North who had access to the innermost halls of the EU machine and researched it over many years, the publication being called "The Great Deception", the second in their historical research texts on the subject. I would urge anyone who has not yet read this to read it....cover to cover.
This publication, in particular, reveals how the politicians of the UK over many years have consistently been out-played and out-manoeuvred in a game of "From Common Market to Federal United States of Europe", a game in which they consistently fail to understand the rules. One account tells of Blair's duplicitous selling out of the armed forces, or at least concessions, covered by lies on the economy, to justify shrinking our forces just at a critical time when we needed the opposite to happen! He was aligning us for the silently proposed united European army (which would never work for a multitude of reasons) which he referred to as the European Rapid Reaction Forces. In doing so, he abolished many proud regiments with his amalgamations, cut the funding to the Navy and the RAF, something which consecutive governments have failed to address despite the bleeding obvious needs. This from the man who illicitly got us into the Gulf War and committed hundreds of our young servicemen and women to die needlessly on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus in doing so raised the threat level to all UK citizens. the gross hypocrisy of the man is astounding yet he has never truly admitted his errors such is is delusion and arrogance. He also ran down our border controls and left us with a totally ineffective coast guard. All this whilst Brown was robbing pensions to pay our way.
Christopher Booker was the founding Editor of Private Eye, and unlike that twit who runs it now, had a far more impartial and intelligent far reaching grasp of international politics and an insatiable appetite for the truth and our place in Europe. Dr Richard North is a political analyst and had access to the hallowed halls of the European Parliament where he was a Research Director and as such, far better informed that most if not all of our current politicians.
Their findings rocked Nr 10 when their first book was published because it exposed Heath, Gummer and Soames in particular for selling us down the river. Their view of successive governments since is not especially uplifting. Coincidentally, I am good friends with, and have huge respect for Gummer's former private secretary but that's by the by.
Far from a sound-bite, there are many reasons why we are the poor cousin of European Politics. Cameron has no foreign policy or real diplomatic talents, and as Macca so rightly says, has relegated us to being a nation with no clout, bottom of the league. His failures have been washed under the carpet by party faithful and after pre and post election bragging about the deals that he would secure, all he really succeeded in achieving was winding up most of the other nations by his arrogance and diplomacy faux-pas. We were heading down that route anyway because the Germans and French governments in particular resent our vetos (first won by Maggie after she took power, to redress the disaster of the preceding government) and our cap on contributions. It is a fact that if we remain, these are under review and whether we like it or not, our net contributions will HAVE to rise to help pay for the imbalance caused by admitting so many nations who simply did not meet the financial qualifications for joining...the whole thing was a corrupt fudge, partly to grow the EU border as a way of saying to the USSR "don't mess with us, we're bigger than you". That worked out well didn't it with Crimea and the Ukraine backlash by Russian Nationalists and their armed services?
The fact remains, and lets remove ourselves from the emotive subject of sides and personal views for one second here, that our gross and net contributions accounted for, we still have little to no say and are treated now with open contempt by our so called political allies. They want and need our contribution and know that it will be the catalyst to bringing down the Euro, and any notion of federalistion if we vote to leave. They care very much about that aspect despite the public face. They are possibly over complacent about what the UK public really feel about the scaremongering. It would be unwise to remain complacent and I am just surprised that they have not made more effort to appease the UK, in spite of the arrogance and ignorance of Cameron. In a way they have no choice but to be the way they are as no precedents can be set, but don't believe for a nano-second that our decision at the end of this month doesn't have them mightily concerned...it has to. This vote will be closer, much closer than many perhaps realise. The don't knows have little time left to do their research and pin their colours to the mast and do that they must.
Another lie peddled by the scaremongers is that there can be no return to a common market yet with national interests left as just that. Best thing for all of the EU, in particular for the sake of retaining any sense of national identity and for a closening of relations between friends (as it should be), is that we all revert to our own currencies, do away with the Euro, do away with the EU parliament as it currently stands (or rather flits from Brussels to Strasbourg every two weeks!) and return to the precepts of the common market as it was originally set up. That is in all of our interests.
The great European experiment has gone too far for that in reality, at least under current leadership and until the EU parliament accept the need for radical reform, it won't happen. That leaves us with absolutely no choice but to leave and try and get a head start to re- building our own economy and reclaiming a better form of democracy before the EU crashes under the burden of lowest economic common denominator, corrupt centralisation which is akin to a many headed dictatorship, and the effects of net migration on the welfare states of all nations affected. The alternative is far worse if we remain, at least many of us consider it so.
Audio Al
05-06-2016, 13:10
Cameron summed it up for me in his live debate when he ended by saying " Don't roll the dice and gamble with your children and grandchildren futures "
Very true indeed
My view if we stay we are gambling with their future
No Jobs , huge preparations taken by foreign workers prepared to work for lower pay
No homes , Huge proportions rented out to foreign workers who live 3 or 4 families in one house and yes I have several like this in my road
No proper medical care , NHS swamped with migrants
Schools over crowded hugely
Universities with BIG proportions of foreign students , Why do we educate the world :scratch:
I could go on
My Farther several years before he died said , " Son I glad in on the way out with the way things are going and I feel sorry for the younger generation "
At the time I thought this comment was out of order but I now agree :(
Landloper
05-06-2016, 13:56
A excellent post, Paul. Thank you.
(I've just downloaded 'The Great Deception' onto my Kindle. The EU Referendum Edition is available to download for a modest £1.99)
Agreed Al... I could get an appointment at docs anytime up til 2 years ago, now its 2to 3 weeks. There are several houses with about 4 families living in it doing different shifts near my sister too. They never shut, and are drinking and loud 24 7. I aint anti foreigners in any way but we are now at tipping point. Local lidl every member of staff is foreign. Its becoming not our country, and soon we wont becable to vote out our govt as most things will be run as a federation of states.. Like your dad, i am glad i am the age i am.
I have only summarised some of the extensive reasoning in factual publications, one such being the excellent treatise written on the subject by Christopher Booker and Richard North who had access to the innermost halls of the EU machine and researched it over many years, the publication being called "The Great Deception", the second in their historical research texts on the subject. I would urge anyone who has not yet read this to read it....cover to cover.
This publication, in particular, reveals how the politicians of the UK over many years have consistently been out-played and out-manoeuvred in a game of "From Common Market to Federal United States of Europe", a game in which they consistently fail to understand the rules. One account tells of Blair's duplicitous selling out of the armed forces, or at least concessions, covered by lies on the economy, to justify shrinking our forces just at a critical time when we needed the opposite to happen! He was aligning us for the silently proposed united European army (which would never work for a multitude of reasons) which he referred to as the European Rapid Reaction Forces. In doing so, he abolished many proud regiments with his amalgamations, cut the funding to the Navy and the RAF, something which consecutive governments have failed to address despite the bleeding obvious needs. He also ran down our border controls and left us with a totally ineffective coast guard. All this whilst Brown was robbing pensions to pay our way.
Christopher Booker was the founding Editor of Private Eye, and unlike that twit who runs it now, had a far more impartial and intelligent far reaching grasp of international politics and an insatiable appetite for the truth and our place in Europe. Dr Richard North is a political analyst and had access to the hallowed halls of the European Parliament where he was a Research Director and as such, far better informed that most if not all of our current politicians.
Their findings rocked Nr 10 when their first book was published because it exposed Heath, Gummer and Soames in particular for selling us down the river. Their view of successive governments since is not especially uplifting. Coincidentally, I am good friends with, and have huge respect for Gummer's former private secretary but that's by the by.
Far from a sound-bite, there are many reasons why we are the poor cousin of European Politics. Cameron has no foreign policy or real diplomatic talents, and as Macca so rightly says, has relegated us to being a nation with no clout, bottom of the league. His failures have been washed under the carpet by party faithful and after pre and post election bragging about the deals that he would secure, all he really succeeded in achieving was winding up most of the other nations by his arrogance and diplomacy faux-pas. We were heading down that route anyway because the Germans and French governments in particular resent our vetos (first won by Maggie after she took power, to redress the disaster of the preceding government) and our cap on contributions. It is a fact that if we remain, these are under review and whether we like it or not, our net contributions will HAVE to rise to help pay for the imbalance caused by admitting so many nations who simply did not meet the financial qualifications for joining...the whole thing was a corrupt fudge, partly to grow the EU border as a way of saying to the USSR "don't mess with us, we're bigger than you". That worked out well didn't it with Crimea and the Ukraine backlash by Russian Nationalists and their armed services?
The fact remains, and lets remove ourselves from the emotive subject of sides and personal views for one second here, that our gross and net contributions accounted for, we still have little to no say and are treated now with open contempt by our so called political allies. They want and need our contribution and know that it will be the catalyst to bringing down the Euro, and any notion of federalistion if we vote to leave. They care very much about that aspect despite the public face. They are possibly over complacent about what the UK public really feel about the scaremongering. It would be unwise to remain complacent and I am just surprised that they have not made more effort to appease the UK, in spite of the arrogance and ignorance of Cameron. In a way they have no choice but to be the way they are as no precedents can be set, but don't believe for a nano-second that our decision at the end of this month doesn't have them mightily concerned...it has to. This vote will be closer, much closer than many perhaps realise. The don't knows have little time left to do their research and pin their colours to the mast and do that they must.
