EU Referendum

[Ollie the Optimist]

so looks like the referendum will be held in June. What are your thoughts and how will you vote?

For me, I'm undecided but if i had to vote tomorrow, Id vote to stay in just because the leave campaign haven't convinced me that leaving is the best choice. There is a lot wrong with the EU and needs to change but while the leave campaign raise good points, they have to convince that all will be rosy if we leave. Obviously we will be able to sign trade agreements as a nation rather then a bloc but who is to guarantee that these will be good agreements in the first place? After leaving, we will be needing to sign agreements, especially to support agriculture, that it might be harder then they say. I can still be convinced by them, but their campaign is a shambles and i think most undecided voters so far will be likely to vote in rather then out if they don't improve.

[Letters]

I'm undecided too. I remain to be convinced that either option is clearly preferable.
It's a shame (although inevitable) that the campaigning so far is all based on fear ("we're DOOMED if we exit, The Jungle will be in Folkstone, the economy will collapse" and on the other side "we're DOOMED if we stay, we'll be over-run with immigrants, the EU are sucking the life out of our economy and we have no control over our laws")

If I had to vote tomorrow I think I'd vote for exit, we're (something like) the 6th largest economy in the world, our economy isn't going to collapse if we leave and it will give us more control over things. We trade with countries outside the EU fine, I don't see any reason we can't form good trade agreements with the EU if we leave. If anything the 'deal' Cameron came back with is so watered down and half arsed it pushes me more towards voting for an exit.

[Niall_Quinn]

Id vote to stay in just because the leave campaign haven't convinced me that leaving is the best choice

Eh? WTF? Somebody else hasn't convinced you? Why can't you decide for yourself? Are you saying you don't know enough to make an informed choice but if you had to make a choice now you'd take a punt? If you are waiting for a 100% biased bunch of cocks on the one side, or a 100% biased bunch of cocks on the other to woo you then just flip a coin, vote, get pissed. Much quicker.

[Letters]

We can all decide for ourselves but that decision has to be based on something.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

I'm hoping to be in a coma for a few months around June.

I'm already bored to tears with it.

[Niall_Quinn]

We can all decide for ourselves but that decision has to be based on something.

How about basing it on the decades of corruption inherent in the European mega bureaucracy? Or the anti-democratic nature of the whole thing? Or the shambles they have made of the currency? Or the mind blowing degree of corruption at the central bank? Etc, etc? This isn't really all that difficult.

[Letters]

And you think the UK government is nice and corruption free and democratic, do you?
As I said, I remain to be convinced that either option is clearly preferable.

[Niall_Quinn]

And you think the UK government is nice and corruption free and democratic, do you?
As I said, I remain to be convinced that either option is clearly preferable.

:haha:

Sorry? But when did I ever, ever say the UK government was anything other than a bunch of cunts who should be killed? I even have a thread titled as such.

[Niall_Quinn]

And you think the UK government is nice and corruption free and democratic, do you?
As I said, I remain to be convinced that either option is clearly preferable.

But wait - I missed the best part.


I remain to be convinced that either option is clearly preferable.

And that, right there, gives the whole game away.

[Xhaka Can’t]

It is funny how one of the main arguments made to convince the Scots to stay in the UK was being part of a larger market and that they'd have to negotiate with what remained of the rest of the U.K. on the terms of the rest of the U.K.

Now pretty much the same bunch of twats are saying it is a good thing for the UK to leave what is pretty much one of the biggest and most prosperous markets in the world.

[Niall_Quinn]

That's the whole con game though. This isn't about markets at all. The markets will do whatever the fuck they want to do, same as always. And the City of London is Europe's mega laundry so nothing is changing there either. Not a thing.

This is a referendum on political representation. Will we give away the last drop we have left from the cunts in Westminster and hand it over to a bunch of cunts in Brussels? That's the referendum question right there. All the rest of it is scaremongering designed to appeal to the majority who vote with their wallets but still wonder why everything has tumbled into the shitter.

I don't get why any of this is difficult to figure out. Two people in a room, each has an equal say - these two will have to reach a consensus or both will lose. Four people in a room each has an equal say - one person is going to get fucked over if there isn't unanimity. 400million people in a room, each has an equal say.

Then there's the crowd who stand in a queue for two hours and have fingers poked up their arseholes because they like freedom of movement. There's no helping these people.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Tbh, the decisions made in Europe are those that at least make our working lives less sweatshopish than those that would be made by the current government in Westminster. Things like that are more likely to influence how I vote.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the bastards in the 'Better Together' campaign.

[Letters]

:haha:

Sorry? But when did I ever, ever say the UK government was anything other than a bunch of cunts who should be killed? I even have a thread titled as such.

Yes. And leaving will give them more power. And yet you seem to think that's a good thing.
As I said, I don't think either option is clearly preferable.

You've already said the government doesn't represent us yet above you say this is a referendum about representation. :blink:
You describe Westminster and Brussels as two bunches of silly people, so why is it clearly better that we hand more power to one of those bunches of silly people rather than it being spread across two bunches of silly people. :shrug:

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. And leaving will give them more power. And yet you seem to think that's a good thing.
As I said, I don't think either option is clearly preferable.

You've already said the government doesn't represent us yet above you say this is a referendum about representation. :blink:
You describe Westminster and Brussels as two bunches of silly people, so why is it clearly better that we hand more power to one of those bunches of silly people rather than it being spread across two bunches of silly people. :shrug:

Why do you always feel the need to invent what I said, rather than just referring to what I said? It's tedious.

I said it was about representation in terms of the principle (and gave examples), not the cunts in Westminster. Let me put it another way. It's easier to throw a brick through their window and you'll only have 40 odd million cunts crying about it. Better odds.

[Niall_Quinn]

Tbh, the decisions made in Europe are those that at least make our working lives less sweatshopish than those that would be made by the current government in Westminster. Things like that are more likely to influence how I vote.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the bastards in the 'Better Together' campaign.

Oh no, I get the bit about flip-flopping and short memories. Don't worry, not many people will notice.

Anyway, the result has already been decided. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of the European monster fragmenting by choice, and certainly not by popular opinion. Ireland tried to have a similar referendum a while back so we know how these things are organised. All that really counts is the perception. If they feel they can get away with a landslide then they'll do that, so it's still worth being vociferous just to ensure they don't pull something totally stupid.

[Letters]

Let me put it another way. It's easier to throw a brick through their window and you'll only have 40 odd million cunts crying about it. Better odds.
:lol:

OK, that's a fairly reasonable argument.

Brexit, ftw!

[Letters]

Anyway, the result has already been decided.
No it hasn't.

[I am invisible]

Stay.

Honestly, I'm nowhere near smart enough to work out (or even take a guess at) what the repercussions of leaving would be, so I don't see how I can vote any other way? You don't make a decision of this magnitude without knowing what you're doing.

[I am invisible]

Also, I can't help but feel that one of the biggest problems we have with the idea of freedom of movement is that most of our own citizens are too fucking stupid to learn another language and take advantage of it, so we all end up stuck on these shores, fussing over elbow-room...

[Hump]

For me it boils down to fundamentals. On one hand the concentration of power is never a good thing, on the other Western Europe has been at it's most peaceful ever since the formation of the EU. I'll probably vote in in the vain hope that Mr Farage will finally disappear up his own fundament.

[Niall_Quinn]

No it hasn't.

You didn't watch what happened in Ireland then? Or what happened to the Dutch when they booted out that obnoxious European constitution only for it to be foisted back on them as the identical Lisbon treaty? These aren't honest people you are dealing with and they certainly aren't democratic. It should be enough for anyone to figure association of any form with these mobsters is a bad thing.

Two issues getting confused here. The idealism and the reality.

Ideally everyone trades together, cooperates, moves freely, shares the benefits of a unified marketplace and a common law in service of the people with benefits (and sanctions) applied evenly to all. A nice idea but the exact opposite of the reality.

Instead we have a rigged economic and trading system that has forced incompatible economies into line which in turn has caused great destruction in the economically less powerful nations. The evidence is in. After the initial blush of capital being dumped into these economies by vampire capitalists in volumes that could never be maintained and were obviously inflationary (hyper inflationary in some cases) came the crash. Oh yes, accidental of course - despite the easily traceable sequence of boom/ bust over close on a century now. This is how it is done. Tease with debt (money created out of thin air which is effectively a tax on real wealth) and then pull the rug. Real assets are the collateral. Structural reforms (daylight robbery) are then used to collect. Previously we did this to the developing world, now we are doing it to our own. This is the economic miracle of Europe, your basic, shabby theft but on a massive scale.

In terms of freedom, well we used to be able to turn up 30 minutes before departure, flash a passport and board the plane to wherever the fuck we wanted to go. Now what happens? People will say this is because of the terrorists. They are right, but not the same terrorists they are thinking. American and European state terrorists have made it ten times more difficult and dangerous to travel anywhere. It's their bombs that are falling all around the world. Their drones. Their "humanitarian" boots on the ground tearing up nation after nation in a real expression of their economic desire - pillage. Can it really be that all the killing we've done has been unavoidable self defence against a series of sudden enemies that decided to hate us because we are free? The sort of justification you see coming out of the TV and on the front pages of "respectable" media is comic book stuff. Who buys that shit? These things are interwoven but the shills will tell you all you need to worry about is border security. Stay in Europe and you get through, leave and you'll be blocked. Bullshit. This is the same border security that waves uncountable numbers of illegal migrants through each year. Why? Two reasons. One, we bombed the shit out of their own country so who can blame them. Two, we need cheap labour so natives having to suffer the extortionate cost of living can be kicked onto the street to be replaced by a slave. But all this is coincidence of course. And what has the great European parliament done to stem the tide of outsourcing to the labour camps in the far east, by the way?

Justice applied evenly? Has anyone been keeping up with the new International trade deals? Do you know what that means in terms of the balance between the rights of the citizen and the now superior rights of the corporation? So by an overwhelming majority you didn't want GMO? Tough shit, laws won't protect you now. This is Europe. A great fanfare in public, protecting the rights of the man in the street. A door hidden around the back through which every form of unspeakable shit seeps in, and then torrents once the people are ground down to acceptance of the inevitable.

Every aspect of this horror is a sick inversion.

But, the debate will boil down to a battle between the forces of good - those who believe in openness and cooperation and freedom and pixies at the end of the garden - and the racists on the other side who hate everyone not like them. That's the debate we are about to have. Laced liberally with fear. You'll starve and your company will collapse and you'll lose your job and you'll be on the street if you don't sign up and agree that a massive, unaccountable bureaucracy with an astonishing track record of corruption is in your best interests.

And if they don't get the result they want first time around then try, try again. You don't think we'd actually pull out if the impossible occurred and a fearful and uneducated nation suddenly woke up? That wouldn't happen. We know what would happen because we've seen it happen before. Every time a vote has gone against them they've simply ignored the result and moved the goalposts. These bastards don't take no for an answer, the record is all there to be reviewed for people who don't believe that.

So sure. This has already been decided. Let the theatre begin.

[WMUG]

You voting, NQ?

[Niall_Quinn]

You voting, NQ?

Nope. Not unless Guy Fawkes or Black September are running in my constituency.

[Letters]

Why would you not vote in a referendum? It's one of the few opportunities where your vote actually does count and you can vote directly for what you want to happen on an issue.

[Niall_Quinn]

Why would you not vote in a referendum? It's one of the few opportunities where your vote actually does count and you can vote directly for what you want to happen on an issue.

Same reason as always. Non-engagement with the establishment except where duress is used. Also, as I explained, the result is known in advance.

[Letters]

You didn't explain anything.

In a referendum it's a straight choice. It makes zero sense not to vote.

If the majority vote to stay in and you didn't vote then you have no right to complain about that - you could have done something but you didn't.

If the majority vote to Brexit then...well, we'll see what happens but I don't know what you mean by 'these bastards' not taking no for an answer. The cabinet are far from unanimous on the issue themselves - if they were we probably wouldn't be getting the referendum in the first place.

[Kano]

It always makes me laugh when people trot out the old line of 'no vote = no right to an opinion.' That narrows the ideal of democracy down to one day every five years. The endless amount of things you can do in between any referendum or vote counts for so much more. Even just having a conversation with someone else and challenging their perceptions, or vice-versa can have a much more profound effect than putting a cross on a ballot paper. Our rights and political engagement are far more valid than what happens during a voting cycle.

[Niall_Quinn]

You didn't explain anything.

In a referendum it's a straight choice. It makes zero sense not to vote.

If the majority vote to stay in and you didn't vote then you have no right to complain about that - you could have done something but you didn't.

If the majority vote to Brexit then...well, we'll see what happens but I don't know what you mean by 'these bastards' not taking no for an answer. The cabinet are far from unanimous on the issue themselves - if they were we probably wouldn't be getting the referendum in the first place.

We just have different ideas of what government actually is. You think it's an expression of representation for the people, I think something else. So my views make no sense to you, your's make no sense to me. Government is like alcoholism or drug addiction, battered wife syndrome. To go from a victim's position back to self control you need two steps. First you need to see there is a problem. For anyone on the outside looking in, this is obvious. But when you are trapped on the inside you can go for years or even a lifetime without realisation, and nobody can tell you, you have to see it for yourself. Next you have to stop feeding the problem. It seems to me, based on many exchanges now, you have started down the path of realisation. But because you haven't reached the end of that journey it still makes perfect sense, for you, to vote. I'm going through the withdrawal stage so it would be extremely self-destructive, for me, to vote. You saw I almost lapsed in the excitement of seeing a non-criminal being elected to a senior position last year. And there will be more of these temptations. Now because you are in a stage of denial you'll view everything I have said in a certain, negative way. I've seen it many time before. You'll make assumptions about my attitude and my own state of mind. My problem is I'm not very compassionate, so I have more of a "snap out of it", face slap attitude when I see people with problems. I gave you the title of a book to read a while back. The author of that book is everything I'm not. A compassionate, tolerant, patient man who has made it his work to rescue people and restore them to full awareness and self dependence. You're better going to him to try and understand why it would be impossible for me to endorse the sham that is soon to consume so many. Of course I won't vote. Just as an alcoholic with resolve won't have a drink today.

[Niall_Quinn]

It always makes me laugh when people trot out the old line of 'no vote = no right to an opinion.'

Same as, No conformity = No Status. Or tribal barbarism. If you are a protected minority then the majority will actually curb their own beliefs in your support. But if you are a minority with no status, such as a vote denier, you deserve nothing. After all, good men died so we can have the system we enjoy today. And you're absolutely right, sit down with your kids and appreciate what's really important in life. But then resolve you have a lot of bullshit to clean if you want your kids to have any life themselves.

[Letters]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/britain-to-leave-eu-because-of-massive-blond-haired-child-20160222106453

:lol:

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/britain-to-leave-eu-because-of-massive-blond-haired-child-20160222106453

:lol:

Sounds a little bitter from the Mash. Their humour has deserted them.

I think it's clever to roll Johnson out this way. It will make a lot of people think there is legitimacy to the whole process. After all, many feel Johnson would make a good PM. Think about it. Trump and Johnson in grave discussions at Camp David. But I'm the mad guy.

[Letters]

It always makes me laugh when people trot out the old line of 'no vote = no right to an opinion.'
I didn't say you can't have an opinion if you didn't vote, I said you don't have much right to complain about the outcome.
That argument works less well in an election where FPTP means most people won't be represented.
But in a referendum it's a straight choice between this path and the other. I see no reason not to vote.
Whatever you think about 'the system', for now it's the system we have and the outcome of this vote WILL change the course taken, it's a rare chance to influence the government.
Why not take it?

[Niall_Quinn]

I didn't say you can't have an opinion if you didn't vote, I said you don't have much right to complain about the outcome.
That argument works less well in an election where FPTP means most people won't be represented.
But in a referendum it's a straight choice between this path and the other. I see no reason not to vote.
Whatever you think about 'the system', for now it's the system we have and the outcome of this vote WILL change the course taken, it's a rare chance to influence the government.
Why not take it?

How is your right to complain in any way diminished? This is very confusing. If you break the law then your rights might be diminished, or if you suffer duress you may not be able to express your rights. But outside these confines, how does a failure to behave in a specific manner reduce your rights? How, for example, by standing silent and still are whatever rights you have affected? Surely it is the other way around? There are cases where if you jump up and down and scream your rights can be affected, for example shouting fire in a crowded theatre. I can't conceive a case where your assertion is valid.

I explained to you why you can't understand any course other than the one you choose. The very fact you believe you can influence the government is cause enough to doubt your course of action regardless of the amount of faith you have placed in it.

The most powerful vote possible, and the only vote that could genuinely influence anything, would be no vote at all. A total absence of compliance or engagement, the zero turnout. The fact this outcome is unrealistic because a majority can't conceive anything outside compliance doesn't invalidate the potential effectiveness of the ideal scenario. If you listen to politicians you will realise the environment they fear above all others is peaceful non-compliance. Peaceful non-compliance has rolled back empires. So it could certainly best a motley collection of child molesters and petty crooks in Westminster.

[Letters]

How is your right to complain in any way diminished?
Because you had an opportunity to influence the outcome and declined to do so.

[Niall_Quinn]

Because you had an opportunity to influence the outcome and declined to do so.

And as such, your rights have been affected - how?

[Niall_Quinn]

A vote to leave the European Union against Scotland's will would ‘almost certainly’ trigger another independence referendum, Nicola Sturgeon warned today.

The Scottish National Party leader said there would be an ‘inescapable’ shift in public opinion towards independence to guarantee Scotland's continued EU membership.

And it is ‘inevitable’ that people who voted No in 2014 would change their minds, she added.

Trying to wrap your head around this tortured logic is painful. The Scots want independence so they can guarantee their non-independence? Oh fucking hell, it's an asylum. So for her it's about hating England then? Only logical explanation.

[Niall_Quinn]

Boris Johnson's decision to defy David Cameron and back a Brexit caused the pound to fall off a cliff this morning.


The pound slid towards its lowest level against the dollar since the election in May 2010 and also fell against the euro, the yen and 14 other world currencies.


Experts believe that Boris Johnson's decision to back Britain leaving the EU has caused market uncertainty but investors are also spooked by the Prime Minister's renegotiation deal with Brussels.


Traders began selling off the pound this morning sending the price down 1.7 per cent - the biggest one-day drop sparked when the 2010 election produced no outright winner.


Meanwhile the economic costs of quitting the EU would outweigh the benefits, according to credit ratings agency Moody's, who also warned it could downgrade the UK's current Aa1 rating.


Direct manipulation by the white collar criminal class. Sterling/ Dollar exchange rates have nothing whatsoever to do with some tosser proclaiming he'll campaign for a particular position at some point in the future. This is just an opportunity for the money ghouls to frighten up a money scalping move in the the markets and is another demonstration of why they should be in jail rather that at the controls of the economy.

As for Moody's. They were one of the cunts who rubber stamped toxic mortgage backed securities with a AAA rating. Why do we still give a fuck what they say? They too should be in jail. When are we going to put them in jail?

The real issue here is not who's in charge or who has authority, but what are the people going to do about the criminals controlling their livelihoods and lives? In the Euro market, out of the Euro market, what difference does it make when the market is fucked beyond repair and serving the interests of the minority at the expense of everyone else? Anyone can be in charge of a lawful and properly regulated entity because it's the law and the regulation that matters, not the figurehead.

[Letters]

And as such, your rights have been affected - how?

OK, in the purest sense your rights remain the same but I'd be less inclined to listen to the moaning of people who had the chance to do something and didn't.

In general I agree we have very little opportunity to influence the government but a referendum is a rare chance to do so directly. In fact it's stronger than 'influence', the vote directly affects the course of action taken.

Whatever you think of 'the system', in a few months the UK will either be heading for 'Brexit' or we won't. You accept a zero vote won't happen so logically one of the courses of action will happen. You have an opinion on which should happen so use your vote and express that opinion. What do you lose by doing so?

Although I don't agree with the logic of people who don't vote in elections I do sympathise with it as any vote is often a compromise - it's unlikely any candidate with represent all your views. But in an in/out referendum you get to vote directly for the course of action you think is right.

[Niall_Quinn]

OK, in the purest sense your rights remain the same but I'd be less inclined to listen to the moaning of people who had the chance to do something and didn't.

In general I agree we have very little opportunity to influence the government but a referendum is a rare chance to do so directly. In fact it's stronger than 'influence', the vote directly affects the course of action taken.

Whatever you think of 'the system', in a few months the UK will either be heading for 'Brexit' or we won't. You accept a zero vote won't happen so logically one of the courses of action will happen. You have an opinion on which should happen so use your vote and express that opinion. What do you lose by doing so?

Although I don't agree with the logic of people who don't vote in elections I do sympathise with it as any vote is often a compromise - it's unlikely any candidate with represent all your views. But in an in/out referendum you get to vote directly for the course of action you think is right.

Purest? In both theoretical and practical senses your rights are unaltered. For example, if I write a letter to an MP do they screen it against a list of voters and throw it away if my name can't be found? Well actually they just throw it away regardless, but the point remains. It's very clear, my rights are not affected in any way if I elect to withhold my endorsement of corruption.

If there was this fit bird living down the road and you knew for a fact you could rape her and you'd never get caught, would you do it? Considering you had nothing to lose and everything to gain? So no, I won't be voting.

[Letters]

OK, I agree. Your rights aren't affected. But just don't whine about the EU if people vote to stay in and you did nothing to influence that when you could have :good:

And your analogy is completely ridiculous.

[Niall_Quinn]

OK, I agree. Your rights aren't affected. But just don't whine about the EU if people vote to stay in and you did nothing to influence that when you could have :good:

And your analogy is completely ridiculous.

It's entirely appropriate. Harm, usually extreme harm, caused to others for the purpose of self gratification. If there's a better way to describe the current state of our democracy then I can't think of it. But even if you don't accept the analogy, the principle is sound. Why would you do something you believe is fundamentally immoral just because you can or just because others are doing it? This is why the idea of forcing people to vote is so utterly abhorrent. Put me in power and allow me to run up every excess imaginable while ignoring the terms under which I was placed in power and I'll pass a law that compels you to rape women. Now how do you feel when you are doing your duty?

[Niall_Quinn]

OK, I agree. Your rights aren't affected. But just don't whine about the EU if people vote to stay in and you did nothing to influence that when you could have

Either I'm whining or I'm making an argument. Either way, you've agreed with it. Or do you mean I should shut up about corruption unless I'm prepared to endorse it with my vote?

You can't seem to think outside a very small box. The referendum is a small part of a system I fundamentally oppose. The very act of voting is endorsement of that system. It doesn't matter what the vote is about or what box is ticked, it's the act of voting that is meaningful. In a system free of corruption then this meaning is positive, inclusive, purposeful. In a system rotted out by corruption the meaning is negative and appalling. I'm not abstaining from a vote, I'm abstaining from the system that generated the vote. This abstention is an act in itself. Every action has a reaction. For every thing an absence of that thing must exist or else the thing has no meaning. You can't have on without off or on wouldn't exist. So I'll be acting, in terms of my personal beliefs in a positive and moral manner, on referendum day. I'll be abstaining, or more like ignoring. And following that I'll have every right to protest or complain about either of the outcomes any way I see fit and my complaints will have just as much substance as any other.

What you need to do is prefix almost everything you say with, "In my opinion". You have the right to the opinion that my rights are removed but you can't actually remove them :good:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No it hasn't.

I actually agree with NQ here, no government unless it's mad would hold a referendum by choice unless it could be almost certain the outcome would be in its favour.
Cameron is holding the vote in June because he is confident enough now to believe Remain will win, Referendums are the illusion of choice in that sense.
We will vote to Remain and it won't even be close.

[Globalgunner]

From the perspective of an outsider looking in I can see the source of the anxieties. The UK is an island about the 10th the size of Australia with about 3 times its population. Realistically there are only so many people it can take before its mostly Victorian era infrastructure gives up a last heave and collapses. Why does everyone fleeing to Europe want to go to England. Its simply because of the success of the English language. Its everybody's second language so every refugee wants to go there to give their offspring the best chance of succeeding in the 21st century economy. Not many people want to learn French or German. Hence the camps at Calais and the madcap schemes to get in by any means.
I consider myself a libertarian but how do you survive in an open free for all. As sad as it is I believe the UK will have no choice but to make its citizens have an ID card with biometric systems which lock out from access to all economic spheres anyone who is not certified to be here. No tube, no banking, no Big Macs, no nothing without an ID and also....do away with the bloody welfare system.
It was invented in the 60s to keep the chattering masses quiet. No job?, here take 50 quid and come back next week. It kept the rich elite safe from the prospect of hordes of jobless riotous millions. Now the numbers have overloaded the system the centre cannot cope. Ageing populace, fewer industrial jobs loads of newly Europeanised Soviets. When you won the cold war you didnt see that one coming eh?. Now the same formula was applied in Ukraine albeit less absolutely. Otherwise a few million Shevchenkos would be winging their way to England too. All the military machine cares about is making quick millions from sowing chaos, the long term effects be dammed. Basically we are the architects of our own dammed problems. Quick profit for long term pain.

I see no alternative to dismantling the welfare system. Its what draws the punters in. If the only prospect was freezing your but off in Soho without a penny in your pocket, there would be less people trooping in. No welfare for anyone or their dependants for 5 years and even then only after having worked for at least 3 of the 5. Basically you can only come in if you have applied for and got a job waiting for you, meaning you must be a specialist of some kind.

While your at it, change your laws and start voting to elect the prime minister. It is done in some other parliamentary systems. The idea that local elections determine who the leader of the country is... is frankly ridiculous. Thats how you ended up with Mrs Thatcher.

[Letters]

I actually agree with NQ here, no government unless it's mad would hold a referendum by choice unless it could be almost certain the outcome would be in its favour.
Cameron is holding the vote in June because he is confident enough now to believe Remain will win, Referendums are the illusion of choice in that sense.
We will vote to Remain and it won't even be close.

Wasn't it one of the pre-election promises to hold a referendum? As I said the government aren't unanimous on this subject.
If 'the people' vote to remain in the EU then so be it but don't say we don't have a choice or a free vote on it.

Right now I'd consider myself a floating voter but I'm leaning towards voting for Brexit. If the result is to stay in then fine but if people have a strong opinion that we should exit but don't vote because doing so is 'immoral' (whatever that means) or they can't be bothered or they think there's no point because the result is a foregone conclusion then that will be part of the reason for the result. It makes the opposite result more likely. They had an opportunity to have their say but refused to.

One of the few opportunities to directly affect government policy and people aren't voting on principle? Yeah! That'll show 'em! :blink:

[Niall_Quinn]

Wasn't it one of the pre-election promises to hold a referendum? As I said the government aren't unanimous on this subject.
If 'the people' vote to remain in the EU then so be it but don't say we don't have a choice or a free vote on it.

Right now I'd consider myself a floating voter but I'm leaning towards voting for Brexit. If the result is to stay in then fine but if people have a strong opinion that we should exit but don't vote because doing so is 'immoral' (whatever that means) or they can't be bothered or they think there's no point because the result is a foregone conclusion then that will be part of the reason for the result. It makes the opposite result more likely. They had an opportunity to have their say but refused to.

One of the few opportunities to directly affect government policy and people aren't voting on principle? Yeah! That'll show 'em! :blink:

What's it to you? Have you been paid to get out the vote or something?

[Letters]

What's it to you? Have you been paid to get out the vote or something?

I'm leaning towards thinking we should Brexit. You agree with me but on principle refuse to vote.
That makes the result I want, and you want, less likely. I'm sure that makes sense to one of us but it isn't me.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm leaning towards thinking we should Brexit. You agree with me but on principle refuse to vote.
That makes the result I want, and you want, less likely. I'm sure that makes sense to one of us but it isn't me.

That's because you don't seem capable of thinking beyond the vote to the much wider implications.

Let me try and stereotype this to help you.

Let's say the Nazis are having a referendum. Should they annex Austria, or not? Let's say you are a party worker in Germany at the time. What do you reckon? All in or stay out?

[Letters]

I'm not sure I understand your analogy but if I had an opinion about that then I'd vote the way I thought best.
But the point is if I declined to vote I'd have no say in the matter.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not sure I understand your analogy but if I had an opinion about that then I'd vote the way I thought best.
But the point is if I declined to vote I'd have no say in the matter.

Correct answer is:

(a) Germany didn't annex Austria, they unified following a democratic election in Austria where the yes vote scored 90% or something like that, and;
(b) You wouldn't ever work for a bunch of Nazis, and;
(c) You wouldn't have anything to do with the Nazis and their elections.

Blind, unthinking obedience was't actually part of the test but credit for throwing it in.

[Munchies]

Vote out

£50m a day goes to them and we get fuck all

More and more pressure on public services.

It's a joke.

[Letters]

Blind, unthinking obedience was't actually part of the test but credit for throwing it in.

It is neither unthinking nor obedience. If you're for a Brexit then I'm sure Dave would rather you didn't vote.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Wasn't it one of the pre-election promises to hold a referendum? As I said the government aren't unanimous on this subject.
If 'the people' vote to remain in the EU then so be it but don't say we don't have a choice or a free vote on it.


It's Cameron who has chosen the date, he would not have gone for the superficial reforms and then picked June if he wasn't confident of victory.
Cameron and Osbourne are the government, just like Blair and Brown before them but with less hostility.

Referendums invariably go the way the people in charge want them to go, there would literally be no point holding them otherwise.

[Niall_Quinn]

It is neither unthinking nor obedience. If you're for a Brexit then I'm sure Dave would rather you didn't vote.

If you're for a Brexit...

Right there is what I mean. Tested, packaged, marketed, it's catchy and for me it encapsulates the gravity of the situation in a way they typical voter will be comfortable with.

[Kano]

Vote out

£50m a day goes to them and we get fuck all

More and more pressure on public services.

It's a joke.
Phew.

I thought you were serous for a moment.

[Niall_Quinn]

Anyway there's still a chance those eurocunts will self destruct by June. That demonic central bank is such a corrupt fuck up even Deutsche Bank is begging it to stop.

[Letters]

It's Cameron who has chosen the date, he would not have gone for the superficial reforms and then picked June if he wasn't confident of victory.
Cameron and Osbourne are the government, just like Blair and Brown before them but with less hostility.

Referendums invariably go the way the people in charge want them to go, there would literally be no point holding them otherwise.

What is significant about June? Is that when all the people favouring a Brexit go on holiday? :unsure:

The vote will go the way 'the people' want it to. Whether that is also what 'they' want is irrelevant. And anyone favouring one course of action and not voting simply makes the other course more likely.

[Niall_Quinn]

What is significant about June? Is that when all the people favouring a Brexit go on holiday? :unsure:

The vote will go the way 'the people' want it to. Whether that is also what 'they' want is irrelevant. And anyone favouring one course of action and not voting simply makes the other course more likely.

Well at least we know you're not a paid stooge. Not a convincing one, anyway.

[WMUG]

Leave! Voting to leave!

Fucking Brexit. Ugh.