Another lie peddled by the scaremongers is that there can be no return to a common market yet with national interests left as just that. Best thing for all of the EU, in particular for the sake of retaining any sense of national identity and for a closening of relations between friends (as it should be), is that we all revert to our own currencies, do away with the Euro, do away with the EU parliament as it currently stands (or rather flits from Brussels to Strasbourg every two weeks!) and return to the precepts of the common market as it was originally set up. That is in all of our interests.
The great European experiment has gone too far for that in reality, at least under current leadership and until the EU parliament accept the need for radical reform, it won't happen. That leaves us with absolutely no choice but to leave and try and get a head start to re- building our own economy and reclaiming a better form of democracy before the EU crashes under the burden of lowest economic common denominator, corrupt centralisation which is akin to a many headed dictatorship, and the effects of net migration on the welfare states of all nations affected. The alternative is far worse if we remain, at least many of us consider it so.
Think you just have to look at how FIFA went whexn it had total power over nations and all the corrupt people running it..
Arkless Electronics
05-06-2016, 14:16
One thing I really couldn't give a toss about is sovereignty "we can rule ourselves" etc !! You mean the government can do what it likes without any boundaries being set by the EU. The brexiters put it like they personally would have more "Britishness" or "sovereignty" if we leave!
The "bonfire of rights" described by Corbyn is more like it. Do you really think that a uk gov (especially a Tory one!) will do any less than change and manipulate laws to suit themselves and their political and financial backers if given the power to do so?
One thing I really couldn't give a toss about is sovereignty "we can rule ourselves" etc !! You mean the government can do what it likes without any boundaries being set by the EU. The brexiters put it like they personally would have more "Britishness" or "sovereignty" if we leave!
The "bonfire of rights" described by Corbyn is more like it. Do you really think that a uk gov (especially a Tory one!) will do any less than change and manipulate laws to suit themselves and their political and financial backers if given the power to do so?
But we do have choice if we leave Jez. People don't stay in power if not re-elected. The unelectable will remain unelected. No point in bemoaning whoever's in power if we're not willing to get off our backsides and vote, and voter apathy is rife in the UK or has been for several General Elections now. We have that choice to back the devil we know, and at least with them, there's no excuses about hands being tied when it comes to legislation with the one major exception of the hoops we'll undoubtedly have to jump through if we are to trade with them (the EU). Not all of those hoops are bad though...many are there for the protection of the vulnerable and the working man and rightly so. As for everything else, we will have our sovereignty back and its just too simplistic to just brush that aside denying the benefits of which you could write a book on! It's also evident that the term "Brexiter" is being far too freely and underhandedly branded about as a form of abuse. Don't forget that so called "Bexiters" are not the minority. If the latest polls are anything to go by, they are now in the majority. They have the right to their views without being abused for it.
Arkless Electronics
05-06-2016, 14:38
But we do have choice if we leave Jez. People don't stay in power if not re-elected. The unelectable will remain unelected. No point in bemoaning whoever's in power if we're not willing to get off our backsides and vote, and voter apathy is rife in the UK or has been for several General Elections now. We have that choice to back the devil we know, and at least with them, there's no excuses about hands being tied when it comes to legislation with the one major exception of the hoops we'll undoubtedly have to jump through if we are to trade with them (the EU). Not all of those hoops are bad though...many are there for the protection of the vulnerable and the working man and rightly so. As for everything else, we will have our sovereignty back and its just too simplistic to just brush that aside denying the benefits of which you could write a book on! It's also evident that the term "Brexiter" is being far too freely and underhandedly branded about as a form of abuse. Don't forget that so called "Bexiters" are not the minority. If the latest polls are anything to go by, they are now in the majority. They have the right to their views without being abused for it.
As you will guess I disagree. I'm not a fan of the EU but think leaving would be worse. I would back making voting a legal requirement as I think it's mainly people who would be natural Labour voters who often take no interest in politics and never do actually vote....
As you will guess I disagree. I'm not a fan of the EU but think leaving would be worse. I would back making voting a legal requirement as I think it's mainly people who would be natural Labour voters who often take no interest in politics and never do actually vote....
I cannot see what could be worse that being stuck in a super state with a bunch of professional unelected bureaucrats imposing rules from Brussels.
Neither can I, nor most of our friends and their families which is why we'll all be voting to leave.
So this brings us back to where we were earlier when you had said you preferred "closet Nazis" to Paul Mason.
It seems that what you are saying is that far right nationalism (I'm not sure why you used quote marks?) is not a bad thing. Am I wrong to read it like that?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
No I am not a supporter of nationalist policies of parties like the BNP here or overseas. I don't automatically equate nationalism - as in wanting to remain an independent country, with racism. Paul Mason seems to think anyone who is nationalist in that sense is a 'closet Nazi'. They must be, right, as they don't quite see things his way? Must be evil people, like Nazis. It's childish, really.
The problem with the phrase right wing and far right is that they have two different meanings. Right wing as in laissez-faire capitalist and right wing as in racist. Since most 'far right' parties here and abroad tend to be socialist, the use is contradictory.
'The Racist Left' would be more suitable than 'The Far Right' but of course these things are coined by journalists.
Arkless Electronics
05-06-2016, 15:04
I have ZERO problem with "rules being imposed from Brussels". I'm used to them being imposed by Westminster anyway which is a similar distance from me in miles and even further in ideology. I welcome a EU superstate with the UK a leading member. I will be voting to stay.
'Audio Designers Votes Just Cancel Each Other Out in EU Brexit Poll Shocker.'
Arkless Electronics
05-06-2016, 15:14
No I am not a supporter of nationalist policies of parties like the BNP here or overseas. I don't automatically equate nationalism - as in wanting to remain an independent country, with racism. Paul Mason seems to think anyone who is nationalist in that sense is a 'closet Nazi'. They must be, right, as they don't quite see things his way? Must be evil people, like Nazis. It's childish, really.
The problem with the phrase right wing and far right is that they have two different meanings. Right wing as in laissez-fair capitalist and right wing as in racist. Since most 'far right' parties here and abroad tend to be socialist, the use is contradictory.
'The Racist Left' would be more suitable than 'The Far Right' but of course these things are coined by journalists.
Total bollocks!! Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel and there's none more so than nationalists. You obviously need to read up on socialism if you think it's aright wing phenomenon!
Nationalism and "patriotism" are always at somebody else's expense i.e the ones not included in whatever subset is known as "us" to the nationalists. It's greed and selfishness on a well... national scale!
The thing I hate (yes HATE) about the right wing is the attitude of "not only do we have plenty, we want even more, and we don't give a fuck who suffers so long as we're alright Jack, the poor and dis-empowered are the easiest to USE so we'll start there" SCUM!
Obviously I don't think socialism is right wing. But there is such a thing as racist socialists even though I grant you that socialism is not supposed to recognise race or borders in its purest form.
But with that exception, policy-wise the BNP, as a good example, is socialist.
I'm amazed that you are continuing to misrepresent what Paul Mason said.
I notice that you avoided the question though, so can we safely assume that you do not think that far right nationalism is a bad thing?
As Muller points out, these kind of populist parties bang the drum of victimhood. "Things are bad because of faceless unelected bureaucrats who won't allow us to control immigration." You can be sure that if we achieve brexit the focus will shift to the immigrants.
It will be interesting to see how the result of the referendum is used. I think if the vote does fall to leave then UKIP etc can be fairly certain to claim that this result gives them a mandate for the rest of their policies. Although the referendum is only on stay/remain, it could easily be used to attempt to justify legitimacy for crack down on immigration, or whatever, claiming that the EU vote shows something other than what was specifically asked.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
'Audio Designers Votes Just Cancel Each Other Out in EU Brexit Poll Shocker.'
:lol:
I am as fervent in my beliefs as the opposite camp are to theirs. I see equal injustice, cobblers and corruption and real harm to society in real world (V's ideological) socialism and federalist views as they see in those who wish to "Brexit". It's quite funny that we're all accused of being "the far right" or "right wing nut jobs" for supporting the wish to leave. Another massively incorrect assumption by the name-callers who in truth have no further wish nor use for reasoned debate, helped in part by media hyperbole. That's the hypocrisy of such name-calling nonsense. I also pity those who have lost, or never had any sense of patriotism, a sense of belonging. If your country really means or matters that little to you, and the sacrifices of by-gone generations who helped shape where we live, then it is indeed a sad state of affairs and you have my pity. I would like my kids to grow up in an equitable society with still a strong semblance of national identity and pride. I couldn't give a fig about who thinks bad of that nor why. Happily, it seems that we're not all yet doomed to becoming a federal state where all mention of national identity is taboo.
Paul, I should just clarify that i am only using "far right" in the context of the far right parties, not for anyone voting leave.
I would also strongly question what seems to be your assumption that wanting to remain in the EU means that we can not love our country. It is precisely because I love my country that I do not wish to see it leave Europe and become a basket case of anti-immigrant ranting; i do not wish to see us lose Scotland from the union and continue to witness everything that we own being sold off piecemeal by the current government.
I think that it undermines your argument horribly for you to imply that those wanting us to remain in the EU can have no sense of national pride nor identity. And you were doing so well...