[Power n Glory]

We just have different ideas of what government actually is. You think it's an expression of representation for the people, I think something else. So my views make no sense to you, your's make no sense to me. Government is like alcoholism or drug addiction, battered wife syndrome. To go from a victim's position back to self control you need two steps. First you need to see there is a problem. For anyone on the outside looking in, this is obvious. But when you are trapped on the inside you can go for years or even a lifetime without realisation, and nobody can tell you, you have to see it for yourself. Next you have to stop feeding the problem. It seems to me, based on many exchanges now, you have started down the path of realisation. But because you haven't reached the end of that journey it still makes perfect sense, for you, to vote. I'm going through the withdrawal stage so it would be extremely self-destructive, for me, to vote. You saw I almost lapsed in the excitement of seeing a non-criminal being elected to a senior position last year. And there will be more of these temptations. Now because you are in a stage of denial you'll view everything I have said in a certain, negative way. I've seen it many time before. You'll make assumptions about my attitude and my own state of mind. My problem is I'm not very compassionate, so I have more of a "snap out of it", face slap attitude when I see people with problems. I gave you the title of a book to read a while back. The author of that book is everything I'm not. A compassionate, tolerant, patient man who has made it his work to rescue people and restore them to full awareness and self dependence. You're better going to him to try and understand why it would be impossible for me to endorse the sham that is soon to consume so many. Of course I won't vote. Just as an alcoholic with resolve won't have a drink today.

What's the book?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What is significant about June? Is that when all the people favouring a Brexit go on holiday? :unsure:

The vote will go the way 'the people' want it to. Whether that is also what 'they' want is irrelevant. And anyone favouring one course of action and not voting simply makes the other course more likely.

The point is that if Cameron thought for a moment that Out might win than he would be delaying the referendum, he's holding it now because he believes it's the optimum time for Remain.
The people may decide but politicians will hold a referendum when they are convinced you will decide the way they want you to decide.

[Niall_Quinn]

What's the book?

Voltaire's Bastards by John Raulston Saul. Letters promised to read it once he'd got through all his back issues of Pravda.

[Power n Glory]

Cheers on the reading list. Will check it out.

[Letters]

Voltaire's Bastards by John Raulston Saul. Letters promised to read it once he'd got through all his back issues of Pravda.

I'm not sure I 'promised' to :lol:
I might have a look. Reading 1984 at the moment. It's really good :o

[Letters]

Oh also, we just had an email (as we work in the Public Sector) saying

"Civil servants must ensure that they conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code. In particular, civil servants are under an obligation:
- not to undertake any activity which could call into question their political impartiality; and,
- to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes."



So, for the record, I have no opinion about this referendum...

[Niall_Quinn]

Oh also, we just had an email (as we work in the Public Sector) saying

"Civil servants must ensure that they conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code. In particular, civil servants are under an obligation:
- not to undertake any activity which could call into question their political impartiality; and,
- to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes."



So, for the record, I have no opinion about this referendum...

Wouldn't stand up for 30 seconds in a real court. Those kangaroo venues run by the Crown Plc, not so sure what would happen there but undoubtedly you'd end up paying them money for something or another.

Safest bet is to send an email back telling them to fuck themselves, which they probably do anyway on a daily basis.

I hate your fucking bosses already and I don't even work there. Cunts.

[Coney]

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/23/leading-brexit-campaigners-coincidentally-a-shower-of-cnts/

Was slightly hesitant until I saw Gove and IDS talking about moving out. Then I thought about the protection of working people that the EU rules give - that if we leave, the Tories will immediately take advantage and increase the shit dropped on the less fortunate. There are many things wrong with the EU but the things that are right far outweigh the issues.

Having said that, what little Cameron 'won' from the EU is irrelevant droplets. The bollocks about reducing the number of people wanting to come here by removing the in-work top-ups is bogus. They are NOT coming for that - they are coming for the work. The fact that once they get a job they can claim that atm is not the driving force that brings them. It is the chance for genuine work. Very few come here to claim benefits - lazy asses do not travel long distances and the percentage of indigenous Brits claiming benefits is massively higher than the percentage of visitors. It's obvious really - if you are able to get off your arse and travel and fight to get here, you are more likely to be the kind of person who actually wants to improve themselves by actually doing something like working.

Be that as it may, I will vote to stay in. Even if some people think that everyone else in the country is a c*nt and that everyone is stupid except themselves, being the only one who understands everything.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/23/leading-brexit-campaigners-coincidentally-a-shower-of-cnts/

Was slightly hesitant until I saw Gove and IDS talking about moving out. Then I thought about the protection of working people that the EU rules give - that if we leave, the Tories will immediately take advantage and increase the shit dropped on the less fortunate. There are many things wrong with the EU but the things that are right far outweigh the issues.

Having said that, what little Cameron 'won' from the EU is irrelevant droplets. The bollocks about reducing the number of people wanting to come here by removing the in-work top-ups is bogus. They are NOT coming for that - they are coming for the work. The fact that once they get a job they can claim that atm is not the driving force that brings them. It is the chance for genuine work. Very few come here to claim benefits - lazy asses do not travel long distances and the percentage of indigenous Brits claiming benefits is massively higher than the percentage of visitors. It's obvious really - if you are able to get off your arse and travel and fight to get here, you are more likely to be the kind of person who actually wants to improve themselves by actually doing something like working.

Be that as it may, I will vote to stay in. Even if some people think that everyone else in the country is a c*nt and that everyone is stupid except themselves, being the only one who understands everything.

The re negotiations were meant to be droplets intended to give Cameron something to sell to the Tories

Remain will win, and it's not going to be close either, I would probably say 59-41%

[Niall_Quinn]

The re negotiations were meant to be droplets intended to give Cameron something to sell to the Tories

Remain will win, and it's not going to be close either, I would probably say 59-41%

I guessed 58-42.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/23/leading-brexit-campaigners-coincidentally-a-shower-of-cnts/

Was slightly hesitant until I saw Gove and IDS talking about moving out. Then I thought about the protection of working people that the EU rules give - that if we leave, the Tories will immediately take advantage and increase the shit dropped on the less fortunate. There are many things wrong with the EU but the things that are right far outweigh the issues.

Having said that, what little Cameron 'won' from the EU is irrelevant droplets. The bollocks about reducing the number of people wanting to come here by removing the in-work top-ups is bogus. They are NOT coming for that - they are coming for the work. The fact that once they get a job they can claim that atm is not the driving force that brings them. It is the chance for genuine work. Very few come here to claim benefits - lazy asses do not travel long distances and the percentage of indigenous Brits claiming benefits is massively higher than the percentage of visitors. It's obvious really - if you are able to get off your arse and travel and fight to get here, you are more likely to be the kind of person who actually wants to improve themselves by actually doing something like working.

Be that as it may, I will vote to stay in. Even if some people think that everyone else in the country is a c*nt and that everyone is stupid except themselves, being the only one who understands everything.

OR, you could address the points raised or failing that, at least have the bollocks to face up and name names.

I don't think I know everything. I read, watch, listen, associate events, filter out what's unknowable and see what is remaining. If this tallies with what I see when I look out the window then I'm on solid ground. I don't do little fantasy worlds where corporate dickheads masquerading as leaders of society give us permission to live our lives. You whole post stinks of nanny, nanny X rather than nasty nanny Y. If you don't want Tories doing their shit then go and have a word with the Tories, don't go running to some other raving, self-interested bureaucrat to save you. Stand on your own two feet and stop grovelling and begging.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I have a feeling by the time my life ends, we are going to find out how little all this matters

Politics and power is all about control of scarcity, once that scarcity no longer exists you may then get the sovereignty of the individual you seek.

[Letters]

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/23/leading-brexit-campaigners-coincidentally-a-shower-of-cnts/

Was slightly hesitant until I saw Gove and IDS talking about moving out. Then I thought about the protection of working people that the EU rules give - that if we leave, the Tories will immediately take advantage and increase the shit dropped on the less fortunate. There are many things wrong with the EU but the things that are right far outweigh the issues.

You say that but officially 'the government' are in favour of staying although they're far from unanimous on it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That government ministers are being allowed to campaign according to their conscience doesn't change the fact that the governments official position is to remain.
The lack of unanimity is because collective ministerial responsibility is not being applied here, and as we have seen with Gove and Johnson a lot of decision making is being informed by political manuevering rather than conviction.
The whole referendum is an exercise to answer the question in the Tory party (although Labour's 1975 referendum and its pledge to leave in its 1983 election manifesto suggests this is wishful thinking).
Johnson or Osbourne will be the next prime minister, there will be no do over once the remain result happens in June barring a massive structural change in the EU, there will not be another referendum again for a long time.

[Ollie the Optimist]

That government ministers are being allowed to campaign according to their conscience doesn't change the fact that the governments official position is to remain.
The lack of unanimity is because collective ministerial responsibility is not being applied here, and as we have seen with Gove and Johnson a lot of decision making is being informed by political manuevering rather than conviction.
The whole referendum is an exercise to answer the question in the Tory party (although Labour's 1975 referendum and its pledge to leave in its 1983 election manifesto suggests this is wishful thinking).
Johnson or Osbourne will be the next prime minister, there will be no do over once the remain result happens in June barring a massive structural change in the EU, there will not be another referendum again for a long time.

I agree with the sentiment but you have picked the wrong two people as an example. Gove has always been a eurosceptic and he has backed his convictions to vote leave, by standing up for what he believes in not what the PM wants him to vote for. I'd say that shows a lot of conviction, same with Boris. He's been a eurosceptic and is backing it.

Some of the cabinet minsters have claimed to be eurosceptic, Javid/May to name but two, but as soon as the vote comes, they don't go wit their convictions but with what will keep them their jobs etc.

Corbyn and Mcdonell are also guilty of this, both being eurosceptics themselves but they can't bring themselves to vote out as it means going with the tories (who most members of the party are eurosceptics).

I agree that most MP's on all sides are choosing their positions by political manoeuvring but your two examples of Gove and Johnson aren't IMO.

[Maestro]

“This absence of intellectual mechanisms for questioning our own actions becomes clear when the expression of any unstructured doubt — for example, over the export of arms to potential enemies or the loss of shareholder power to managers or the loss of parliamentary power to the executive — is automatically categorized as naive or idealistic or bad for the economy or simply bad for jobs. And should we attempt to use sensible words to deal with these problems, they will be caught up immediately in the structures of the official arguments which accompany the official modern ideologies — arguments as sterile as the ideologies are irrelevant.”
― John Ralston Saul, Voltaire's Bastards

Profiteers masquerading as representatives of the common man. Pretty sharpish it will be "you've had your vote, now shut up and leave us to continue plundering. Thank you for your interest in our affairs you minions"

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm sorry you're completely wrong, both are exactly that.

Johnson and Gove of course are Euroskeptic, Heseltine and Ken Clarke are the only Tories left who aren't

There is a difference between being euroskeptic and an Outer.

Gove probably does think we would be better off leaving however he is loyal to both Cameron and Osbourne, the reason he has sided with leave is to make himself a spoiler candidate in the Tory leadership contest to help Osbourne win by trying to get on the final ballot or take votes away from Johnson at least.

Johnson has never even privately expressed the opinion that we are better off outside the EU, but he knows he literally has nothing to lose. If Out win, Cameron resigns and he becomes odds on favourite to succeed and if Remain wins he can win over both backbenchers and grassroots over with his Anti EU credentials. Johnson is by far the most cynical and manipulative politician in modern British politics, he has no principles other than what's best for Boris Johnson.

If you believe in anyway that Johnson is taking a principled stand you have to ask yourself why he waited so long before deciding on which hook to hang his hat, he didn't want to risk siding with the Outers too early if Cameron's deal United the party behind him.

It's nonsense, Boris Johnson is totally unprincipled and unscrupulous and hides it behind this bluster of an affable buffoon when stupid is the last thing he is.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's nonsense, Boris Johnson is totally unprincipled and unscrupulous and hides it behind this bluster of an affable buffoon when stupid is the last thing he is.

Far too kind a critique of that cunt.

[rodders]

Yet to hear a single convincing argument on either side

[Letters]

Agree. I don't think either option is clearly preferable.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Agree. I don't think either option is clearly preferable.

Precisely why Remain will win, because if people look at two options and think neither is particularly great they will stick with the option they are currently with.

Really it is totally encumbent on Out to win the argument and with the cast of Police Academy heading up the campaign they have all their work ahead of them.

[Letters]

I agree that people will tend to vote for the status quo but immigration is becoming an increasingly hot topic and leaving the EU us the only way we can realistically control that.
I think IN will win too, but I don't agree it's a foregone conclusion. And whichever side wins...well, everyone eligible to vote had the chance to do so, at least this is a more pure form of democracy where the popular vote wins the day.

[Niall_Quinn]

Really it is totally encumbent on Out to win the argument and with the cast of Police Academy heading up the campaign they have all their work ahead of them.

That's why they are heading it up. Thank them later.

Despite them, you have to be deliberately avoiding most issues to want anything to do with the EU. Ask them what they've achieved on any issues, pick anything, and the answer is superlative corruption and the deepest inequality. Their own marketing literature trumpeting their triumphs is so vague and misleading it makes Blatter look like a straight shooter.

But, pakis and wonga will be the pushbutton issues and most will go with wonga - in a socially responsible manner of course.

[Ollie the Optimist]

All i hope is that the result is decisive whichever way it goes. Don't want a 48-52 etc as then the losing side will claim to be close to winning and then in 2020 it all starts again as parties campaign to hold another referendum like the SNP now

[Letters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBi-KXc0CRk

Well if that doesn't convince you then I give up :sulk:

[Niall_Quinn]

The Biased Broadcasting Cunts in action.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFmDePLUNV0

[Xhaka Can’t]

I'm no fan of GG but that was a fucking car crash interview and he kept trying to pull her from the wreckage when really he should just have driven a bus over her.

[The Wengerbabies]

Out out out.

Europe is a mess.

It started as a trading block but has morphed into something totally unrecognizable, an undemocratic, totalitarian dictatorship. There are far too many incompatible countries and the EU eroded far too much sovereignty.

Add to that the current crisis with the migration and Merkels unrelenting determination to destroy Europe and create Eurabia you have the very definition of a no brainer.

Unfortunately however the electorate is generally pretty stupid and I think we will remain/

[Niall_Quinn]

Out out out.

Europe is a mess.

It started as a trading block but has morphed into something totally unrecognizable, an undemocratic, totalitarian dictatorship. There are far too many incompatible countries and the EU eroded far too much sovereignty.

Add to that the current crisis with the migration and Merkels unrelenting determination to destroy Europe and create Eurabia you have the very definition of a no brainer.

Unfortunately however the electorate is generally pretty stupid and I think we will remain/

You will lose your job and it will cost you £9million personally if we leave the EU. Plus you'll be a racist.

[The Wengerbabies]

You will lose your job and it will cost you £9million personally if we leave the EU. Plus you'll be a racist.

You make good points. Also we are safer in Europe despite it being a jihadi infested hell hole.

[GP]

You will lose your job and it will cost you £9million personally if we leave the EU. Plus you'll be a racist.

Jokes on you, I'm already a racist.

[Xhaka Can’t]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBi-KXc0CRk

Well if that doesn't convince you then I give up :sulk:

I had fish today. And there is no way I'm coming out.

Man, they're full of shit.

[Xhaka Can’t]

You make good points. Also we are safer in Europe despite it being a jihadi infested hell hole.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6d/1d/a3/6d1da31e1a53e68f8de1f37101ac3c29.jpg
7/7

[The Wengerbabies]

7/7
Oh you're absolutely right. We do have problems with muslims but how does staying in Europe keep us safer?

Belgian intelligence has proven to be incompetent and you've got Merkel importing untold numbers of degenerates. What she has done to Germany and Europe is a disgrace.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Oh you're absolutely right. We do have problems with muslims but how does staying in Europe keep us safer?

Belgian intelligence has proven to be incompetent and you've got Merkel importing untold numbers of degenerates. What she has done to Germany and Europe is a disgrace.

Border controls for what they're worth remain in Belgium and Calais.

[The Wengerbabies]

Border controls for what they're worth remain in Belgium and Calais.

You are aware we are on an island right?

How will they get here? Are the French just going to ship them across? Will they just be allowed to get Eurostar trains? Even if they did they have to get through passport control at St. Pancras.

[Niall_Quinn]

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

Make up your own mind, if you still have one.

[Letters]

You are aware we are on an island right?

How will they get here? Are the French just going to ship them across? Will they just be allowed to get Eurostar trains? Even if they did they have to get through passport control at St. Pancras.

Yeah. There's sea between Syria and Europe and literally no-one is managing to get across that.

[Xhaka Can’t]

You are aware we are on an island right?

How will they get here? Are the French just going to ship them across? Will they just be allowed to get Eurostar trains? Even if they did they have to get through passport control at St. Pancras.

Yes I am.

And you are unaware where our initial border controls take place as a result of agreements with Belgium and more importantly, France.

You are probably also unaware of the impact on illegal immigration of this first line of defense. A control that would not exist without these agreements that would not survive a Brexit.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Yeah. There's sea between Syria and Europe and literally no-one is managing to get across that.


Thank fuck for water.

Salty water :bow:

[Niall_Quinn]

Both sides of this argument have one thing in common, they want people to focus on the symptoms rather than the problems. Immigration into the UK is not the problem, it's the symptom of this foul thing called globalisation/ liberalisation, whatever they are calling it these days. I think some go as far as to call it free trade in the most stunning reversal of meaning and intent. Trade deals are a related red herring (red being appropriate). Free trade agreements, an oxymoron as you can't have free trade that is subject to any form of agreement, it's either free or it's something else. Peace in Europe, another myth. Warfare has changed amongst the civilised warmongers. Contemporary wars are economic and they are always targeted at the civilian population. Traditional war, where you destroy human beings quickly by blowing them to pieces rather than slowly by depriving them of their standard of living, is reserved for unenlightened targets, your stereotypical brownies or darkies or commies. This is the most dishonest debate, framed by both sides for the convenience of the ruling classes. In or out absolutely nothing of significance will change, not unless the majority wakes up and realises the destruction of the European superstate is just the first step on the road to dismantling the state in general. We have no chance of that if we are determined to move towards larger and larger authoritarian structures. The immigration "problem" can be solved by leaving human beings to live and cooperate in peace in their own cultural environments. Destroy their environments and of course they will want to leave, their destination being the nations that stole their standard of living. Isn't this obvious? So you then have to wonder why neither side of the debate raises the issue. Farage and his gang are just as phoney as the Ken Clarke club. Fuck them both. Cunts.

[Letters]

Yes I am.

And you are unaware where our initial border controls take place as a result of agreements with Belgium and more importantly, France.

You are probably also unaware of the impact on illegal immigration of this first line of defense. A control that would not exist without these agreements that would not survive a Brexit.

I imagine the list of things that The Wengerbabies is unaware of is quite extensive.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Oooh that reminds me I need to send off a submission for a postal vote for this as I'm out of the country during the referendum.

As convinced as I am that the vote won't be close and remain will win by a comfortable margin, no sense in taking chances.

I still never fully forgave my brother for failing to register to vote in Bethnal Green and Bow when George Galloway won there in 2005, true Galloway would have won anyway but at least he could have said he did his bit to prevent that.

[The Wengerbabies]

Yes I am.

And you are unaware where our initial border controls take place as a result of agreements with Belgium and more importantly, France.

You are probably also unaware of the impact on illegal immigration of this first line of defense. A control that would not exist without these agreements that would not survive a Brexit.

So we check them here instead of there big deal.


I imagine the list of things that The Wengerbabies is unaware of is quite extensive.
I am at least capable of independent thought, not blindly succumbing to the establishments will.

You guys probably also believe the false narrative that Donald Trump is a racist and the prospect of him becoming POTUS is frightening when in reality he is Western civilizations last hope.

http://i.imgur.com/jCoqX1I.png

[Xhaka Can’t]

So we check them here instead of there big deal.


I am at least capable of independent thought, not blindly succumbing to the establishments will.

You guys probably also believe the false narrative that Donald Trump is a racist and the prospect of him becoming POTUS is frightening when in reality he is Western civilizations last hope.

http://i.imgur.com/jCoqX1I.png

The big deal being that they aren't in the country when they are being checked so they aren't our problem.

[Letters]

You guys probably also believe the false narrative that Donald Trump is a racist and the prospect of him becoming POTUS is frightening when in reality he is Western civilizations last hope.
Seriously can't work out if you're genuinely a moran or just pretending to be.

[Niall_Quinn]

I am at least capable of independent thought, not blindly succumbing to the establishments will.

I'm afraid if Trump was the real deal he'd be dead by now. He hasn't raised a single relevant issue during his campaign. Don't pin your hopes on him, he's the reverse Obama - "real change" but for the right wing. He diffuses the genuine issues the right had with the Tea Party. It's the Tea Party they are frightened of, not Trump. That's why they keep leaking these stories about the GOP being "terrified" of Trump and in "meltdown" because of Trump - but you don't hear the reverse spin in defence. Hell even Alex Jones has become mainstream with his psychological bullshit about the GOP gearing up to "steal" the nomination from Trump. Now then all you Tea Party and Occupy and From My Cold Dead Hands crowd, you know your duty, protect "your" man Trump at all costs. Very clever.

Trump is nothing and even if he won he'd have zero say in how the nation is governed. And given the "choices", you have to hope he wins because the alternative is unspeakable. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Trump has been hand-picked to usher another criminal Clinton into the Whitehouse. It is literally a miracle that woman is still in the race, what with the sheer volume of dirt that could be dished on her to knock her out and destroy her forever. This is demonstration enough the game is rigged.

[Niall_Quinn]

Seriously can't work out if you're genuinely a moran or just pretending to be.

And seriously - you are a member of the church and you vote in elections, so please, a little self reflection before you start calling people names.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

When I read your opinions I honestly don't know if you're the only one who is sane in a crazy world or whether I should be afraid that you might end up on a one man bombing campaign. Referring to your bombs as alarm clocks to "wake up" a pacified nation.

But then I remember that you're actually quite apathetic, the way I often feel when I decide if I can be bothered to have sex with a casual partner, usually I opt that it's not worth a lot of effort making conversation with someone who bores me and pay fawning compliments of which none are genuine just for the same gratification I can get from a hand shandy.

I think on balance the majority of your assertions are either astute or have some truth in them, but I generally don't care enough to get angry about it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

And yes Alex Jones believes in about as much of what he says as Donald Trump does.

[Letters]

And yes Alex Jones believes in about as much of what he says as Donald Trump does.

Walking In The Air :bow:

[Letters]

And seriously - you are a member of the church and you vote in elections.

:blink:

I'm sure you think you've made a point there.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

I have to say I'm drifting toward 'Leave'. I can't put my finger on why, nor thought that I would, though I still think we will vote to stay.

[GP]

BRITAIN OUT!!

[Niall_Quinn]

When I read your opinions I honestly don't know if you're the only one who is sane in a crazy world or whether I should be afraid that you might end up on a one man bombing campaign. Referring to your bombs as alarm clocks to "wake up" a pacified nation.

But then I remember that you're actually quite apathetic, the way I often feel when I decide if I can be bothered to have sex with a casual partner, usually I opt that it's not worth a lot of effort making conversation with someone who bores me and pay fawning compliments of which none are genuine just for the same gratification I can get from a hand shandy.

I think on balance the majority of your assertions are either astute or have some truth in them, but I generally don't care enough to get angry about it.

Maybe - but you THINK about and that's the whole game right there. We don't have to have a revolution, we just need enough people to think for a moment. Then they will find they are better than they have been told they are. The psychopaths are in a tiny minority and could never dictate if the majority just said no.

Look at Letters' response. The absolute and final, without negotiation, unwillingness to think.

[Niall_Quinn]

I have to say I'm drifting toward 'Leave'. I can't put my finger on why, nor thought that I would, though I still think we will vote to stay.

Maybe it's because it's the sane choice and you naturally tend towards sanity?

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm quite surprised at how quickly the out opinion has gathered momentum. When you see so many people determined on a course of action despite the establishment raging against them with every weapon in the arsenal you know the consensus is overwhelmingly there. It won't make a difference unfortunately.

[GP]

I think we should stay because Mr Cameron says so and as the democratically elected leader he has our best interests at heart.

[Letters]

I think we should stay because Mr Cameron says so and as the democratically elected leader he has our best interests at heart.

I think we should leave so I'll take the most rational course of action, which is not to vote thus making the chances of us staying higher. Then, if the vote is to stay, I can say it's all fixed and there's nothing I could have done about it.

Logic :bow:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think we should leave so I'll take the most rational course of action, which is not to vote thus making the chances of us staying higher. Then, if the vote is to stay, I can say it's all fixed and there's nothing I could have done about it.

Logic :bow:

Well the reasons people cite for wanting to leave mean nothing to me, "the EU is a giant neoliberal construct forcing free trade, and free movement to keep wages low" of course it is but the same people will still be in government if we leave and they don't seem overly bothered by low wages.
"We will have more control over immigration" from within the Eurozone but the immigration issue is less economic migrants and more refugees and assylum seekers from outside the Eurozone and if the French don't give a fuck about border control now why are they going to give a fuck when we aren't a fellow member state.

Plus the immigration debate is about the amount of legal migrants, it's not going to stop people coming here illegally and who likes undocumented workers??? Big businesses.

The people who want us to leave want to turn Britain into some mercantile offshore holding company, so if anything expect more Chinese to buy property that no one lives in, in London.

The crux of the matter is that the people who fuck us over will still be there whether we leave or stay, my mate said to me it's the only way to pull back against globalisation, I told him he should be selling pencils from a cup....there is no pulling back.

Oh and I don't give a flying fuck about the non elected nature of the EU, I wish there were different people in charge but not because they weren't elected to those positions because the flip side of democracy is allowing (nay encouraging) stupid people to vote.

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35984991

:popcorn:

[Niall_Quinn]

What did you expect? The Euro cunts to use their own money?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Who gives a fuck it's not like anyone in leave has or is capable of making a coherent argument

It's a bit of a waste of taxpayers money when Remain will win regardless

[Letters]

On what basis do you keep saying that?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Because referendums habitually go the way a government want them to, because there has been no consistent polling showing anything but a lead for remain and because plenty of people have negative views of the EU but no one in leave can offer a consistent narrative of what Britain does next.
People being cross with the EU leading to Brexit is the same kind of wooly thinking that people claiming the Tories being bad means people will vote for Labour.

Remain will win, even many Brexiters think that will be the case.

[Letters]

I think Remain will win too, but I don't agree it's a given. And the referendum will go the way 'the people' decide, if that happens to be the same way the government want then so be it but it won't go that way BECAUSE it's what the government want.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Governments get to decide how the question is asked and the timing of referendums and they often get more media saturation than the opposing side and this pamphlet feeds into that, don't get me wrong like I say remain will win anyway. Also governments don't hold referendums unless they are sure they will win.

This can't be compared to the independence referendum which was forced on the government by the SNP victory in holyrood and won despite a pretty terrible better together campaign. It was the government who promised a referendum, the government who set out the timetable for the referendum etc.

Referendums are the illusion of choice and always politically motivated.

[Niall_Quinn]

The argument for leaving is not only coherent, it's obvious. You cannot be independent if your laws are made elsewhere. This is a very simple concept to grasp. Of course the question will not be framed in an honest manner. The real issue lies with the people supposedly making the choice. Very few, it seems, can resist fear. Very few, it seems, can see the arguments are actually reversed.

Europe is a con game, another in a long line of con games. You get nothing. Look at the numbers. Look at the accelerating trends. Under your nose. And everything is connected. For example, these Panama Papers, or Soros Papers if we are to be accurate. Is it just a coincidence that Panama is holding out against the global sharing of personal financial information? Or that Iceland has been targeted? All around you is the developing apparatus of centralised global government and it is a vain and vengeful master. Europe is just another step in the process, not the end game, and you can see the same process occurring across the continents. Go and look. Europe brings us one phase closer to global unification. A worthy aim you might imagine. But do you really think this is being done for your benefit? Since when has anything ever been done for your benefit? What types of people are driving this project? Who are the foxes herding the hens? You're the hens by the way, just in case you don't even grasp that much.

The question then. Do you want independence? Yes or No?

The question is NOT - are you a nationalist, or do you love or loathe the government, or are you a Tory, or any of that other mindless and irrelevant shit. People have fought and died for independence, not because there is something inherently worthy in the nation state (there isn't) but because the closer your are to the decision making process the more chance you have of restraining the excesses of the ruling classes. Not a big chance, a slim one, but a chance that reduces in line with the increasing number of people allegedly represented. Again, obvious.

The answer to the real question will be no because people don't understand the question. And even if it ended up as yes, does anyone really think that would be the end of it? These grand projects are not open to being derailed by uppity plebs. You can attend the theatre but you're not invited on to the stage.

I find it increasingly baffling that so many still believe government and global government is there to represent them. It's as if history is erased each time the clock ticks to the next minute.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

To be fair NQ, you don't believe in any form of government and whilst I respect that view the mechanics of the alternatives have never sat well with me.

And in that sense, i can't imagine it would matter to you whether laws are made in Brussels or Westminster.

And leaving won't bring about the society of total self determination that you think we should strive for.

[Niall_Quinn]

To be fair NQ, you don't believe in any form of government and whilst I respect that view the mechanics of the alternatives have never sat well with me.

And in that sense, i can't imagine it would matter to you whether laws are made in Brussels or Westminster.

And leaving won't bring about the society of total self determination that you think we should strive for.

We are talking about the governance of 60 million people as opposed to 400 million and growing. Quite the difference in terms of representation and accountability. And Britain is not the government, even though they would prefer people think that way. You don't have to accept government to reach the conclusion less of it is better then more of it if currently inflicted with it.

Nowhere have I said we must leap from government to liberty in one bound. Obviously there are stages in between, spanning decades or even centuries I would think. But to commence on that path you don't go in the opposite direction.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Fair enough, i don't agree that Brexit is even a stepping stone towards the type of society you would like or will budge it in the direction you want it go one inch but as a point of logic i can't argue with that.

Of course as i don't want the same society you think we should live in, that's what my decision is based on.

[Letters]

Referendums are the illusion of choice and always politically motivated.
No, it's not the illusion of choice. Everyone who is registered to vote gets to choose and the majority will decide what action the government will take.
However the question is phrased it's pretty clear what the options are and what the issue is. As for media saturation I think it's been pretty balanced so far.
It's a far more pure choice than in a general election where you're usually reduced to picking the least bad option or the one you think has a chance of winning.
This is a clear choice and every vote counts. What the government wants to happen is irrelevant. Cameron is hardly popular, despite the election result. I don't think that many people will be voting to stay because he says so.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

How the question is phrased will make a difference, you make the assumption that people are clued up and know what they are voting for.

If a question is posed in a way that makes Staying in the more positive choice, people will go for that.

Holding a referendum at a time when you think is the most optimum time to win tends to help, and if Cameron didn't think he could win the referendum he would not have offered one in the first place.

It's not a conspiracy, it's an open secret....this is how referendums have always worked....it's the illusion of direct democracy

Whilst a government serves it's term in power it would be insane for it to risk offering a vote that it felt it could lose, but when it comes to big issues of populism like this one has to give the appearance that it's the people that choose.

It was no different when the referendum was held in 1975, Wilson wanted to settle the matter in his own party and actually played the two sides off against each other whilst he adopted a neutral stance but ultimately he held the referendum because he believed he would win it.

The same way before the fixed term parliaments came in, Prime Ministers would dissolve parliament at four years instead of carrying on for the full five years because they felt they were best placed to win.

[Niall_Quinn]

Fair enough, i don't agree that Brexit is even a stepping stone towards the type of society you would like or will budge it in the direction you want it go one inch but as a point of logic i can't argue with that.