You can keep your pity.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Arkless Electronics
05-06-2016, 16:31
Patriotism and nationalism by their very nature promulgate a sense of superiority over those who are not "the same"... of outsiders... this is where racism stems from, and on a bigger scale war. To me (and taking this to it's ultimate conclusion...) humanities biggest problem, other than over population, is that we have a conscience, sentience and one would hope, empathy, missing from other animals and yet the world revolves around "dog eat dog", "law of the jungle" etc. Things could be so much different and better. What's our excuse.....? Yes it's rhetorical... greater minds than mine have no doubt pondered the same since time immemorial ;)
I would like my kids to grow up in an equitable society with still a strong semblance of national identity and pride. I couldn't give a fig about who thinks bad of that nor why. Happily, it seems that we're not all yet doomed to becoming a federal state where all mention of national identity is taboo.
We have been in the EU for decades and I see absolutely no sign of a diminished 'national identity' or lack of 'pride' - in fact the opposite and I seriously don't think staying or leaving will change that one iota. The only big difference that might ensue if we leave will be that we will most certainly have to get used to being English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh - 'British' as an identity or entity will definitely be history.
Patriotism and nationalism by their very nature promulgate a sense of superiority over those who are not "the same"... of outsiders...
Don't buy that as an absolute statement - I see no problem with pride in your country or where you hail from and this certainly doesn't automatically lead to racism. I lived in Holland for 13 years and felt myself to be more 'European' than before but it was the love of where I came from and a longing to be back that brought me back to Blighty. I still regard myself as English first and European second but neither exclude me from seeing myself as a human being first and foremost.
Neither immigration nor the EU frighten me or make me feel insecure ... whereas the prospect of a Johnson/Gove/Farage victory and a resultant Tory Party that would be even more emboldened to be bigger shits than they are already really does make me fear for the future of this country and our relations with the rest of humanity.
I'm amazed that you are continuing to misrepresent what Paul Mason said.
I notice that you avoided the question though, so can we safely assume that you do not think that far right nationalism is a bad thing?
You must have missed the first sentence of my reply to you:
'No I am not a supporter of nationalist policies of parties like the BNP here or overseas'
Arkless Electronics
05-06-2016, 18:14
Don't buy that as an absolute statement - I see no problem with pride in your country or where you hail from and this certainly doesn't automatically lead to racism. I lived in Holland for 13 years and felt myself to be more 'European' than before but it was the love of where I came from and a longing to be back that brought me back to Blighty. I still regard myself as English first and European second but neither exclude me from seeing myself as a human being first and foremost.
Neither immigration nor the EU frighten me or make me feel insecure ... whereas the prospect of a Johnson/Gove/Farage victory and a resultant Tory Party that would be even more emboldened to be bigger shits than they are already really does make me fear for the future of this country and our relations with the rest of humanity.
Amen to your last paragraph!
Pride in ones country needn't lead to racism etc but unfortunately they often go hand in hand. if you can find a racist thug with the ability to string a sentence together and ask his motives I suggest many would reply "'cos I'm proud to be British and white and "they" aren't like us and we don't want them over 'ere mixing with us British... they should go back to the jungle cos it's all they're good enough for. We built an empire, what did they ever manage? See that's 'cos we're British and better them 'em" etc etc. Patriotism really is the last refuge of many a type of scoundrel.
Amen to your last paragraph!
Pride in ones country needn't lead to racism etc but unfortunately they often go hand in hand. if you can find a racist thug with the ability to string a sentence together and ask his motives I suggest many would reply "'cos I'm proud to be British and white and "they" aren't like us and we don't want them over 'ere mixing with us British... they should go back to the jungle cos it's all they're good enough for. We built an empire, what did they ever manage? See that's 'cos we're British and better them 'em" etc etc. Patriotism really is the last refuge of many a type of scoundrel.
They may use patriotism as an excuse but the 2 have no connection. Just because some neds do that, it doesnt make it wrong to have pride in your country... Quite the opposite, and it seems England is one of the only countries where this notion applies.
Retake your right to be English without being blanketed as a bigot
Arkless Electronics
05-06-2016, 18:46
They may use patriotism as an excuse but the 2 have no connection. Just because some neds do that, it doesnt make it wrong to have pride in your country... Quite the opposite, and it seems England is one of the only countries where this notion applies.
Retake your right to be English without being blanketed as a bigot
I have no problem with pride in ones country as such, I'm proud to be British as well as European. The problem comes when people think being of a particular nationality makes them superior and more deserving than others of a different nationality... that is often the subtext of many who would describe themselves as "a patriotic nationalist". A hatred and suspicion of "otherness" is one of mankind's less appealing characteristics.... and it's just not British old bean :D
twickers
05-06-2016, 19:50
We have been in the EU for decades and I see absolutely no sign of a diminished 'national identity' or lack of 'pride' - in fact the opposite and I seriously don't think staying or leaving will change that one iota. The only big difference that might ensue if we leave will be that we will most certainly have to get used to being English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh - 'British' as an identity or entity will definitely be history.
A lot of Scots that I have known over the years certainly didn't think themselves British, same with the Welsh. It was always 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' never British. Most English don't give a shit and Northern Irish British ofc. So do the 'Brits' as an identity mean that much to most people?
A lot of Scots that I have known over the years certainly didn't think themselves British, same with the Welsh. It was always 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' never British.
Totally correct! I can say with 100% certainty that all the Scots I know (and there are plenty, as I was born there) consider themselves as Scottish, ditto with the Welsh considering themselves as Welsh. So they're used to it already! Can't speak for the Irish. Why do you think many thousands of Scots wanted independence?
I was born in Scotland, from Italian parents, and don't consider myself as British. I have dual-nationality, but my roots are 100% Italian. In essence, I'd call myself a Scots Italian, but British definitely not. I wouldn't be seen dead waving a Union Jack. Nothing wrong, however, being patriotically British, if that's what you are :)
Can you guess the teams I'll be supporting in France on Friday? ;)
Marco.
I'm supporting England, coz I'm used to supporting Scotland, who are pish too :lol: .... Na, I aint supporting any, and as per usual will hope the most enterprising side wins.... It will likely be Germany though
My three *primary* teams will be Italy, Scotland and Wales, with sympathetic leanings towards the Irish teams and {cough} England ;)
My wife will be rooting for Germany, Wales and Croatia.
Marco.
I'm waiting for my colleague's 8 year old nephew to give his tip then I'll be supporting whatever team I that is since they will have my money on them. He is some sort of wunderkind. He picks horses too.
twickers
05-06-2016, 20:18
I'm waiting for my colleague's 8 year old nephew to give his tip then I'll be supporting whatever team I that is since they will have my money on them. He is some sort of wunderkind. He picks horses too.
If he picks England ignore him and save your money.
Yes my hopes would be dashed. I'm counting on him in lieu of a pension.
I'm expecting Engerland to do quite well, actually, as long as Hodgson plays his talented youngsters.
Ah, isn't this thread drift great...? Anything to get away from bloody politics! :eyebrows:
;)
Marco.
Scotland wont be there
That's the Team Motto
:lolsign:
Getting much better under Strachan, though. Currently plagued by being put in near-impossible qualification groups to get out of, and getting oh so close to doing so, but not close enough! :doh:
Marco.
Paul, I should just clarify that i am only using "far right" in the context of the far right parties, not for anyone voting leave.
I would also strongly question what seems to be your assumption that wanting to remain in the EU means that we can not love our country. It is precisely because I love my country that I do not wish to see it leave Europe and become a basket case of anti-immigrant ranting; i do not wish to see us lose Scotland from the union and continue to witness everything that we own being sold off piecemeal by the current government.
I think that it undermines your argument horribly for you to imply that those wanting us to remain in the EU can have no sense of national pride nor identity. And you were doing so well...
You can keep your pity.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Clearly, you mis-understand...I was not having a pop at you at all nor anything you said ;). I'm frankly mildy surprised that you drew those erroneous conclusions!
Your assumption that I'm somehow inferring that anyone wishing to stay is anti-patriotic is NOT correct...where did I say that? With respect, you're putting words in my mouth there which weren't written nor inferred.
I don't agree either that leaving automatically makes anyone a "basket case of anti-immigrant ranting"....what an odd thing to say? I am no racist so please do not accuse me nor anyone else wish to leave the EU as such. That is a disgraceful thing to say.
We won't lose Scotland. They had their chance at a referendum and a majority chose to stay as part of the union. Even Alex Salmond is on record as stating that it was Scotland's "once in a lifetime opportunity" plus Scotland on their own will not meet the EU criteria for entering on their own....allegedly. It isn't Scotland wishing to leave the union if we leave the EU, it is just the SNP spokespersons' rhetoric and sabre rattling and they do not, as far as we know, speak for the majority on that subject. The end of June will be telling.
Back to your sentences...you misunderstand and misread so please do not take me out of context nor chose to make up what I have written as it is there in black and white and my pity is not directed at you.
Enough is enough...if people don't take the trouble to read what was actually written or to deliberately take it out of context then it is pointless taking any further part in it so I'll bow out. I said what I wanted to contribute anyway.
Sorry for misinterpreting what you meant to write Paul, I've been back to re-read it and I still read it the same way though, so evidently there is a communicating problem somewhere.
Similarly, if you would take the trouble to look at what I actually wrote you will see that I never accused you of racism, and said nothing disgraceful. You actually quoted my words in your post, but left out the bit that made it clear I was saying that it was the UK that I did not want to become the basket case (full of anti immigrant ranting), which is what I think it may end up as.
Somehow you have managed to interpret that as me saying that anyone wanting exit was a basket case racist, which seems rather out of context to me!