Of course as i don't want the same society you think we should live in, that's what my decision is based on.

I don't think you should live in any society of my choosing. Choose your own. That's what liberty is all about. I have no interest in telling you how to live, but I do have a complaint when people not only tell me how I should live but threaten or use force to compel me. Removing government does not remove society. Government isn't a real entity, it has no substance in itself. It's just a collection of individuals who believe they have the right to behave in a manner the rest of us are denied. They can use violence to steal, the rest of us can't. They can write laws to favour their friends or bribe sections of society at the expense of everyone else. We can't. That's government. How does society lose by divesting itself of such a burden and restoring equality? It can't lose. The confusion people have is in thinking society and government are one and the same and the former cannot function without the latter and those self interested individuals who grant themselves superior rights. Why could society not function? Would people forget how do drive buses? Is it the government (either the imaginary entity or the self serving individuals) that drives buses now? I have given many examples of government as an impediment to progress and a higher functioning and more equal society.

Yes. We are still stuck with government even if we restore the independence of the state. But one thing at a time. At least we are left with one enemy rather than two. That said, as we both know, the result is already decided. So in fact we are left with a big problem. Many people will go away thinking they had a say in how our world is governed. That's a dangerous and regressive delusion. Which is why they are doing this. In the future when people desperately wonder why they ever endorsed this European nightmare the fact they stepped up and played right along will be thrown in their faces. "You asked for this!"

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

So to sum it up, yes Referendums go the way Governments want them to go because they make sure the chips are stacked in their favour before they offer them.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I don't think you should live in any society of my choosing. Choose your own. That's what liberty is all about. I have no interest in telling you how to live, but I do have a complaint when people not only tell me how I should live but threaten or use force to compel me. Removing government does not remove society. Government isn't a real entity, it has no substance in itself. It's just a collection of individuals who believe they have the right to behave in a manner the rest of us are denied. They can use violence to steal, the rest of us can't. They can write laws to favour their friends or bribe sections of society at the expense of everyone else. We can't. That's government. How does society lose by divesting itself of such a burden and restoring equality? It can't lose. The confusion people have is in thinking society and government are one and the same and the former cannot function without the latter and those self interested individuals who grant themselves superior rights. Why could society not function? Would people forget how do drive buses? Is it the government (either the imaginary entity or the self serving individuals) that drives buses now? I have given many examples of government as an impediment to progress and a higher functioning and more equal society.

Yes. We are still stuck with government even if we restore the independence of the state. But one thing at a time. At least we are left with one enemy rather than two. That said, as we both know, the result is already decided. So in fact we are left with a big problem. Many people will go away thinking they had a say in how our world is governed. That's a dangerous and regressive delusion. Which is why they are doing this. In the future when people desperately wonder why they ever endorsed this European nightmare the fact they stepped up and played right along will be thrown in their faces. "You asked for this!"

I don't think i even implied society and government are the same thing.....they clearly aren't

Government of course is a human construct, and one that tends to come about when people gather together in greater numbers than small communities. Is there a way for large societies to exist without governance?....who knows?. I think there would always remain a certain element of arbitration.

[Niall_Quinn]

No, it's not the illusion of choice. Everyone who is registered to vote gets to choose and the majority will decide what action the government will take.
However the question is phrased it's pretty clear what the options are and what the issue is. As for media saturation I think it's been pretty balanced so far.
It's a far more pure choice than in a general election where you're usually reduced to picking the least bad option or the one you think has a chance of winning.
This is a clear choice and every vote counts. What the government wants to happen is irrelevant. Cameron is hardly popular, despite the election result. I don't think that many people will be voting to stay because he says so.

Substance would be a better target than saturation. I haven't seen one issue examined in any worthwhile depth or in the wider context. The discussion on trade is hilarious. The only useful thing I have seen is when an impartial economist got dragged in front of a government committee and horrified them by giving all the wrong and relevant answers. You won't see that cunt Dimbleby revisiting such lapses as he furiously frames the next debate.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Well my optician says otherwise but i swear my eyesight is getting worse, i had to click on your profile to see what Wenger was holding up

[Niall_Quinn]

Well my optician says otherwise but i swear my eyesight is getting worse, i had to click on your profile to see what Wenger was holding up

I didn't want to give it undue substance or importance.

[Letters]

How the question is phrased will make a difference, you make the assumption that people are clued up and know what they are voting for.
I have very little faith in the British electorate but I don't think anyone is confused about what this vote is about.
The 'Alternative Vote' one I agree, Cameron knew that while it clearly produces a more representative result it was too complicated and subtle for many people to understand. It was an easy thing to give the Lib Dems because it was almost certainly going to be rejected.
This one...I think it's very clear what we're voting for and it's far less certain how it will go.
I agree that people will more likely vote to stay in but if they do so then it will because they don't like change or because they think we are better off in the EU, not because the it was phrased in such a way that they didn't understand the question.
I don't know why this is a particularly optimum time, I'd say anti-EU sentiment has been building for quite some time. Cameron may think he can win, he may be right, but it will be the vote of the people that decides it, it's pretty much as pure as democracy gets in our system.
It's not an illusion or the 'appearance' of the people deciding, the vote WILL dictate the policy.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

If there wasn't growing Anti EU sentiment in the Tory party there wouldn't have been a referendum at all.

Cameron offered one on the strength of UKIP defections and euroskepticism in his own party

So first consider that this is about what is best for the Tory party not about hearing the voice of the people

The referendum in the Conservative election manifesto was promised to be held before the "end of 2017". Specifically it has been held immediately following contrived EU reforms were negotiated for, and in fact Cameron knew that if he asked for anything too substantive he'd have run out of time with the negotiations. And he has now gone for the referendum in June, because he's sure he will win.....it's always a small gamble but as I've said above the Government makes sure the chips are in its favour.

And I'm sorry to keep contradicting you, but yes the wording of the question is important. People know what the referendum is about, but most people know nothing about Britains relationship with the EU you ask people and they genuinely don't know whether this country is better off out or in....so when it comes to a simple yes/no it could come down to the flip of a coin or they might be influenced by the language of the question.
Now am I going to tell you the way the question is asked will affect a large percentage of the electorate, no of course not but it could affect a small amount of voters in the eventuality of a poll being tight.
The government takes nothing for granted of course, but everything is conceivably done to tip the balance in its favour and historically it works.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm not saying the government is telling people how to vote (although even that is debatable with the leaflet campaign), on the surface Referendums are the voice of the electorate but my point is governments offer referendums when they believe the voice of the electorate will be favourable to what they want.
Timing of the referendum etc
And governments being in control get to have an influence over public opinion, even though most knew that Cameron's negotiated reforms were insubstantial fluff a small enough number would have turned from euro skeptic or I don't know to remain as a result to make the government confident enough to call a referendum they believe they will win.

This is what I mean by the illusion of choice, the referendum is offered when a government believes that a significant amount of people have made their mind up and will vote how they'd like them to.

[Letters]

The government may well want the vote to go a certain way.
The government may well try to influence the way it goes.
But that doesn't mean we don't have a free choice. We do, both individually and collectively.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You have a free choice in the sense that no one is holding a gun to your head and making you vote a certain way

But I think you seem to think I'm suggesting something nefarious and clandestine, all I'm pointing out is that when a Government offers a referendum as opposed to having one forced upon it, it does it because it believes that public opinion is on its side and has engineered things in a way to result in the outcome being favourable to them from the timing of the referendum to something smaller and insignificant in the way the question is posed.

If the public were in the majority in favour of leaving on a consistent basis there would be no referendum held its as simple as that because Cameron does not want to be known as the prime minister under whom we left the EU because even though he's euroskeptic himself he isn't to the extent where he believes leaving would be anything but a disaster.

But if the Tory party are getting itchy feet over the EU, and a referendum where a modest but consistent majority want us to remain....the risk is very, very small in offering a referendum.

[Letters]

Didn't they offer the referendum at least in part to placate people who were considering voting for UKIP?
They will, of course, try to influence the vote but so will other people who have a platform who have the opposite view - some of those people are in the government actually. It's debatable how much sway they have anyway, people are more likely to vote out because of The Sun going on about the 'bloody frogs' than anything Cameron says.

It's still the most empowered I feel as a voter. Even if they are trying to rig it or think it will go their way, they ultimately are at the mercy of the electorate. We get to vote and the result will dictate their policy.

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36039925

Corbyn wants us to Bremain!

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36039925

Corbyn wants us to Bremain!

No he really doesn't, he comes from the old school left approach of pulling up the drawbridge because socialism is best employed at a microlevel.

But he's leader of a party that is pro EU and he doesn't have the clout to change that, so he is having to say things he clearly doesn't believe.

I'd rather he be open about being in favour of leaving, good chance of tipping the scales further towards Remain.

[Letters]

He doesn't seem like one to toe the party line. Either way, I think this makes the chances of Remain winning significantly higher.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No he's not, but when you know almost every other Labour politician is pro EU you are fighting against the tide.

Significantly higher?......you realise of course that at a time when the Tories are in complete disarray that Labour is likely to lose council seats in May. I honestly thought no one would be able to surpass Ed Milliband when it came to incompetence but Corbyn is managing it.

Having a cult following amongst a bunch of champagne socialists, muslim extremists and right on student radicals does not make someone popular country wide.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The fact that he's making the speech now comes after sustained urging from those in the parliamentry party including John McDonnell who is gunning for Corbyn's job that Labour has not done enough to set out it's pro European stall.

And Corbyn despite only being slightly better at giving speeches than Ed Milliband (which isn't by any means a compliment) is unlikely to make any difference to the undecided as Corbyn is generally more euroskeptic than his fan base and those who are equally Eurosceptic will just say he is selling out (and believe me many from groups like the socialist workers party already have blasted him for not being openly Anti EU).

Corbyn was Tony Benn's right hand man and used to back a lot of Anti EU motions that Benn tried and failed to get through parliament.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I will give him his due, it was a good speech for someone who clearly doesn't believe what he's saying.

Shows what he can achieve when he works with the party instead of going off on meandering flights of fancy.

[Niall_Quinn]

I will give him his due, it was a good speech for someone who clearly doesn't believe what he's saying.

Shows what he can achieve when he works with the party instead of going off on meandering flights of fancy.

You have it reversed. Normality is in fact bat shit insanity, but everyone has grown used to it over time so nobody questions imaginary money or overt criminality in government and the corporate sector. It's all just business as usual. To fix any of it would require, considering the language is reversed, insane policies. For instance, the first step to switching from the counterfeit currency system to a monetary system would be to get rid of the bank and its alien state at the heart of the nation. Nobody even talks about that, it's never mentioned. But they do all go on about the market, even though it's impossible to have a market in any meaningful sense if you have a central bank. They go on about education even though 50% of all history is excluded from the curriculum. That's worse than learning nothing at all. They go on about health at the same time as lobbying from chemicals and waste products in our food supply. And so on. I think working with the party is just about the most dangerous and regressive thing you can do in politics. Assuming you aren't just in it for self gain, which admittedly the vast majority are. The trouble with the Labour Party for the last 20 years is it's a giant, putrid cunt. A Tory party in disguise begging for crumbs and recognition from the City thieves. It was Brown who unleashed the full force of the bank, remember. And Blair who started stealing from children. And even the "rebel" Kinnock beforehand. All by-your-leave arse-kissers. You might not like that the Labour Party has drifted back a couple of inches towards its roots, but surely you don't like the giant, putrid cunt of a thing it used to be (and still wants to be in so many cases) either? I wouldn't be too worried about Corbyn, he hasn't said a single thing that would make the slightest difference yet. As we see here, his tenure will be all about keeping his eyes fixed on the "public servants" who want to destroy their own party in protest at the will of their own electorate. Selfless individuals that they are, those honourable and right fucking honourable city gents of the shiny Labour Party.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I'm reserving my judgement until I see Corbyn eating a bacon sandwich.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm reserving my judgement until I see Corbyn eating a bacon sandwich.

Too risky. It could be viewed as eating in a manner that's disrespectful to the war criminalsour brave boys.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You have it reversed. Normality is in fact bat shit insanity, but everyone has grown used to it over time so nobody questions imaginary money or overt criminality in government and the corporate sector. It's all just business as usual. To fix any of it would require, considering the language is reversed, insane policies. For instance, the first step to switching from the counterfeit currency system to a monetary system would be to get rid of the bank and its alien state at the heart of the nation. Nobody even talks about that, it's never mentioned. But they do all go on about the market, even though it's impossible to have a market in any meaningful sense if you have a central bank. They go on about education even though 50% of all history is excluded from the curriculum. That's worse than learning nothing at all. They go on about health at the same time as lobbying from chemicals and waste products in our food supply. And so on. I think working with the party is just about the most dangerous and regressive thing you can do in politics. Assuming you aren't just in it for self gain, which admittedly the vast majority are. The trouble with the Labour Party for the last 20 years is it's a giant, putrid cunt. A Tory party in disguise begging for crumbs and recognition from the City thieves. It was Brown who unleashed the full force of the bank, remember. And Blair who started stealing from children. And even the "rebel" Kinnock beforehand. All by-your-leave arse-kissers. You might not like that the Labour Party has drifted back a couple of inches towards its roots, but surely you don't like the giant, putrid cunt of a thing it used to be (and still wants to be in so many cases) either? I wouldn't be too worried about Corbyn, he hasn't said a single thing that would make the slightest difference yet. As we see here, his tenure will be all about keeping his eyes fixed on the "public servants" who want to destroy their own party in protest at the will of their own electorate. Selfless individuals that they are, those honourable and right fucking honourable city gents of the shiny Labour Party.


Whatever you may think of the Labour Party it is incredibly inaccurate to say Corbyn has anything to do with its roots.

What he represents is a footnote in its history represented by an attempt to turn the party into a Trotskyite movement thirty years ago.

What do I mean by that?. Trotsky believed that the only way to change the system was to stealthily encourage the inequity of the current system, embolden the elite to become so intolerable that it would result in a revolutionary uprising.

Now you may think that's a good idea, you may not....but it's not got a lot to do with a political party that adopted socialist ideas rather than one founded as a socialist movement.

I would go as far as saying Corbyn is not a Labour man at all, and again that's not a criticism it's just a case of joining the dots together. He models himself on a man who also used Labour as a vehicle who advocated class struggle as a way of compensating for the fact that he wasn't working class in Tony Benn, Benn was despite being a demagogue a towering intellect compared with Corbyn, a great orator and a man who could argue his case with great pathos.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm reserving my judgement until I see Corbyn eating a bacon sandwich.

You won't even see that, unless it's Quorn. Corbyn is a vegetarian

[Niall_Quinn]

Whatever you may think of the Labour Party it is incredibly inaccurate to say Corbyn has anything to do with its roots.

What he represents is a footnote in its history represented by an attempt to turn the party into a Trotskyite movement thirty years ago.

What do I mean by that?. Trotsky believed that the only way to change the system was to stealthily encourage the inequity of the current system, embolden the elite to become so intolerable that it would result in a revolutionary uprising.

Now you may think that's a good idea, you may not....but it's not got a lot to do with a political party that adopted socialist ideas rather than one founded as a socialist movement.

I would go as far as saying Corbyn is not a Labour man at all, and again that's not a criticism it's just a case of joining the dots together. He models himself on a man who also used Labour as a vehicle who advocated class struggle as a way of compensating for the fact that he wasn't working class in Tony Benn, Benn was despite being a demagogue a towering intellect compared with Corbyn, a great orator and a man who could argue his case with great pathos.

Your footnote is party leader because the party voted for him, by a landslide. So there is that to consider. Why they voted that way is another thing to think about.