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Two fingers to the world: is that your message, Brexiteers?
http://gu.com/p/4kjb6?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
07-06-2016, 17:24
Is that a quote or question?
Nice rounded, well balanced opinion from a newspaper ;)
Arkless Electronics
07-06-2016, 17:31
Two fingers to the world: is that your message, Brexiteers?
http://gu.com/p/4kjb6?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
That kind of sums up my feelings on the matter... good article. And yes it does seem that many think leaving will stop the non European immigrants, which are the ones they have the biggest issue with 'cos they're even less "like us".
In some cases I think it's not racism as such but more a "I don't want to share anything with any foreigner cos it's ours! and no I don't care if they'll be killed by a bomb or starve to death if we don't let them in". Lovely humanistic sentiments eh?
Oldpinkman
08-06-2016, 16:15
I know some people arent on facebook. Maybe some clever clogs can work out how to make a general link
Not often I agree with Jimmie Krankie of the SNP, but this time I love what the lass has to say
https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/
Oh bugger - just tried it and even worse than I thought - video about a page down with Ms Sturgeon looking like a Scottish Conservative in a smart blue suit...
I'll "Jimmy Krankie" you! ;)
That's the WONDERFUL NICOLA, who will one day lead the Scottish people to independence, away from repression and the controlling chinless-wonders of Westmonster.... Nicola, taken just after the 'Yes' vote has won at the next Scottish referendum:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/haErQb.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmhaErQbj)
"YA DANCER, get it right up ye, ya Tory basturts!!!"
:upyours: :upyours: :lol: :D
Marco.
17173
Created for a reason.
:ner: :ner:
Aye, I could think of plenty of reasons, and none of them are polite! ;)
Marco.
:sheep: :sheep:
Created to wave at the Euros, after we've humped England! :eyebrows:;)
Marco.
I reckon the EU is the human species fuckin' around with genetics more than anything.
It is beyond politics...
Naturally the Union Jack stands for the only pure gene pool, currently being abundantly diluted by dodgy European genetics. And migrants we have bombed the hell out of. If you can't beat them, join them sort of thing.
Strange times.
Vote bollocks, I reckon. But mainly screw the unelected piss takers in Brussels, who naturally think they are acting for the common good. Or who are just plain bullshit merchants interested only in themselves.
So... I personally am voting out in the light of the massive insight I just haven't posted.
Call it instinct. Out feels way more interesting. And a lot more pure. Right or wrong.
Oldpinkman
09-06-2016, 06:08
I'll "Jimmy Krankie" you! ;)
That's the WONDERFUL NICOLA, who will one day lead the Scottish people to independence,
Marco.
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ad_165828585.jpg
;)
:cool:
Ha - the resemblance is uncanny! :eek: :eyebrows:
Marco.
Except that the Krankies make more sense :ner:
That kind of sums up my feelings on the matter... good article. And yes it does seem that many think leaving will stop the non European immigrants, which are the ones they have the biggest issue with 'cos they're even less "like us".
In some cases I think it's not racism as such but more a "I don't want to share anything with any foreigner cos it's ours! and no I don't care if they'll be killed by a bomb or starve to death if we don't let them in". Lovely humanistic sentiments eh?
I appreciate that it is difficult to formulate an argument that is against basic common sense but does anyone wanting to remain in the EU have a point that is not based on accusations of racism?
Oldpinkman
09-06-2016, 08:30
I appreciate that it is difficult to formulate an argument that is against basic common sense but does anyone wanting to remain in the EU have a point that is not based on accusations of racism?
Sure. The issue is sovereignty. And naughty fibs told about it. This really comes down to whether we think the UK will be OK "on its own" or whether we think we will be successful "like Switzerland". Since the 2 are mutually exclusive, and the leave campaign fudges the issue by claiming one version when it suits, and then the other also when it suits, lets go with Boris Johnsons "Switzerland does OK". The following is a lazy cut and paste from one of my recent facebook posts, in response to someone posting a completely fictional "look at Switzerland" link
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13312914_10207737589812740_4698817694754487065_n.j pg?oh=c36f850ad86e091b7898a38e56fa6606&oe=57C25D75
So you want to be like Switzerland I hear? Here's how it works
You leave the EU and approach us for a trade deal "just like Switzerland". And we say "OK , just like Switzerland, you agree to enact all our relevant trade regulations (those EU laws you don't like) including any new laws we might make in the future, without you having any say in them. You need to continue to allow free movement of EU citizens, but we now require you to join Shengen and remove passport barriers for anyone travelling from anywhere in Europe, including Switzerland. In return you can sell us all of your chocolate and watches (Morris cars, Singer sewing machines, Ferguson radiograms and other manufacturing output)"
"But what about our Insurance services, banking, foreign exchange , stockbroking, and other financial services?" you ask. "You said <trade>. " They're not included - we can agree agricultural products if you like.. We can negotiate on financial services, but you are going to have to accept our rules if there is going to be a deal - in a few years time - after everyone has relocated to Frankfurt" we reply.
Yes - you will be required to permit travel without passports from any Shengen country if you want to be like Switzerland. If the EU, after you've left, without you now having any say, decide to allow Turkey visa-less travel, you in the UK will need to permit any Turk flying to London from Frankfurt to enter without a passport, never mind a visa. (Have you shown a passport driving from France to Switzerland recently? - you may be asked to pay duty on the wine in your boot, but not show a passport)
You can opt out of that rule, or any other rule of course - that's sovereignty. And if you do, the entire trade deal is invalidated and cancelled. That's Swiss sovereignty. Fill yer boots
To that, I would add that it is one of many factual inaccuracies that Switzerland is the 2nd richest country in the world (GDP per capita). It is the second richest in Europe (GDP per capita). It has the 2nd highest level of immigration in Europe. The richest country in Europe (GDP per capita) is Luxembourg. Luxembourg has the highest level of immigration. The 3rd richest country in Europe is Norway. You guessed it - Norway has the 3rd highest level of immigration. There's a pattern developing ;)
Macca - mainly for you, cos I know Marco will yawn, but we are running a balance of payments defecit. The exports side of that balance of payments is 60% invisibles. We don't need trade deals - we need unfettered access to large financial services markets for the City to continue selling into. Those are not guaranteed if we leave the EU. However much Marco and Jez may resent the fact, the reality is that without the Chinless wonders in the city earning huge amounts through financial services, we have a really grim balance of payments situation to face. And leaving the EU is "high risk" for the City. Frankfurt is creaming its jeans at the opportunity to step up to the plate and become the No1 GMT financial centre, on the basis it is IN the biggest GMT market in financial services
See - no racism :cool:
Oldpinkman
09-06-2016, 08:33
Oh - and another thing - I forgot Switzerlands successfully negotiated independant trade deal with China. It's true - it has one. It took over 2 years to negotiate, affects trade and not financial services, and is classic big market negotiating with small market. In a nutshell, China gets immediate unrestricted access to Swiss markets today - and Switzerland gets in return comparable rights in the Chinese market - in 15 years time.
It's a deal - no question. Switzerland had to take it, no question. It's not quite as good as the deal the UK currently has as part of the EU :cool:
I appreciate that it is difficult to formulate an argument that is against basic common sense but does anyone wanting to remain in the EU have a point that is not based on accusations of racism?
I appreciate that it is difficult for the LEAVE side to argue their position without resorting to misrepresentation and economy with the truth, but I am fairly sure that none of the points I have made and very few that I have seen others make here have been based on accusations of racism. I however do understand that it is an effective rhetorical device to attempt to trivialise an argument like this, as often people will just accept it as truth if it appeals to their "gut feeling".
I'm very interested in this idea of "common sense" though, as I haven't seen one argument about leave that hasn't been easily destroyed by it.
Here's another boring article. This one is about company lawyers, who it appears all think it would be a bad idea for the companies that they work for.
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=54a79bdd-94f6-461a-aff4-83874ae68729
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
09-06-2016, 10:00
I appreciate that it is difficult for the LEAVE side to argue their position without resorting to misrepresentation and economy with the truth
Surely some will have sincere, honest and genuine views.
Surely some will have sincere, honest and genuine views.
Well perhaps I should have put a smiley? The post I was responding to was implying that the only arguments for remain were based on accusations of racism, which was clearly false. I think it was a fair response, don't you?
:)
More seriously though, I don't doubt that views might be sincere, genuine and honestly held. This doesn't have any beading on whether they are correct or incorrect. One might genuinely believe that we need to wrest back sovereignty from the dictators in Brussels, and no matter how many times it is shown that we would still have to submit to the same laws from Brussels if we left the EU, with fewer benefits for us, they would still somehow believe that their "genuine belief" that we could strike a deal that would be preferable to the status quo carries more weight than the opinions of "the experts".
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Oldpinkman
09-06-2016, 10:14
Surely some will have sincere, honest and genuine views.
I haven't been following this thread closely, so apologies if I've missed something. I have a close friend who is pro-Leave (knows and has worked with Boris Johnson) and I have been discussing on Facebook with him, and skimming the various responses.
I can't say I have seen any seriously credible evidence or research in support of Leave. Every credible external competent agency I can think of concludes Brexit will harm the UK economically - possibly very seriously. Of course, there are other things to life than the economy, and the Leave campaign seems mostly driven by emotional responses like "we need to control immigration" and "this country is too full" - opinions they are subjectively entitled to. But they are woolly and don't stand up to hard reason.