I hardly think the "progressive" Labour types will be turning left any time soon. Now second class travellers on their own gravy train having to watch the newly minted plebs drag muddy boots into hallowed first. I have no sympathy for their tears in between knife attacks. They all laughed out the windows as trickle down became trickle up until Blair perfected the upward torrent. Labour men one and all. Our labour, their benefit. The one party state made way too obvious.

Corbyn at least reminds us the possibility of choice is not beyond us. I don't doubt the right wingers (and indeed, common wisdom tells us, the right sort) will be back on Benefits Street soon enough, buoyed by the trouncing of their own party handed down by Rupert Murdoch. They'll probably handle the derailment personally. It could all work out rather nicely provided not too many see them for what they are or catch them in the act. Then we can say the party is back on a sane footing (see my notes on language above), back in faithful service to the gentleman's club, perks and all, where the Labour Party belongs (or so contemporary socialists would tell you). Back to their roots? Well I suppose, but only if you don't go back too far.

Politics is ultimately the sustenance of the very system that causes the problems it claims to fix. The Labour Party is a fine example. Corbyn will be discovering this in even finer detail, I guess he didn't know already because here he is, party leader, with his majority, explaining why we need to feed another elitist system overseas. If, as you say, he fancies himself as an underhand revolutionary then he's picked an odd and ineffective manner in which to proceed.

Anyway, still no Black September candidate in my rotten borough so I don't care so much about the Thespians.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

By footnote I mean what he represents not what position he currently holds.

And this landslide business is usually par for the course in labour leadership contests, it helps when we deferred the decision to every waif and stray with spare change in their pocket.

You are correct in the sense that Corbyn is a result of political discontentment, and where as this serves as a useful vanity project for another outlier like Donald Trump. Corbyn is the unwitting recipient of serendipity, he entered the contest neither thinking he could win or even wanting to win.

However he is surrounded by people with vested interests, just dissimilar to those we are all to familiar with.

[Niall_Quinn]

Game of Thrones but with ugly actors and far too few deaths.

[Niall_Quinn]

According to queer coke head George Osborne, if we leave Europe it will cost every taxpayer an extra 8p in the pound. I'm not even going to talk about it. Just want to ask, who believes him? Genuinely interested to see if there's anybody out there buying this desperate shit.

By the way, taxation is theft. So what he's really saying is if we leave Europe then he'll punish us by stealing even more of the proceeds of our labour. This is a grubby little man with too much power I think. Somebody with influence needs to suggest that we rid ourselves of this troublesome chancellor.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You're an intelligent man, yet you sound surprised that people who are advocating the status quo will ratchet up the fear.

Fear is a strong motivator, if you believe we are better off out this is not going to sway you. But if you are swinging in the wind not sure how you'll vote it might.

[Niall_Quinn]

You're an intelligent man, yet you sound surprised that people who are advocating the status quo will ratchet up the fear.

Fear is a strong motivator, if you believe we are better off out this is not going to sway you. But if you are swinging in the wind not sure how you'll vote it might.

Not in the least bit surprised this shit is using every trick in the book. Doubt this is particularly aimed at the electorate, more likely his own party who don't seem to care much for him either. But the byproduct is the typical Tory appeal to the worst instincts. I wonder how powerfully it is playing. Are people smart enough to connect the pretty basic dots? Here's a cunt who was saying he'd campaign to leave if he didn't get his deal. A lie, we know, but still. Why would he endorse an exit if the outcome would be so severe? And people can still remember his last set of figures pulled from his anusforecasts, right? The ones where we pay down the deficit and all that crap? What's the average memory span of a typical member of the public now? I haven't checked in a while.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

As far as I'm concerned if you want to leave you should be more frustrated by the Police Academy Esque line up of clowns making the case for you more than what Remain is doing.

These campaigns only ever reach a few people in the margins, as most will have made their minds up anyway. I haven't paid much attention to what is going on because I don't think there is anything anyone could say that would sway my decision.

[Niall_Quinn]

As far as I'm concerned if you want to leave you should be more frustrated by the Police Academy Esque line up of clowns making the case for you more than what Remain is doing.

These campaigns only ever reach a few people in the margins, as most will have made their minds up anyway. I haven't paid much attention to what is going on because I don't think there is anything anyone could say that would sway my decision.

Nobody is making a case for me. All they are doing is deluging the public with irrelevant shit, same as the saps who want to stay tied to Europe. Cameron's antics suggest he firmly believes the average person is entirely stupid. I haven't seen that in my own experience. Most people I talk to seem to be aware of at least one or two of the basic issues, albeit laced with the trivial bullshit pushed out by the mainstream media and establishment. I don't talk to many people though.

[Letters]

http://newsthump.com/2016/04/18/britain-leaving-eu-could-be-an-extinction-level-event-say-in-campaign-group/

:lol:

[Xhaka Can’t]

If we leave, Wenger will get another three year contract.

[Niall_Quinn]

If we leave, Wenger will get another three year contract.

The fear tactics gone berserk. And it only gives half the story as usual.

As well you know, if we leave Wenger will also get another 3 year contract.

[fakeyank]

Can someone explain the situation in Layman's terms?

[Niall_Quinn]

Can someone explain the situation in Layman's terms?

Yes.

Just over 40 years ago a paedophile and child killer called Ted Heath signed the UK (the corporate identity of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) into the European "Common Market", a trading pact that allowed favourable trade conditions among European member states. A trade deal - nothing more.

Since then this Common Market has morphed into a European centralised state, much like the United States (the corporate identity of the Unites States of America). Far outside the scope of the original agreement, we have seen the European Union and European Parliament develop in an entirely undemocratic manner. Essentially we now have a centralised authority that makes the laws for the majority of the European States. Laws on everything, not just trade. About 60% (some say 70%) of British laws are now made in Brussels (the seat of the European travesty) rather than London. For example, The UK no longer controls its immigration laws, its medical laws, it's food laws, its privacy laws, the list is endless. And we are in a better condition than most European states because the citizenry (indentured servants) of the UK has by majority been against the entire European project since it began exceeding the terms of its remit so here we have concessions that other states don't enjoy.

Several times the people of various states within Europe have been asked to vote on the continuance of this European project. In France they said no, in Ireland they said no, but the EU just ignored the decision and continued to ask the question until they got the desired answer. Fear is their main weapon in swaying public opinion.

Germany is at the centre of the EU, by far the most powerful and influential voice. Britain fought two wars with Germany and won both. Now Germany has found a way to win without the need for military confrontation. Our Royal family are German, by the way.

From your perspective, Americans came over here to fight in two world wars to keep the world free of tyranny (and to make exorbitant profits for a select set of criminal individuals). In June, when the vote either goes the way of the Germans or is rigged to go that way, this will signify the people of Britain pissing on the graves of all those dead Americans. However, bear in mind, the vote will have most likely been rigged because there is close on an 80% opposition to the European Union and the media spends much effort concealing this.

Essentially this is a referendum on national sovereignty. If the vote goes no, which is impossible, sovereignty will be reestablished. If it goes yes then Great Britain finally and officially ceases to exist.

The criminals with the real power in the EU are unelected, haven't had their books audited since their foul project began and their main ambitions are to entrench the European Central Bank (money laundering operation), build a European Army (corporate enforcement division) and a European police state. They are fascists by nature, very much in line with the previous regimes that tried to conquer Europe but were defeated on the battlefield.

Of course you will hear none of this in the media. The polite way to view this is a Europe living in peace and harmony where everybody loves each other - including the Turks.

[fakeyank]

Yes.

Just over 40 years ago a paedophile and child killer called Ted Heath signed the UK (the corporate identity of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) into the European "Common Market", a trading pact that allowed favourable trade conditions among European member states. A trade deal - nothing more.

Since then this Common Market has morphed into a European centralised state, much like the United States (the corporate identity of the Unites States of America). Far outside the scope of the original agreement, we have seen the European Union and European Parliament develop in an entirely undemocratic manner. Essentially we now have a centralised authority that makes the laws for the majority of the European States. Laws on everything, not just trade. About 60% (some say 70%) of British laws are now made in Brussels (the seat of the European travesty) rather than London. For example, The UK no longer controls its immigration laws, its medical laws, it's food laws, its privacy laws, the list is endless. And we are in a better condition than most European states because the citizenry (indentured servants) of the UK has by majority been against the entire European project since it began exceeding the terms of its remit so here we have concessions that other states don't enjoy.

Several times the people of various states within Europe have been asked to vote on the continuance of this European project. In France they said no, in Ireland they said no, but the EU just ignored the decision and continued to ask the question until they got the desired answer. Fear is their main weapon in swaying public opinion.

Germany is at the centre of the EU, by far the most powerful and influential voice. Britain fought two wars with Germany and won both. Now Germany has found a way to win without the need for military confrontation. Our Royal family are German, by the way.

From your perspective, Americans came over here to fight in two world wars to keep the world free of tyranny (and to make exorbitant profits for a select set of criminal individuals). In June, when the vote either goes the way of the Germans or is rigged to go that way, this will signify the people of Britain pissing on the graves of all those dead Americans. However, bear in mind, the vote will have most likely been rigged because there is close on an 80% opposition to the European Union and the media spends much effort concealing this.

Essentially this is a referendum on national sovereignty. If the vote goes no, which is impossible, sovereignty will be reestablished. If it goes yes then Great Britain finally and officially ceases to exist.

The criminals with the real power in the EU are unelected, haven't had their books audited since their foul project began and their main ambitions are to entrench the European Central Bank (money laundering operation), build a European Army (corporate enforcement division) and a European police state. They are fascists by nature, very much in line with the previous regimes that tried to conquer Europe but were defeated on the battlefield.

Of course you will hear none of this in the media. The polite way to view this is a Europe living in peace and harmony where everybody loves each other - including the Turks.

Thanks for that. That really helped. Let's assume UK votes to leave the EU, what happens next? Why are world leaders around the world pissing their pants at the thought of it? Is this a public vote or just going to be voted in the Parliament by the ministers?

[Niall_Quinn]

The corporate scumbags and their political lackeys will try to raise a batch of punitive (yet convenient) sanctions against the British public but it won't amount to a bag of shite because the majority are down on their heels anyway. In reality nothing will happen. Everything will continue as normal as the business of extracting ourselves from the European mess gets underway. During that period every European member state will come begging to the City of London (a foreign state) because that's where they launder the majority of their money. Meanwhile the liberated UK will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world, control its borders and set its own laws. The most basic requisites for a nation state you might think, but the Europeans don't see it that way.

[Nayan]

big government, big business and big banks are all telling me to vote remain. I think they are all cunts but I think the rabid nut cases telling me to vote to leave are far worse.

[The Emirates Gallactico]

big banks have always had our best interests at heart Nayan.

We must trust them.

[Niall_Quinn]

big government, big business and big banks are all telling me to vote remain. I think they are all cunts but I think the rabid nut cases telling me to vote to leave are far worse.


Why are you listening to either side? Both have their own vested interests and you can be sure of one thing, your interests don't coincide with either. Use your own opinions. Your own kingdom starts and ends at your front door. Vote against any cunt that wants to come through that front door without an invitation. Do more than vote. Resist.

[GP]

Why are you listening to either side? Both have their own vested interests and you can be sure of one thing, your interests don't coincide with either. Use your own opinions. Your own kingdom starts and ends at your front door. Vote against any cunt that wants to come through that front door without an invitation. Do more than vote. Resist.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/0C6A/production/_85487130_citizensmith_bbc.jpg

[Niall_Quinn]

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/0C6A/production/_85487130_citizensmith_bbc.jpg

Or bending over and begging is another way to go. That's what choice is all about.

[Nayan]

it's not that I am told what to do by either side. more that it's a simple yes/no choice and they both advance an opinion. or rather both sides ejaculate speculation and scare stories.

one side is all doom and gloom about being frozen out of the Eurovision Song Contest and the the other is trying to stoke up scare stories about Ebola infected zombies from Africa and muslamic ray guns or something.

probably better to vote remain to avoid a major upheaval and anyone having to embroider swastikas on the Union Jack. that'd be a right pain in the arse.

[Niall_Quinn]

If you are interested in voting then why not find out what the European project is about and who it's for? The bigot crowd are here whether we stay in or leave, so that's not really the same issue. But relinquishing sovereignty to a foreign agent shouldn't be taken lightly. That's the issue and if either side had the interests of the British people in mind they be honest about it.

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36345750

:popcorn:

Looks like Remain will win but I don't think it will be a landslide and of course whichever side loses will call it all a fix.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You Gov have basically admitted that their polls are skewed in favour of outers

It depends what you consider a landslide, but it certainly won't be close. The media have been calling it close to justify the narrative of the perpetual rolling news cycle. Anyway we've had this discussion before.....if Cameron had believed for a second he couldn't win the referendum he would not have promised one in 2013 nor held one when he did.
There's never any 100% guarantee to it, but when governments announce referendums, it's the same as when they would announce a general election after four years instead of five (before fixed term parliaments came in) it's because they believe they would win.

[Niall_Quinn]

One thing's for sure, the result can't possibly be legitimate when half the nation will be against the outcome. Really speaking, the nation should be divided in two - those who want sovereignty and those who want to be governed by an outside power.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

One thing's for sure, the result can't possibly be legitimate when half the nation will be against the outcome. Really speaking, the nation should be divided in two - those who want sovereignty and those who want to be governed by an outside power.

Half the nation against the outcome?

Are you referring to turnout?, or are you referring to a 51%/49% result which won't happen?

[Niall_Quinn]

Half the nation against the outcome?

Are you referring to turnout?, or are you referring to a 51%/49% result which won't happen?

Doesn't really matter what the manufactured split is. 60% discounting the choice of 40%, 55-45, 51-49, doesn't matter. If 40%+ of the population is disenfranchised then the result is illegitimate. I doubt they'll peg it lower than 40%, but then again the Tories won the last election so brazen seems to be on the table. Just stating the fact, not saying it will be perceived that way by many. Most people don't understand or care for the concepts of liberty and tyranny so these travesties tend to pass without much fuss. Like general elections where banana governments are formed on minority support.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

This is how elections work and generally speaking in life most instances of someone getting what they want, necessitates someone else not getting what they want

The T Rex wants to eat and the Brontosaurus would prefer to live, is there an outcome that satisfies both parties?


No matter what form of society you live under this is the case.

[Niall_Quinn]

This is how elections work and generally speaking in life most instances of someone getting what they want, necessitates someone else not getting what they want

The T Rex wants to eat and the Brontosaurus would prefer to live, is there an outcome that satisfies both parties?


No matter what form of society you live under this is the case.

That's fine. But get rid of the democracy bullshit thing that distracts people so badly. If we stopped pretending about these things then everyone would gain an incentive to have a say. But survival of the fittest is not how society interacts anyway. It's the exact opposite.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

If by Survival of the fittest you mean survival of the person with the most money than it's exactly how society interacts

[Letters]

Is it only democracy is everyone agrees?
A referendum is more democratic than an election where typically, with our system, the ruling party nowhere near won the popular vote.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

i find it boring people talking about how unrepresentative elections are....tough.....voting doesn't guarantee you the representation of your choice....it guarantees a chance of having a say in the outcome.

37% of the electorate voted for the Tories (because I'm not including people who didn't want to vote) it's not a majority....and it sure as hell wasn't what i voted for, but they got a plurality more people voted for them than any other one single party, if people hated the Tories so much it would stand to reason they'd be able to agree on what they do want.

But they didn't want Labour (who can blame them) and they didn't want UKIP or the Lib Dems (Ha) so what you gonna do?...in the case of most people thump their fists on the ground and cry about how unfair it is.

The clear thing to be taken from the electorate and how they've voted is that they know what they don't want, but not what they do want.

The electorate has become my late mum.