To give one example - if the Island is too full, and immigration correlates with economic wealth per capita, then why not campaign for Chinese style family size limits instead?
The worst issue for me is this muddling of "we can be completely independent" or "we can keep our sovereignty" with "we can be like Norway or Switzerland - they do OK and are not in the EU". Norway is the best example of where I think we will end up if we "leave" - all we will be "leaving" is our (admittedly restricted) influence and right of veto within Europe. We get to keep all the garbage - like paying in financial contributions, but having no return investment, and adopting all the rules but having no say in them. Realistically, that is what I think LEAVE means
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model
:(
Ive still to decide tbh and have been hoping to be persuded that stay is right. Alas they have mostly called the outs a mix of things even if they dont realise it.
It is pretty o. Ious that the capaign is running similarly to Scottish devolution. Play on unfounded fears and if that doesnt work bring racism into play. Shame people cant give unbiased opinion and perhaps some "real" facts
walpurgis
09-06-2016, 10:29
some "real" facts
There are all sorts of 'facts'. And that's a fact! :)
Ive still to decide tbh and have been hoping to be persuded that stay is right. Alas they have mostly called the outs a mix of things even if they dont realise it.
It is pretty o. Ious that the capaign is running similarly to Scottish devolution. Play on unfounded fears and if that doesnt work bring racism into play. Shame people cant give unbiased opinion and perhaps some "real" facts
Read the article about the lawyers I just posted, Grant.
I agree that the official campaigns have been awful. A low point for me was George Osborne saying that the leave campaign had a "mean and divisive" vision for the UK, which had me screaming at the TV due to the gall of his hypocrisy... From the man behind the austerity policy that is driving so much of the discontent in this country and punishing the least fortunate in our society.
So ignore the official campaigns and have a look at what the lawyers are saying, then the scientists, then the academics (leaving the EU will have a terrible effect on university funding, and scientific research).
Think of any other group you respect and find out what they think.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Yes ive read that, and this which shows much of there attitude could be down to personal gain
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/eu-withdrawal-at-what-price-for-lawyers/68469.fullarticle
Yes ive read that, and this which shows much of there attitude could be down to personal gain
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/eu-withdrawal-at-what-price-for-lawyers/68469.fullarticle
Well the article I linked was in-house lawyers talking about the effects for the businesses that they worked for, not the impact on the profession.
I didn't read the one you posted as being all about self-interest though. Granted it did mention income being affected at one point, but most of it seemed to be about how the UK will lose benefits (e.g. our lawyers being free to work across borders) and more specifically we will lose influence.
What was particularly interesting, as it goes against almost all that we hear about how we have no clout and are told what to do by foreigners was the bit near the end about how often it is our laws that are taking precedence, and then particularly the following sentence:
"At every EU conference on the subject, there is a UK speaker thundering against it, and EU officials and politicians take the views of the UK seriously.
That will no longer be the case once the UK is out."
(NB: the author of the piece I linked is the features editor at the Law Society Gazette)
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Ypu, but the possibilty of dual interest does come into play.. Always a problem, and guess its not going to go away. I will likely lose more than most so its not me orientated. I like honesty though
If we are out it won't matter to us what they do. Not sure why that seems to be so hard to understand. The other advantage is that we can pick and choose who we let into the country instead of having to allow every EU citizen to come and live and work here if they want to.
Regardless of any other consequences this is the main reason why we have to leave. We cannot continue to support millions of people entering this country every year. There is no way to stop this unless we leave the EU
Once Turkey joins we will have millions of them here within a month and they will be low or non-skilled people who will be a constant drain on the country and will never contribute any net income to the pot.
There is no way the current situation can be allowed to continue and once we have Turkey in as well that will be the breaking point.
On the other hand if we leave it may well precipitate the end of the EU, which is unpopular in most of the EU nations since it has pretty much destroyed their economies. No EU, no-one dictating terms to us, who we can or can't trade with etc, so we solve that problem too.
Oldpinkman
09-06-2016, 12:07
If we are out it won't matter to us what they do. Not sure why that seems to be so hard to understand. The other advantage is that we can pick and choose who we let into the country instead of having to allow every EU citizen to come and live and work here if they want to.
Regardless of any other consequences this is the main reason why we have to leave. We cannot continue to support millions of people entering this country every year. There is no way to stop this unless we leave the EU
Once Turkey joins we will have millions of them here within a month and they will be low or non-skilled people who will be a constant drain on the country and will never contribute any net income to the pot.
There is no way the current situation can be allowed to continue and once we have Turkey in as well that will be the breaking point.
On the other hand if we leave it may well precipitate the end of the EU, which is unpopular in most of the EU nations since it has pretty much destroyed their economies. No EU, no-one dictating terms to us, who we can or can't trade with etc, so we solve that problem too.
I can't spot a verifiable fact in any of that.
Not sure who "they" are but I assume you mean the EU. They negotiate with Norway and Switzerland that "they" legislate EU rules.
But I see this is an immigrants only argument for you. You objected to accusations of racism and then post "Once Turkey joins we will have millions of them here within a month and they will be low or non-skilled people who will be a constant drain on the country and will never contribute any net income to the pot.".
No racism - "all turks are low or non-skilled". Stop leading with your chin if you want to avoid the debate focussing on your racism would be my counsel. :rolleyes:
There is no evidence in support of your statement. My Turkish friend Oslam Yaman speaks fluent French, English and Turkish (as do both of her under 10 year old children - how good are your languages as a member of the English elite?). She has a French and Turkish degree, and taught GCSE and A level French here in the UK, before returning to Turkey to teach French and English there.
Have you ever been to Turkey, or met any Turks? If you are going to judge the Turkish people by the brawls in their parliament, know why Europe thinks of you as a football hooligan
If we are out it won't matter to us what they do. Not sure why that seems to be so hard to understand. The other advantage is that we can pick and choose who we let into the country instead of having to allow every EU citizen to come and live and work here if they want to.
Regardless of any other consequences this is the main reason why we have to leave. We cannot continue to support millions of people entering this country every year. There is no way to stop this unless we leave the EU
The problem with this argument is that everyone admits (even Michael Gove) that if we leave the EU and still want access to the single market (which we clearly do) then we will have to accept most of the regulations, and the free movement of people. Like Switzerland has to, and like the EEA countries have to.
If the MAIN REASON we have to leave is to stop free movement of people, and leaving will not stop the free movement of people, then it is an illogical argument.
I am not sure why this seems so hard to understand?
Once Turkey joins we will have millions of them here within a month and they will be low or non-skilled people who will be a constant drain on the country and will never contribute any net income to the pot.
Whether this is true or not is not really relevant to the debate as Turkey are not about to join the EU. They have been trying to join for ten years, and it is not going to happen for at least another ten years. EU migrants have also been proven to be net contributors to the UK economy, so why that should suddenly change if and when Turkey ever accedes to the EU I am not sure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35832035
I am not sure why all of this seems so hard to understand?
;)
. EU migrants have also been proven to be net contributors to the UK economy,?
;)
No they have not. It has been claimed, but it is clearly nonsense. If we could pick and choose who we wanted it would then be true, but we can't.
And I am struggling to comprehend how what I wrote was racist. Just seems to prove that this is really the only card you have to play.
'Turkish' was not a race last time I looked and it is a poor country with a lot of poor people looking for better, same as Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria etc. No doubt a few skilled Turks will come over, but they could do that now as you already said. Who actually has the motivation to leave their place of birth and travel a thousand miles to live in a different country with a different language and culture? Poor people, that's who.
Now if there was reasonable parity in wages and social benefits across the EU this would not be an issue and the 'in' 'out' decision would be a lot harder for me. But the fact is the Euro has screwed the economies of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and to a lesser extent Italy and France, and Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria and the other Womble countries are all desperately poor having been subjected to years of Communism/Socialism.
For these people the UK is the promised land. They can't believe their luck that they can come here to work and/or claim benefits. Try talking to some of them.
Now I don't blame them as I would do the same in their circumstances so this is not about individuals or race, it is about common sense. The UK cannot continue to be a part of the EU freedom of work/movement scheme until their economies move to a level roughly equal to ours or our economy tanks down to their level.
No they have not. It has been claimed, but it is clearly nonsense. If we could pick and choose who we wanted it would then be true, but we can't.
And I am struggling to comprehend how what I wrote was racist. Just seems to prove that this is really the only card you have to play.
'Turkish' was not a race last time I looked and it is a poor country with a lot of poor people looking for better, same as Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria etc. No doubt a few skilled Turks will come over, but they could do that now as you already said. Who actually has the motivation to leave their place of birth and travel a thousand miles to live in a different country with a different language and culture? Poor people, that's who.
Now if there was reasonable parity in wages and social benefits across the EU this would not be an issue and the 'in' 'out' decision would be a lot harder for me. But the fact is the Euro has screwed the economies of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and to a lesser extent Italy and France, and Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria and the other Womble countries are all desperately poor having been subjected to years of Communism/Socialism.
For these people the UK is the promised land. They can't believe their luck that they can come here to work and/or claim benefits. Try talking to some of them.
Now I don't blame them as I would do the same in their circumstances so this is not about individuals or race, it is about common sense. The UK cannot continue to be a part of the EU freedom of work/movement scheme until their economies move to a level roughly equal to ours or our economy tanks down to their level.
Give the Tories time:lol:
I think the single currency has been pretty much proved to be a disaster and needs scrapping. If the eu leaders cannot either see or admit that then they are doomed to go down, and take us with them, whether we have it or not.
If i feel the eu were really trying to improve matters and be prepared to say it doesnt work then im sure we wouldnt have this situation. That along with limiting the net intake for member countries. Its ok saying its the same for all countries but lets be honest, how many poor folk here want to move to places like Rumania?
That said there was supposed to have been some movement in this field
No they have not. It has been claimed, but it is clearly nonsense.
Once again we are in a debate where you just dismiss findings that are inconvenient to you as being just spurious claims, "clearly nonsense" when looked at by any rational being..
By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribution of recent arrivals from the eastern European countries that have joined the EU since 2004 has amounted to almost £5 billion. Even during the worst years of the financial crisis, in 2007-11, they made a net contribution of almost £2 billion to British public finances. Migrants from other European countries chipped in £8.6 billion.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-according-new-piece-research-what-have-immigrants-ever-done-us
Just seems to prove that this is really the only card you have to play.
Yet again, a debate where you ignore or dismiss almost all of the points being made, and instead focus on something irrelevant as being "the only card you have to play" in an attempt to dismiss everything else being said.
:eek:
'Turkish' was not a race last time I looked
This is pretty poor. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who claims to hate all Brazilians would not be a racist because "Brazilian" isn't a race??? Really?
I am not saying anything about whether you are racist or not, but it is hard to avoid the fact that the language you used in that post is the kind of language that appeals to fear of the foreigner, fear that we are going to be overrun by Turks. At the same time you totally ignore the common knowledge that Turkey is not getting membership of the EU anytime soon.
"We are going to be overrun by starving Turks"
"No we are not"
"We are going to be overrun by starving Turks"
You dont have to argue:) you can just disagree. It will save all that typing;). You wont alter his current opinions the way your going. No offence.
You dont have to argue:) you can just disagree. It will save all that typing;). You wont alter his current opinions the way your going. No offence.
Well, 'argue' has two meanings. It can mean 'to squabble, have a row' but can also mean 'to discuss' (and not necessarily to do so in a confrontational way). The trouble is that if you simply respond to a position different to your own with 'I disagree' you end up with a very short, very dull thread. (That applies to audio and musical as well political discussions, of course).
The answer is to work on the basis that everyone is expressing a sincerely held opinion, however strongly you may disagree with that opinion. If they make factual errors, it's fine to politely point these out; if you disagree with their opinions, it's fine, again politely, to specify why you disagree.
Finally, if you find discussion of a particular subject dull, there's no need to say so. Just steer clear of it.
walpurgis
09-06-2016, 14:50
Is this an argument about arguments? Or just a debate about arguing?
Once again we are in a debate where you just dismiss findings that are inconvenient to you as being just spurious claims, "clearly nonsense" when looked at by any rational being..
By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribution of recent arrivals from the eastern European countries that have joined the EU since 2004 has amounted to almost £5 billion. Even during the worst years of the financial crisis, in 2007-11, they made a net contribution of almost £2 billion to British public finances. Migrants from other European countries chipped in £8.6 billion.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-according-new-piece-research-what-have-immigrants-ever-done-us
Yet again, a debate where you ignore or dismiss almost all of the points being made, and instead focus on something irrelevant as being "the only card you have to play" in an attempt to dismiss everything else being said.
:eek:
This is pretty poor. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who claims to hate all Brazilians would not be a racist because "Brazilian" isn't a race??? Really?
I am not saying anything about whether you are racist or not, but it is hard to avoid the fact that the language you used in that post is the kind of language that appeals to fear of the foreigner, fear that we are going to be overrun by Turks. At the same time you totally ignore the common knowledge that Turkey is not getting membership of the EU anytime soon.
"We are going to be overrun by starving Turks"
"No we are not"
"We are going to be overrun by starving Turks"
I could take the same basic figures as the 'scholars' and prove unskilled immigration is costing us a fortune. How can it not be if even when they are working they are a net drain on the pot? Or do you also think that public sector workers pay income tax?
Hating Brazilians is not racism since 'Brazilian' is not a race. Just because some PC idiots don't understand the meaning of words in the English language does not mean their meaning changes for the rest of us - see also 'Homophobia'
Also I'd suggest some here and 'elsewhere' find out what GDP actually is and why it is not a measure of wealth or the relative success of an economy before referring to it again or advising someone that they are talking nonsense. If you don't have a basic understanding of economics then I appreciate it is easy to become confused about these things.
BTW understanding 'Marxist Economics' is not the same thing. It is roughly analagous to thinking you understand how to re-map the engine on an F1 car when all you actually know how to do is fix the broken wheel on your child's scooter.
Oldpinkman
09-06-2016, 17:14
No they have not. It has been claimed, but it is clearly nonsense. If we could pick and choose who we wanted it would then be true, but we can't.
Do you have any statistics for how many immigrants there are?
How many claim benefit?
What is the sterling cost of those benefits?
How many earn salaries or wages or income from self employment?
How much is collected in tax and National insurance from immigrants?
How much they spend in shops and bars, and consequently how much VAT is collected from the spending of immigrants?
(We won't go into an analysis of the wealth they generate in others - the shopkeepers, barmen, and others they spend money with, who in turn pay taxes on that income etc)
Do you have any reliable verifiable information? Because, I may have missed it, but all I have seen from you is "immigrants must cost us money" and other undubstantiated xenophobic mantra.
Agencies with access to it, are confident that the figures for tax and ni collected vastly exceed the figures for benefits paid, cost of health care provision etc.
Oldpinkman
09-06-2016, 17:33
Macca, I share Roberts frustration with your perception of yourself as a reasoned debater and intelligent analyst, when the reality is you just ignore facts that are inconvenient and promote your unsubstantiated counter-intuitive prejudices as unassailable facts.
Regarding the Turks
1 all the time we are in the EU we can veto their membership
2 It is exceptionally unlikely they will gain membership based on the pace of negotiations over the last 15 years, the extent of the divergence between entry criteria the EU insists cannot be relaxed, and Turkish willingness to accept those criteria, and the nature of the current Turkish government
3 It is true that Turkey is less wealthy than Luxembourg measured on a wealth per capita basis. It is true that its economy relies more heavily on agriculture and tourism than financial services. However, the conclusion that the rural peasants will flock to the UK for a better standard of living is a tenuous one - and unlikely to prove correct. Turkey is less wealthy - but there is less poverty. Average wages may be £40 a day, but a hotel room is £10 a night, and a meal in a restaurant £3. People look after each other - it is not a Calcutta. And the peasants are very happy where they are and, in the absence of having ISIS sell their daughters into prostitution or Assad dropping barrel bombs on them, at which point they would become refugees, they are far more interested in staying close to family, friends and rural roots. The more affluent, intelligent, educated, mobile and ambitious urban Turkish youth will very probably be very excited by the prospect of coming to the UK to enjoy a high standard of living in a developed country, and their skills, enterprise and effort will be why that immigration adds to the wealth of the UK
You are devoid of worthwile verifiable facts. The facts I presented earlier about the direct correlation between GDP per capita and levels of immigration are well attested
If you genuinely knew how to debate instead of relying on simple avoidance of uncomfortable evidence which fails to support your case, you might have asked whether there was any evidence of a causal link in those facts. In other words, am I saying that it always rains when the pavements are wet?
I could take the same basic figures as the 'scholars' and prove unskilled immigration is costing us a fortune.
I shall 'look forward' to that.
:)
I just saw this (rather long) post on my Facebook feed and thought it was not bad so I'll share it here.
The Michael Gove quote about people having "had enough of experts" I thought was quite relevant to this thread, where gut feeling seems to carry more weight with some.
Anyway, here is the far too long Facebook post:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By Nick Carter-Lando >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Immigration has been in the news a lot lately, especially with the EU referendum coming up.
So let's use the tools and data of political science to understand the topic better.
Last year, 270,000 EU citizens immigrated to the UK, and 85,000 returned to the EU. So EU net migration was around 185,000 (1). Additionally, a similar number came from outside the EU, so 330,000 in total.
That was the highest ever level of EU migration – going all the way back to when we joined the EEC in 1975. Indeed during the 1980s the trend was the other way – British workers moved overseas, particularly to Germany, as their economy was doing better than ours at that time. You might remember the TV show ‘Auf Wiedersehen Pet’. Currently our economy is doing better than many European ones so more people are coming than going. But there's no reason to think that will always be the case.
The Leave campaign claim that EU migration is putting unsustainable pressure on our public services, worsening the housing crisis, putting pressure on the NHS, on schools and on our roads. Their latest TV broadcast for instance shows a sick older lady receiving NHS treatment much faster in an imaginary hospital if we leave the EU. Are they right?
Imagine that we left the EU and banned EU immigration completely. Nobody else allowed – no footballers, no entertainers, no chefs, no businessmen, no nurses, no cleaners, nobody. And we kept that door shut for ten years. And for comparison let’s say that we stayed in the EU and immigration continues at this year’s record level (the highest ever) for the next ten years. How would that impact our population and our public services?
In terms of population, we’d end up with 1.85m fewer people living in our country after the 10 years. That sounds like a lot of people, which it is. But we’re a big country – 64.6m in total at the moment (2). So even under these very extreme assumptions the difference is only 2.8%. Less than 1 in 35.