[Letters]

I think it's reasonable to grumble about a system which produces results which are so unrepresentative of the way people voted.
I'm not a fan of UKIP but the fact is across the country about 10% of the people voted for them. They got 1 MP out of six hundred and however many it is.
I don't think "tough" is a very helpful attitude.
Each vote should count for something and in our system the majority don't lead to any representation at all.

[Niall_Quinn]

If by Survival of the fittest you mean survival of the person with the most money than it's exactly how society interacts

No, that's the cynical view. Survival of the weakest is the driving force of civilised society. In a pack of animals the weakest is killed or allowed to die because it is of no benefit and probably represents a cost and therefore a threat to the pack. This is the defining difference between animal survival and civilised society. We don't kill our sick and weak and handicapped, we don't kill the poor. Not in theory at least. It's true, there is another form of survival of the weakest that centralises on money. This is why we have terrible leaders, immoral businessmen, and so on. But this is a perversion of the principle, not the principle itself. You can say the social experiment has failed but the evidence doesn't support the idea the aim of the experiment was to promote the worst in humanity. In fact it's almost inevitable you'll have instances of extreme immorality when the majority are geared to morality. Morality is of course a constraint the immoral are not bound by, they have a huge advantage.

By the way - that's why we SHOULDN'T FUCKING VOTE FOR THEM :doh:

[Niall_Quinn]

Is it only democracy is everyone agrees?
A referendum is more democratic than an election where typically, with our system, the ruling party nowhere near won the popular vote.

Democracy is generally tyranny. Because it is conveniently idolised and taught in a religious context from an early age it sticks as an unquestioned ideal. Nothing else is ever examined, except in terms of failed extremes. Under liberty nobody needs to agree for liberty to exist. Everyone can agree if they wish, but it makes no difference if they don't. Under democracy a majority can agree to disenfranchise a minority. There's no nice way of framing that though the politicians, media and acolytes give it a bloody good try.

[Niall_Quinn]

i find it boring people talking about how unrepresentative elections are....tough.....voting doesn't guarantee you the representation of your choice....it guarantees a chance of having a say in the outcome.

37% of the electorate voted for the Tories (because I'm not including people who didn't want to vote) it's not a majority....and it sure as hell wasn't what i voted for, but they got a plurality more people voted for them than any other one single party, if people hated the Tories so much it would stand to reason they'd be able to agree on what they do want.

But they didn't want Labour (who can blame them) and they didn't want UKIP or the Lib Dems (Ha) so what you gonna do?...in the case of most people thump their fists on the ground and cry about how unfair it is.

The clear thing to be taken from the electorate and how they've voted is that they know what they don't want, but not what they do want.

The electorate has become my late mum.

Well okay, but pointing out the glaring flaws in a system and exposing that system as achieving the reverse of what it claims is not necessarily beating fists on the ground. And nobody mentioned anything about fairness, what does fairness have to do with it? If the majority wish to enforce their views on minorities then they can do that, there is more of them and they can prevail by force if need be. Hence government. Nobody is suggesting it should be or can be magicked away, there are no idealist demands. But I don't think it's necessary to ignore the nature of democracy either, or even cheer for it. This is the thing with tyranny. Not only does it demand obedience but it demands love too, even fake love.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Breaking it down to its bare bones, unless you live a life of hermitude it is impossible to live a life of total Liberty without at some point denying someone else's Liberty.

I don't love the current system, it is what it is. There are huge flaws in it like there are in almost anything you care to name.

All I ask of the oppressed is to tell me what they want to do that they feel they can't.

And usually you find the only barrier to freedom is financial means.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Breaking it down to its bare bones, unless you live a life of hermitude it is impossible to live a life of total Liberty without at some point denying someone else's Liberty.

I don't love the current system, it is what it is. There are huge flaws in it like there are in almost anything you care to name.

All I ask of the oppressed is to tell me what they want to do that they feel they can't.

And usually you find the only barrier to freedom is financial means.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Voting to stay in, as I can't really see how it impinges on my life negatively. If it denies the Tories the chance to govern then happy days.

[Xhaka Can’t]

I'm voting to shake it all about.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm voting to shake it all about.

And that's why you are on the sex offenders register

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Voting to stay in, as I can't really see how it impinges on my life negatively. If it denies the Tories the chance to govern then happy days.

Erm fair enough, although you should perhaps know that whether we vote to remain or leave won't make any difference to the Tories ability to govern. They are in for most likely another nine years, and probably longer depending on what kind of tangible opposition forms in the meantime.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

:lol:

You misunderstand me. What I mean by the above is the suggestion that somehow no matter what any government will try to pass, Brussels will put paid to it.

[Letters]

We don't kill our sick and weak and handicapped
Diaby :bow:

[Niall_Quinn]

Breaking it down to its bare bones, unless you live a life of hermitude it is impossible to live a life of total Liberty without at some point denying someone else's Liberty.

I don't love the current system, it is what it is. There are huge flaws in it like there are in almost anything you care to name.

All I ask of the oppressed is to tell me what they want to do that they feel they can't.

And usually you find the only barrier to freedom is financial means.

It isn't what it is - that's the point. Practical democracy and the theory of democracy couldn't be more different. In fact practical democracy can only survive by thoroughly undemocratic means. As an obvious example you have the rigged voting system. People will say it isn't rigged because familiarity breeds complacency and blindness. But in a moment of clarity if you step back and look then we have a democracy in name only. By all other measures we have a plutocracy, and always have had in this country. Democracy could never actually work in this country without a bloodbath to preface it. Or an exodus. I think I previously stated which I prefer, mainly because you don't want them coming back.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm voting to shake it all about.

Piss on them first - then shake it all about.

[Niall_Quinn]

And that's why you are on the sex offenders register

Well it's not only because of that.

[Letters]

http://newsthump.com/2016/05/23/transylvania-joining-eu-could-see-one-million-vampires-in-uk-by-2020/

:lol:

[Letters]

I'm somewhat conflicted now. I've been leaning towards Brexit but most of my FB friends who are voting for Brexit are fuckwits. Hmm.

[GP]

Bremain is the only sane choice, tbh.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I literally have to say i don't care about any of the things right wing or libertarian brexiters worry about, and left wing brexiters are deluding themselves frankly

I think the smoking packaging plans brought in by the EU, refusing to sell in packs of less than 20, plain packing and phasing out menthols is pretty pathetic

I agree with smoking bans in public places because you are giving people the choice to be free from second hand smoke, but hidden cigarette cabinets and other things....what do you think that's actually going to achieve with people who are determined to smoke?. I buy packs of tens and twenties, i couldn't care about how pretty the packaging is and i don't smoke menthols.

But still ridiculous nanny state stuff.....it's the same with trying to stop everyone from taking drugs. If people want to take drugs they will, and if they don't they won't whether they are legal or not.....might as well legalise it and bring some revenue in and stop the amount of money spent on anti drug policing.

[Letters]

Plain packaging does seem to have had an effect in Australia
https://next.ft.com/content/c4016952-0d4a-11e4-bcb2-00144feabdc0

But I'm not sure I'd factor this into my decision about the referendum. My reasons for leaning towards Brexit are in the areas of sovereignty and control of immigration, the question is whether the benefits of EU membership (and there are plenty) outweigh those and I'm starting to think maybe they do.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's an unfortunate lack of contempt brought about by familiarity. And it has everything to do with money and nothing to do with health. When you smoke you are deliberately damaging your health. When the consequences hit you'll expect the NHS to treat you. This is wrong in principle. If you slash your wrists I shouldn't be forced to pay for your bandage. If I want to pay, that's a different matter, but when I'm forced to pay then I have been robbed and that's unlawful. Same with smokers, they are robbing health conscious people. Not just smokers of course, drinkers, the obese, people who base jump down the side of mountains, people who wilfully live under a flight path, people who have a car, people who knowingly eat processed foods, people who drink tap water, they are all prospective thieves under the current system. And there are so many of them that the cost of treatment is huge. And there's the real reason for silly laws to deter smokers whilst maintaining the hypocrisy of taxation. If Nanny really cared about health then smoking would be banned, of course.

But that's just the economics behind the huge hypocrisy and law breaking that passes as our health system. A bloody expensive health system as it turns out, much more expensive and far less efficient than private healthcare could be but that's another argument. I'm not against the NHS, I'm for it. I'm, against the thieving, hypocritical, self-interested cunts running it. Like most things, the principle could be okay provided the obvious illegalities are overlooked but the deviants selected to make the decisions and run these social projects make the whole exercise self defeating.

Europe's aversion to electronic cigarettes is another telling indicator. Of course once the pigs get a cut of that action they'll change their tune. Hypocrisy again. Greed. So-called public servants acting against the interests of the public. It's normal and familiar and that's why we are all complacent.

Stepping all the way back to reality though, the idea another person has the right to tell you what you may or many not do with your own body is simply astonishing. The sheer arrogance of it takes the breath away. Most people don't see this. The familiarity of evil and oppression again. It stands because it has stood for so long. The abhorrent has become normal.

Not that it matters. It seems as if there are enough frightened people to allow this European abomination to persist. You think cigarette packaging is bad, wait and see what happens once the British endorsement swings into full effect. Hopefully nobody will have the nerve to complain about it - isn't that how the sentiment goes? Don't vote, can't complain? Well this time around if you vote to stay in then don't go crying about it later on down the line because you were told in no uncertain terms and in advance. A bit like a smoker, when you quit lying to yourself you know what comes next.

I'm a smoker by the way. And a drinker and I'd be high as a kite on anything I could find if only I could find it. My choice and nobody else's business. Give me a chance to opt-out of your fucking society and I'll do it, then Nanny can quit worrying about the cost of my liberty. But no choice, and there's the deepest seated evil of them all. By all means let sheep live as sheep but give the rest of us a chance to live like men FFS.

[Niall_Quinn]

Plain packaging does seem to have had an effect in Australia
https://next.ft.com/content/c4016952-0d4a-11e4-bcb2-00144feabdc0

But I'm not sure I'd factor this into my decision about the referendum. My reasons for leaning towards Brexit are in the areas of sovereignty and control of immigration, the question is whether the benefits of EU membership (and there are plenty) outweigh those and I'm starting to think maybe they do.

Name one benefit of EU membership. Just one. And it has to be an actual benefit, not some concession based on the fact a worse alternative would be created for you as a form of punishment. For example - favourable trade agreements. That's not a benefit. It's the lesser of two evils when no evil is necessary at all. Free trade has no agreements except between the interested parties. Controlled trade always hurts you when everything winds out. Cheap goods means cheap labour and that hurts you far more in the long run. The definition of a benefit is not something that is out of sight and therefore out of mind.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Plain packaging does seem to have had an effect in Australia
https://next.ft.com/content/c4016952-0d4a-11e4-bcb2-00144feabdc0

But I'm not sure I'd factor this into my decision about the referendum. My reasons for leaning towards Brexit are in the areas of sovereignty and control of immigration, the question is whether the benefits of EU membership (and there are plenty) outweigh those and I'm starting to think maybe they do.

I'm in no way factoring it into my decision, my decision is intractable.....I'm making the point that's probably the height of which the EU impacts upon me individually.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's an unfortunate lack of contempt brought about by familiarity. And it has everything to do with money and nothing to do with health. When you smoke you are deliberately damaging your health. When the consequences hit you'll expect the NHS to treat you. This is wrong in principle. If you slash your wrists I shouldn't be forced to pay for your bandage. If I want to pay, that's a different matter, but when I'm forced to pay then I have been robbed and that's unlawful. Same with smokers, they are robbing health conscious people. .

Actually i totally agree with you. And have made a similar point myself, that although there should be freedom to choose.....choices must come with consequence. If i am selfish enough not to look after myself, I should not expect other people to contribute to prolonging my life to make other poor choices. I am in no illusion that if i have lung or oesophageal cancer i will have no-one to blame but myself, the fair option would be to pay for the treatment from National Insurance which would be subtracted from whatever pension i receive if i don't die first.

[Niall_Quinn]

Actually i totally agree with you. And have made a similar point myself, that although there should be freedom to choose.....choices must come with consequence. If i am selfish enough not to look after myself, I should not expect other people to contribute to prolonging my life to make other poor choices. I am in no illusion that if i have lung or oesophageal cancer i will have no-one to blame but myself, the fair option would be to pay for the treatment from National Insurance which would be subtracted from whatever pension i receive if i don't die first.

Fair? Are you saying you'd make this concession without the entire health system being overhauled from top to bottom?

I wouldn't. I'll go and take the treatment and won't care how much it costs and who paid because those are the rules. In a corrupt system corruption is what's expected, not concession. By that stage I also hope to have avoided paying as much tax as possible. I want something for nothing from this system, or as close to it as I can get. If I can't have a system based on principle and I'm forced to have this system then I'll abuse it in every way possible. Fuck fair. When was that ever a consideration in the Nanny State?

[Letters]

Name one benefit of EU membership. Just one. And it has to be an actual benefit, not some concession based on the fact a worse alternative would be created for you as a form of punishment. For example - favourable trade agreements. That's not a benefit. It's the lesser of two evils when no evil is necessary at all. Free trade has no agreements except between the interested parties. Controlled trade always hurts you when everything winds out. Cheap goods means cheap labour and that hurts you far more in the long run. The definition of a benefit is not something that is out of sight and therefore out of mind.

There are plenty of benefits but of course you don't accept them as such. Here's an article listing the main ones
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-what-has-european-union-done-for-us-david-cameron-brexit-a6850626.html
The question is what are the benefits of leaving and do those outweigh the disadvantages of leaving.

[Niall_Quinn]

There are plenty of benefits but of course you don't accept them as such. Here's an article listing the main ones
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-what-has-european-union-done-for-us-david-cameron-brexit-a6850626.html
The question is what are the benefits of leaving and do those outweigh the disadvantages of leaving.

I'm not following a link to somebody else's opinion when I asked for yours. The actual question was, name one benefit of EU membership.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Fair? Are you saying you'd make this concession without the entire health system being overhauled from top to bottom?

I wouldn't. I'll go and take the treatment and won't care how much it costs and who paid because those are the rules. In a corrupt system corruption is what's expected, not concession. By that stage I also hope to have avoided paying as much tax as possible. I want something for nothing from this system, or as close to it as I can get. If I can't have a system based on principle and I'm forced to have this system then I'll abuse it in every way possible. Fuck fair. When was that ever a consideration in the Nanny State?

I also think it's unfair to offer anything but palliative care to the terminally ill

The point is that it would be fair in principle to make people whose lll health has been self inflicted solely finance their own treatment. Fairness isn't a binary concept, it's not either totally fair or unfair....there are always degrees and there are always differing perceptions on what constitutes fairness.

[Letters]

They aren't opinions.

[Niall_Quinn]

I also think it's unfair to offer anything but palliative care to the terminally ill

The point is that it would be fair in principle to make people whose lll health has been self inflicted solely finance their own treatment. Fairness isn't a binary concept, it's not either totally fair or unfair....there are always degrees and there are always differing perceptions on what constitutes fairness.

But when you are dealing with the state being fair is a bit like leaving your valuables in plain sight. They're robbing you anyway and they have no notion of equity nor a desire for it except in a PR context, so no reason to offer them more than they expect. They'll take your generosity and use it as a new benchmark. Of course if the health service still operated on the principle on which it was founded (allegedly) it's a different matter.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

But when you are dealing with the state being fair is a bit like leaving your valuables in plain sight. They're robbing you anyway and they have no notion of equity nor a desire for it except in a PR context, so no reason to offer them more than they expect. They'll take your generosity and use it as a new benchmark. Of course if the health service still operated on the principle on which it was founded (allegedly) it's a different matter.

Principle on which it was founded?

You mean free at the point of use?

[Niall_Quinn]

They aren't opinions.

I knew before I clicked on that link what I'd find. I'm never disappointed when it comes to the statists and their "facts" and "truths".