Would you notice the difference if there were 34 instead of 35 people in your doctors’ waiting room? If there were 34 instead of 35 cars ahead of you in the traffic jam? Would your child’s education suffer in a class of 34 instead of 35? I doubt it.
And don’t forget that we’re making crazily unrealistic assumptions about how much we could reduce immigration if we left the EU. Because even the most ardent Leave campaigners don’t say that we should stop immigration altogether. They usually talk of using a points system to reach the government’s net target of 100,000 per year. So the difference in population after 10 years wouldn’t be anything like as much as 1 in 35.
Let’s say we could hit the net target of 100,000 – half from the EU and half from non-EU countries for the sake of argument. In that case, the difference in population after 10 years would be 1.35m or 1 in 49.
And don’t forget that we’re also making another very aggressive assumption – that migration will continue at the same level as last year, our highest ever. It would be more realistic to take the average of the last five years migration (3). If we do that, then the difference in our population after ten years would be only 790,000 or 1 in 82.
1 in 82.
I can’t tell the difference between a crowd of 81 and 82 people (even when they were my own wedding guests!). Can you?
So here’s the thing: however you feel about EU immigration, even under extreme assumptions the impact on our overall population just isn’t very large.
Now at this point some of you might be thinking – “This can't be right - step outside and look with your own eyes! Britain is full of foreigners! The place I grew up is like another country! How can you claim that EU immigration is not significant?”.
I live in inner London so I can sense where you might be coming from. A few things to bear in mind:
1) The overwhelming majority of immigration to the UK over the last 40 years has been from outside the EU (3). However you feel about that, it has nothing to do with our EU membership;
2) Whether you like it or not, Britain has been a multicultural country for several generations at least. You can’t tell whether somebody is an immigrant just by looking at them (sorry if this is an obvious point). You might hazard a guess at their ethnicity or race but that’s a very different thing;
3) Historically, immigrants have clustered in particular areas of the country, so your neighbourhood may not be representative of the country at large;
4) British people from all backgrounds have become much more cosmopolitan in their tastes over the last 40 years. We drink in pubs much less, but enjoy wine at home or go to restaurants and cafes a lot more. Instead of just eating British food, we enjoy flavours from all over the world. So the retail and commercial landscape of our country has changed - to reflect our changing tastes, not just because of new arrivals.
“But wait! What when Turkey, Montenegro and Albania join the EU? We’ll be swamped!”
No we won’t.
Mainly because Turkey and Albania are nowhere near being eligible to join the EU, and Montenegro is tiny. Also don't forget there are 27 other countries in the EU to choose from if residents of those countries did fancy a change of scene.
And even if in the distant future many other countries did join and we did find ourselves swamped, Britain could leave. We’re free to leave the EU whenever we want. But if we leave and then want to rejoin, we’d need the consent of all 27 other member states. Better to stay and keep our options open than leave in fear of something that is very unlikely to happen.
And so far we’ve also not factored in the contribution that immigrants make to our country, and specifically our public finances. EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they use in public services, as they are much more likely to be of working age than the general population (4). So if we used that extra tax revenue to hire more doctors, build more schools, invest in transport and so on, we’d actually have better public services than we would without any EU immigration.
It takes time to hire and train teachers and doctors, build schools and roads, and so forth. So it’s true that a sudden influx of people into an area can put short-term pressure on services. But the fundamental reason for the issues we identified at the start – NHS pressure, oversubscribed schools, congested roads, the housing crisis – is not EU immigration.
We are now six years into a government austerity programme to attempt to balance the books. So it’s not surprising that our public services are feeling the pinch.
An ageing population and new advances in medicine put particular strain on the NHS.
For the last thirty years, we have failed by a wide margin to build enough houses in the UK. Interest rates have been at an ‘emergency’ rate of 0.5% for the last seven years. That is why house prices are so high.
And this story of decades of underinvestment is repeated for our roads and railways too.
All of these issues are home-grown. And all of those policy areas are entirely within the control of our government in Westminster. They have nothing to do with the EU and are not the fault of EU migrants.
Finally, there’s been plenty of academic research into this issue, including a summary paper just published by the London School of Economics (5).
The research shows, contrary to many tabloid headlines, that
1) Immigrants do not take a disproportionate share of jobs created by our economy;
2) There is no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on wages;
3) There is no evidence that EU migrants affect the labour market performance of native-born workers (i.e. make it harder for native-born workers to get promoted, get a pay rise, etc)
So it is clear from examining the evidence that fears of immigration have been blown out of all proportion by the Eurosceptic press and the Leave campaign.
But what about all that money we send the EU? Couldn't we use that to improve public services?
Yes, but it wouldn't go very far, and it would be outweighed by the economic damage from leaving.
Our net contribution to the EU was £8.5bn last year (6) which works out at 36 pence per person per day. That is a drop in the ocean compared to our annual NHS budget of £116.4bn (7).
And if you’re trying to work out the impact of leaving the EU on our public services, you can’t just look at our net contribution. You also need to consider the effect that leaving would have on the size of our economy, and hence the tax revenue the government can generate.
Seven highly respected independent economic organisations have tried to work this out (8). And all seven of them have reached the same conclusion: that the economic damage caused by Brexit would more than offset the saving from our EU contribution.
The best estimate suggests that the government would have between £20bn and £40bn less to spend on public services than if we remained in the EU (9). So our public services wouldn't be better if we left the EU - they would be much worse.
So if we left the EU to ‘take control of immigration’, and then reduced it as discussed above, we’d still have all the same problems we have today – the housing crisis, an overstretched NHS, oversubscribed schools, heavy traffic, etc.
But we’d also have two even more serious problems to add to the list: a recession and the unknown consequences of destabilising the very institution which has secured peace in Europe for the last 70 years.
People are sceptical of economists’ forecasts. But you don’t even need to estimate many of the economic problems that will arise from Brexit – you can see them already in the currency markets.
The pound suffered its biggest one day fall in seven years when Boris and other MPs joined the leave campaign (10). You can watch the impact of movements in the referendum opinion polls in the EUR/GBP exchange rate. A major bank recently warned that Brexit could wipe 20% off the value of the pound through devaluation (11).
Devaluation sounds like a dry and abstract concept. So let me explain what that means:
20% of your life savings wiped out overnight.
The numbers in your bank account will be the same, but what you can buy with it will be 20% less, since most things we buy these days come from overseas.
Only the other day the Financial Times reported that hedge funds are planning to run their own private exit polls on referendum day to speculate on the currency markets ahead of the official result (12).
Just as during the ERM crisis of 1992, the vultures are circling, waiting to feast on our self-inflicted wounds.
And here’s another very clear threat: to our jobs. Only last Friday, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, warned his staff in Bournemouth that one, two or even four thousand of them would be made redundant if we leave the EU (13). Imagine how his staff are feeling today. And as a manager, let me tell you: that’s not the kind of thing you tell your employees unless you’re deadly serious.
Even leading Leave campaigner Michael Gove admitted just a few days ago that jobs are at risk if we leave the EU (14). Multimillionaire UKIP donor Arron Banks described this economic damage as ‘a price worth paying’ (15).
Arron Banks, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage might be rich enough to gamble their jobs on Brexit - but are you?
It is quite possible that some of your friends and family will lose their jobs as a direct result of Britain leaving the EU. Do you want to be responsible for that?
We took an evidence-based look at the immigration and EU issue above. But the Leave campaign and Eurosceptic press (Express, Sun and Mail in particular) choose to paint a very different picture. A picture which blows these statistics out of all proportion. 'Strangers in Our Own Country' 'Our borders are out of control!'. You know the stuff I mean. Pictures which invite us to eye our friends and neighbours with suspicion and even hostility. Editorial which pins the blame for every problem from housing to wages to traffic to NHS waiting times on immigrants.
And it's not even because they don't know any better. The leaders of the Leave campaign and the political editors of those newspapers are clever, well-educated people. They know the facts I set out above just as well as I do.
Yet instead of presenting a balanced view, they choose to deliberately whip up fear and suspicion of immigrants for their own political purposes.
Shame on them.
Why? Because appealing to people's basest prejudices sells newspapers and gathers votes. Just ask Donald Trump.
And what greater contrast could there be between the divisive rhetoric of the leave campaign and the noble vision of the EU's founding fathers.
Men who, amid the ashes of World War Two, set their national differences aside and dared - not just to dream but to build - a better Europe for us all.
A Europe in which war was “not only unthinkable … but materially impossible” (16).
Here’s Winston Churchill addressing the Congress of Europe in 1948:
“A high and a solemn responsibility rests upon us here ... If we allow ourselves to be rent and disordered by pettiness and small disputes, if we fail in clarity of view or courage in action, a priceless occasion may be cast away for ever. But if we all pull together and pool the luck and the comradeship - and we shall need all the comradeship and not a little luck … then all the little children who are now growing up in this tormented world may find themselves not the victors nor the vanquished in the fleeting triumphs of one country over another in the bloody turmoil of … war, but the heirs of all the treasures of the past and the masters of all the science, the abundance and the glories of the future.”
And - against all the odds - we did it.
We pooled the luck and the comradeship and achieved Churchill’s vision.
Those “little children” are now retired – the first generation in a thousand years to grow up without the horror of war in Europe.
Instead of building weapons, our scientists work together to solve the greatest problems of our age.
We enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to people in 1948.
All the cities, art, history, people, food and culture of this wonderful continent are open to us whenever we want to visit, to live or to work.
Hundreds of millions of European people who until only a few decades ago were ruled by dictators or communists now enjoy democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the abundance of the free market.
I think that’s worth 36 pence a day.
And yet here we stand, about to turn our backs on this great project, thanks to cynical newspaper owners and barefaced lies from the Leave campaign.
Forget what the Sun says.
Forget what’s good for Boris’ and Farage’s careers.
Listen to every current and former British Prime Minister (17). Every other major UK political party leader (18). To Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to Angela Merkel and a host of other world leaders (19). To Stephen Hawking and 83% of scientists (20). To 40 religious leaders (21). To 300 leading historians (22). To the Trades Union Congress and our six largest trades unions (23). To 88% of economists (24). To the National Farmers Union (25). To the Chief Executive of NHS England (26), to the Royal College of Midwives (27) To British businesses of all sizes (28).
For there is an overwhelming consensus among experts of all kinds that Britain is stronger in Europe.
And what does the Leave campaign say to this?
“I think people in this country have had enough of experts” (Michael Gove, Friday 3rd June)
What an extraordinary response.
If you were sick, you’d want to see a doctor. If you had a plane to fly, you’d want a pilot. So when we have the most important political, economic and foreign policy decision of our lifetime to make I think we should listen to the people who are in the best position to evaluate what to do. And they’re all telling us the same thing – we’re much better off in Europe.
It might not be what Michael Gove wants to hear. But it sounds like the right answer to me.
So when you’re in the polling station on Thursday 23rd - with that stubby little pencil in your hand –Vote Remain.
Not in fear, but with pride – about what we, the people of Europe, have achieved together.
Not in ignorance, but with science firmly on our side.
And not alone, but with the greatest statesmen of the past three generations urging us on.
And then in years to come, when your children ask you how you voted in the referendum of 2016, you can look them in the eye and tell them you were on the right side of history.
Thank you for reading
(1) https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
(2) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates
(3) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics/#create-graph
(4) http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-according-new-piece-research-what-have-immigrants-ever-done-us
(5) http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf
(6) https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
(7) http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx
(8) http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf
(9) http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf
(10) https://next.ft.com/content/7fa04d70-d911-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818
(11) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/24/brexit-could-wipe-20-percent-off-the-pound-warns-hsbc
(12) https://next.ft.com/content/7e26d896-241c-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d
(13) BBC Radio 4, 3rd June 2016; see also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450460
(14) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-can-t-guarantee-everyone-will-keep-their-jobs-admits-gove-7c5zttk79
(15) https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-institutions/news/73963/arron-banks-%C2%A34300-loss-price-worth-paying-brexit
(16) http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/declaration-of-9-may-1950
(17) David Cameron http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/24/david-cameron-launches-tory-campaign-to-stay-in-the-eu ; Gordon Brown http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/10/inspiring-view-britishness-defeat-brexit-isolationists; Tony Blair http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36408239; John Major http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12199111/John-Major-Voting-to-leave-will-poison-Europe-and-divide-West.html
(18) Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) http://labourlist.org/2016/04/europe-needs-to-change-but-i-am-voting-to-stay-corbyns-full-speech-on-the-eu/ Tim Farron (Lib Dem) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243112/Britain-impoverished-backwater-leave-EU-claims-Lib-Dem-leader-Tim-Farron.html Caroline Lucas (Green) http://europe.newsweek.com/caroline-lucas-brexit-european-referendum-425066 Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6944807/Nicola-Sturgeon-vows-to-back-argument-to-keep-Scotland-in-European-Union.html
(19) Barack Obama http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you-that-the-eu-makes-britain-even-gr ; Hillary Clinton http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/23/hillary-clinton-britain-should-stay-in-eu Angela Merkel http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726; Shinzo Abe http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/05/japanese-prime-minister-shinzo-abe-warns-brexit-could-hit-foreig/
(20) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/31/stephen-hawking-donald-trump-popularity-inexplicable-and-brexit-spells-disaster ; http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-say-no-to-uk-exit-from-europe-in-nature-poll-1.19636
(21) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/religious-leaders-oppose-brexit
(22) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/25/vote-to-leave-eu-will-condemn-britain-to-irrelevance-say-historians
(23) http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-unions-idUKKCN0V517D
(24) http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-29/almost-nine-in-10-economists-believe-leaving-the-eu-would-damage-the-uk-economy/
(25) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/18/british-farmers-uk-eu-nfu-brexit-farming
(26) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36353145
(27) https://www.rcm.org.uk/news-views-and-analysis/news/royal-college-of-midwives-supports-staying-in-eu-0
(28) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-eu-referendum-what-will-happen-to-british-business-if-uk-votes-to-leave-a7046941.html
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I just saw this (rather long) post on my Facebook feed and thought it was not bad so I'll share it here.
A most excellent and rational setting out of the issues at stake in this daft exercise in insanity - thanks for that :)
Shame the whole debate appears to be dominated by mob hysteria, utter nonsense, blatant opportunism and infantile reasoning.
I gave up on it some time ago ....
hifinutt
10-06-2016, 02:58
after watching farage and cameron debate the other night i am rather leaning to stay
cameron really drove home the fact that if we leave we will no longer have a place at the top table to influence matters
not only that , if mortgages go up i am done for !!!! can`t risk that and seems to be more of a risk if we leave
that said , this big red banner keeps coming up on my computer about immigrants
http://action.voteleavetakecontrol.org/immigration
now seeing as half my road is immigrants who have built businesses and are thriving extremely well and providing wealth creation to our area and hopefully paying taxes i am not sure what to think about immigration
i enjoyed reading rdpx post which gives a fair summary imho
actually the government recently had to relax controls on nurses being deported in because they were going to deport them unless they earnt more than 35K !!!!!
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/12/from-april-people-will-be-deported-for-earning-less-than-35000-5748436/
Firebottle
10-06-2016, 06:37
A good post IMHO, but how much of that 36p a day is wasted in bureaucracy?
Well, 'argue' has two meanings. It can mean 'to squabble, have a row' but can also mean 'to discuss' (and not necessarily to do so in a confrontational way). The trouble is that if you simply respond to a position different to your own with 'I disagree' you end up with a very short, very dull thread. (That applies to audio and musical as well political discussions, of course).
Indeed!
Off-topic, I know, but that's also why answers such as: "Use whatever you think sounds best to your ears" would result in precisely the same outcome, on threads where someone has asked for recommendations on which amp to buy, or whatever - a response you're known to advocate ;)
Forums thrive, and remain alive through promoting DISCUSSION and debate, even if that discussion/debate (more often than not) achieves nothing other than the respective parties airing their views, and 'getting it all off of their chests', which is why [ultimately] pointless ones such as this, because no-one's ever going to change anyone else's entrenched opinions, are allowed to take place......... ;)
Marco (who can't wait until all this boring EU voting pish is over).
pointless ones such as this, because no-one's ever going to change anyone else's entrenched opinions
Ive still to decide tbh and have been hoping to be persuded that stay is right.
If I am arguing against what I see as a very poor argument it is not with the aim that those people change their position, but rather in the hope of exposing their poor arguments to anyone else idly reading the thread.
:)
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
If I am arguing against what I see as a very poor argument it is not with the aim that those people change their position, but rather in the hope of exposing their poor arguments to anyone else idly reading the thread.
That's fine. However, whether you've succeeded in "exposing their poor arguments" or not, is entirely subjective, thus in itself is open for debate. I'm pretty sure that Macca isn't thinking you're doing that to him, or vice versa... It's a question of perception.
Therefore, you're as likely to achieve consensus there, as you would in getting your 'opponent' to change his or her position. Mmm... What's that smell? Ah yes, it's the stench of futility! ;)
Marco.
StanleyB
10-06-2016, 08:40
The problem I have with much of this is that people are not actually listening much to what is said, unless it supports their own position. An example of that:
I was watching Question Time on BBC1 last night. Nigel Farage at one stage commented that we were not giving the EU £350million a week. He said it was more than that. He said it was actually £31million a day. With that many people as part of the panel, and loads more in the audience, I was shocked to see that nobody responded. Anyone spot the lie that Farage uttered?
Next was Chris Grayling. He said that there is no way that the UE countries would agree not to trade with the UK. He offered as example that the German government would not stop BMW from selling to the UK, or France to stop their farmers from exporting to the UK. Has anyone heard of the trade bar with Russia over Ukraine? Or the previous trade bar against Iran, Cuba, etc.? So the EU can agree not to do business with other countries.
One other thing mentioned that we would be trashing out trade agreements with other countries under the WHO rules. Given the amount of countries there would have to be agreements negotiated with, how many people and how many years would these agreements take to negotiate? It could take decades.
But of course, for many people it is not about how much we would have to suffer financially. It is mainly about immigration. But what drives foreigners to want to come here? Is it not the British boast that our economy is doing well when compared to the rest of the EU? And how come that we are doing well? Is it not because of those migrants in the first place?
Marco, this thread isn't just about Martin and me. If you have nothing to contribute other than saying how boring and pointless it is, why on earth are you even reading it? We're all being very civil and it is a lively thread...
[emoji15]
But what drives foreigners to want to come here? Is it not the British boast that our economy is doing well when compared to the rest of the EU?
I wonder if the secret UKIP cunning plan is to get rid of all the pesky immigrants by so destroying the UK economy that they all end up deciding it's better to stay in Albania/Turkey/BongoBongoLand®[UKIP]?
[emoji12]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.