1) It gives you freedom to live, work and retire anywhere in Europe - Apart from the obvious, a state cannot grant or deny you freedom because this is an inalienable and tied to the very nature of your existence, you could live and work wherever you wanted long before the EU existed. Granted, nations didn't want just anybody pitching up, they wanted people who could add value to the society. So there were national restrictions. On a fundamental level this was of course wrong, as nobody has a right to tell you where you may or may not wander on the planet. But accepting that fascism has always been with us, and accepting that states have always been protectionist in nature, what's wrong with having a policy in who is allowed into your country? I'll translate this one for you:

1A) It allows any Joe to migrate where they please regardless of the benefits or costs they bring to a society. (So in fact this point is an argument for "Brexit")

2) It sustains millions of jobs - LOL. No it doesn't. What a load of bollocks. Private individuals through their endeavour sustain jobs. The states does fuck all in terms of having a positive impact on job creation and sustenance. The states steals from private enterprise in order to sustain itself, not jobs. This is a cost to enterprise and it can be a severe cost as not only does the state thieve from companies and individuals alike it then offers favourable conditions to some entities in preference over others, thus causing a double impact to those without favoured status. Without the state and the additional layer of the EU on top of that everyone would be considerably better off. There would be far less waste on administrative bullshit too. Again, this is an argument in favour of "Brexit" - this journalist is dumb as a plank.

3) Your holiday is much easier - and safer - So I assume I don't even have to comment on this one. Safer :haha: Easier :haha: You've got to be fucking kidding me right? Travel hasn't been more burdensome for decades and the continued rotten policies of Europe and the US and the west in general provokes the very violence these Europricks are rushing to protect us from. It's like kicking a hornet nest in your face and then rushing up and offering you a protective mask. Don't kick the next you stupid cunts. Getting out of Europe so we don't have to fund their stupid Euro army and whatever adventures it gets up to in the future, or be part of the horribly restrictive trade practises that victimise non-favoured nations, that's what will make travel easier and safer in the future. Another argument for "Brexit" - assuming of course we can do something about our own fucked up government here at home.

4) It means you're less likely to get ripped off - Unbelievable. Huge fucking tariffs and ballooning VAT, and you're less likely to get ripped off? :haha: A rapacious central bank that floods the continent with debt at huge repayment rates. Bail-outs and bail-ins. The huge cost of the EU itself. Set all that against the cost of exercising your own common sense in your own commercial dealings. Then again, common sense and personal responsibility are a price worth paying when you let Nanny do your shopping for you.

5) It offers greater protection from terrorists, paedophiles, people traffickers and cyber-crime - Scraping the barrel now. Terrorists, paedophiles, people traffickers, criminals - what do you think the fucking Euro Commissioners are? They are all these things and worse. Why do you really think we have free movement of economic migrants across the continent? See above for the cause of terrorism. Where will you find the densest cluster of kiddie fiddlers? As for the cyber-crime, that's icing the biscuit they just stole. These fuckers know nothing about technology. Fuck all. Every time they enforce one of their new crackpot schemes it's a raging disaster, as predicted by all (not just some) all industry experts who warn them in advance and beg them to listen to people who actually have a clue. That's hilarious. The EU will protect us from cyber-crime. That ranks top on the funny list for me so far.

6) Our businesses depend on it - No they don't. Our businesses have been roped into it and would suffer punitive measures if they didn't play along. Free business from the burden of state and the whole economic landscape changes. Just using reason, how can a huge, undemocratic, habitually incompetent bureaucracy possibly help commerce? Common sense will tell you this is a myth. Some businesses, like failed banks, may well rely on the EU. Are those the sort of businesses we want to prosper at our expense. Business that have something to sell that's in demand and who do a good job looking after their customers don't need a giant bureaucracy doing them favours. What they need is for giant bureaucracies to fuck off, and preferably die so they don't come back.

7) We have greater influence - Yep. 70% of our laws already dictated by an alien power, that's what I call influence. If we stay in we might even reduce that to 69%. Get out and we'll of course have total influence over our own affairs. As for a lack of influence in Europe, it just shows how deluded or misinformed the remain crowd are. The City of London is the largest money laundering operation on the planet. Most business, and probably all major business, at some points cleans its cash through London. London is the number one financial centre on the planet, don't let anyone fool you with that New York bullshit. London's influence won't be affected one jot if UK Plc extracts itself from Europe. What actually might happen though is London could end up more accountable to the people of Britain. This is too big a topic to go into on a message board, but this last point is the furthest of all from the mark. It's like an in-your-face lies delivered so brazenly you can't help but believe it. If you are dumb. Of course we don't have more influence by being governed by an alien power. How obvious does it have to be before people see it though?

[Niall_Quinn]

Principle on which it was founded?

You mean free at the point of use?

That wasn't the principle. The principle was a more caring society that vowed to care for those who were unable to care for themselves. Who wouldn't agree with that? Apart from the cunts currently gouging out the NHS, obviously.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No the principle was to provide a health care system free at the point of use, that's the principle of the NHS....this by definition provides care for those who cannot do so for themselves. You may see that as sophistry, but for the moment at least it's still providing that service.

[Niall_Quinn]

No the principle was to provide a health care system free at the point of use, that's the principle of the NHS....this by definition provides care for those who cannot do so for themselves. You may see that as sophistry, but for the moment at least it's still providing that service.

That's a function not a principle. Regardless. The underlying goal was to have the people of Britain fund the health costs of the state's war. Nothing actually too wrong with that, apart from the war bit obviously. But the misty eyed idealism the present day liars use to keep their big pharma model in good health makes me feel a bit under the weather.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Irrespective it is still free at the point of use

Whatever the machinations behind the way it is administered, that has not changed.

[Niall_Quinn]

Irrespective it is still free at the point of use

Whatever the machinations behind the way it is administered, that has not changed.

Free at the point of use. Twice as expensive as it should be thereafter.

[Letters]

7) We have greater influence - Yep. 70% of our laws already dictated by an alien power, that's what I call influence.
From which orafice did you pull that made up figure, out of interest?

[Niall_Quinn]

From which orafice did you pull that made up figure, out of interest?

You use other people to make your arguments. And you won't carry your own water when you get a response. Seems like it's easier being you.

[Letters]

It's amusing that you think your opinions are entirely self-formed and not based on other people's opinions.

Anyway, this 70%. Can you explain where you got that figure from?
(Obviously you can't, you just made it up).

[Niall_Quinn]

However, so as not to encourage another freebie answer, the 70% figure is likely too high, just as Nick Clegg's ridiculous lie of 7% is too low. The real figure is generally thought to be between 58% and 65%, which not coincidentally is 58% too 65% higher than it should be. The retard from the Independent's point was remaining gives us more influence. When you give away even 1% of your legislative authority to an alien power, by default you have less overall influence. When it gets to 58% then you're fucked. Somebody else is ruling you in all practical senses, although we still have characters like Dave who claims he has won the right to do what he's told.

There are probably hundreds of articles on this, easy to find. Most shit no doubt but there have been a few actual studies. Studies don't really mean much in a straight yes/ no fight. One side will believe one set of studies, the other will go the opposite way. So I had to pick a laughable source that accidentally sits somewhere in the middle because it's too stupid to do much else. ITV. They have an atrocious article packed with fallacies and logical explosions and arguing one side while ignoring the fact the other side could equally make the same argument. Also I assume you take the BBC and ITV and similar mouthpieces seriously, so:

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-14/finding-the-facts-the-truth-behind-referendum-claims-on-imported-eu-laws-in-the-uk/

[Niall_Quinn]

It's amusing that you think your opinions are entirely self-formed and not based on other people's opinions.

Anyway, this 70%. Can you explain where you got that figure from?
(Obviously you can't, you just made it up).

Wow, you are so fast off the mark when it comes to being dumb.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's amusing that you think your opinions are entirely self-formed and not based on other people's opinions.

Anyway, this 70%. Can you explain where you got that figure from?
(Obviously you can't, you just made it up).


There's a huge difference between basing your own opinions on the opinion of others and holding another's opinion. You demonstrate time and again your inability for independent thought. It's why you like hyperlinks so much.

[Letters]

You demonstrate time and again your inability for independent thought.

I agree. I do demonstrate time and again my inability for independent thought.

[Letters]

Keith Chegwin has thrown his considerable weight behind the 'Leave' campaign.
That might just swing it for me...

[Letters]

Just to add I'm increasingly convinced that the Leave campaign is a mixture of misinformation, bullshit and racism.
I've changed my mind, currently in the Remain camp.
Still haven't heard a killer argument either way though.

[Xhaka Can’t]

If we remain it will piss off Nigel Farage something fierce.

[GP]

If we remain it will piss off Nigel Farage something fierce.

I'm convinced.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

If we remain it will piss off Nigel Farage something fierce.

I think the opposite is true. UKIP would essentially become redundant. The only plus side of leaving

[Niall_Quinn]

Just to add I'm increasingly convinced that the Leave campaign is a mixture of misinformation, bullshit and racism.
I've changed my mind, currently in the Remain camp.
Still haven't heard a killer argument either way though.

Yes you have. A very simple argument that has no conceivable counter-argument that isn't a regression towards despotism. Simply put, it is quite obviously better to govern yourself than be governed by another. But if you can't have that then it is better to have one layer of tyranny as opposed to two. Anyone who grasps any of the concepts related to liberty or even that thing called democracy will understand these basic ideas. I think there's also a very strong case that can be made that anyone voting away sovereignty has committed an act of treason. Not sure if that statute is still on the books. Possibly not though because as far as I know it is the United Kingdom Plc and not Great Britain that will be annexed.

Racism? I don't want any more foreigners coming into the country and the ones that have arrived here recently I'd prefer if they left. I'm neither a racist nor heartless. It's a simple principle. If you step in a lift that says maximum 10 people and you are the 120th person then I'm not willing to die on your account just to be inclusive, and certainly not because some ignoramus might call me names.

[Letters]

Yes you have.
No, I haven't. You may have presented one which you see as such but I disagree - because I'm capable of independent thought, you see.

It might be nice to self govern but how exactly would that work in practise? Who is going to build roads and schools and infrastructure. There has to be some structure and that means some system of government. Our system is bloody awful, Our 'democracy' yields ludicrously unrepresentative results. Last time out 1 in 12 people voted for UKIP and they got 1 MP out of 600-and-something. 1 in 3 voted for the Tories and they're in power with a comfortable majority. Ridiculous. And our upper house is entirely unelected of course.
But that is so whether we're in the EU or not and grumbles about the EU being undemocratic may have some justification but given how poor our system is us leaving won't fix that. And if we wanted to fix our system then we could do so while in the EU - a few years ago we had the referendum for AV which demonstrably yields more representative government. It was an easy thing for Cameron to give Clegg, I'm sure he knew that the change was too subtle for many to understand and a combination of that and people's inclination not to like change would see it defeated.
The EU has its problems but it has done some good things too and while the 'two layers rather than one' argument has some merit, given how thick our layer is and given we have the ability to change our layer regardless of the second - but no political will to do so - I don't see that leaving the EU will make things any better there.
Certainly not enough to agree it's a 'killer' argument.

Is your lift analogy intended to say that the UK is full? I have to say I have concerns about the level of immigration but a few things about that. Firstly, immigrants have put in more to our economy than they have taken out. Secondly, our population density isn't even in the top 50 in the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_de nsity#Main_table
I accept that those figures do include a lot of piddling little places which somewhat skew that but there are some very big countries in there too, having a lot of people in a country isn't a bad thing for an economy. There is an issue with availability of housing but that is one which is sort-outable if the powers that be put their minds to it. Thirdly, Switzerland are held up as the poster boy for a country who have done a deal with the EU and how we could prosper outside the EU. And I think we could prosper outside the EU, long term, BUT their deal with the EU, one of the conditions of them trading with us, is them accepting the freedom of movement of EU citizens. Given how well Cameron's negotiations with the EU have gone previously I'd be amazed if he could agree anything with the EU that didn't also include that condition. So us leaving wouldn't solve that problem, if you see it as one.

[GP]

Yeah but Keith Chegwin!

[Letters]

Yeah but Keith Chegwin!

That's the killer argument right there...


Cheggers Slays Wops!

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Honestly they should ban over 75's from voting in this. It's not their futures they're fucking over with their disgusting selfishness.

They've made their money, who gives a fuck about the millenials that need a stable and strong economy to make a living.

[Coney]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/johnny-rich/35-reasons-to-vote-leave_b_10322446.html

[Coney]

While we can and do joke about this stuff, the vote is going to have a serious outcome one way or the other. Whatever you choose, make sure you think it through and don't make a quick decision based on temporary events or feelings. For the younger half of the country, the result of the vote will have very significant and long-lasting effects either way, so if you fit in that category, it is important that you choose carefully. The rest of this post is something I saw which is the only significant piece I have seen that actually has references/bibliography at the end to back up the statements. And yes, I am voting to remain, but not based on the shit that Cameron and Osborne are coming out with.

This was written by someone called Nick Carter-Lando (all 3 of them) but I think it is a decent article:-

"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 35 instead of 34? 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/…/populationandm…/populationestimates
(3) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-…/…
(4) http://www.economist.com/…/21631076-rather-lot-according-ne…
(5) http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ea019.pdf
(6) https://fullfact.org/euro…/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
(7) http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngla…/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/co…/7fa04d70-d911-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818
(11) https://www.theguardian.com/…/brexit-could-wipe-20-percent-…
(12) https://next.ft.com/co…/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/…/i-can-t-guarantee-everyone-will…
(15) https://www.politicshome.com/…/arron-banks-%C2%A34300-loss-…
(16) http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/declaration-of-9-may-1950
(17) David Cameron http://www.theguardian.com/…/david-cameron-launches-tory-ca… ; Gordon Brown http://www.theguardian.com/…/inspiring-view-britishness-def…; Tony Blair http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36408239; John Major http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/John-Major-Voting-to-leave-wil…
(18) Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) http://labourlist.org/…/europe-needs-to-change-but-i-am-vo…/ Tim Farron (Lib Dem) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Britain-impoverished-backwater… Caroline Lucas (Green) http://europe.newsweek.com/caroline-lucas-brexit-european-r… Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) http://www.thesun.co.uk/…/Nicola-Sturgeon-vows-to-back-argu…
(19) Barack Obama http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you… ; Hillary Clinton http://www.theguardian.com/…/hillary-clinton-britain-should… Angela Merkel http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36436726; Shinzo Abe http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/japanese-prime-minister-shinz…/
(20) https://www.theguardian.com/…/stephen-hawking-donald-trump-… ; http://www.nature.com/…/scientists-say-no-to-uk-exit-from-e…
(21) http://www.theguardian.com/…/religious-leaders-oppose-brexit
(22) http://www.theguardian.com/…/vote-to-leave-eu-will-condemn-…
(23) http://uk.reuters.com/ar…/uk-britain-eu-unions-idUKKCN0V517D
(24) http://www.itv.com/…/almost-nine-in-10-economists-believe-…/
(25) http://www.theguardian.com/…/british-farmers-uk-eu-nfu-brex…
(26) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36353145
(27) https://www.rcm.org.uk/…/royal-college-of-midwives-supports…
(28) http://www.independent.co.uk/…/brexit-eu-referendum-what-wi…

[Niall_Quinn]

Who is going to build roads and schools and infrastructure. There has to be some structure and that means some system of government.

Not doing the whole EU debate thing now - footy is on.

Instead a question, just to see if it is worth pursuing a debate with anyone on here. Obviously you have failed to recall that I have already answered that question in a previous post and in quite some detail, along with a whole bunch of other posts related to the other aspects of the scaremongering EU agenda and state and legal affairs in general.

If I answer a question by giving an opinion, facts, whatever, why do you ask the same question again? When we exchange views on here - do you not pay any attention to what I say? Or do your forget? Or what is it? Because you can't have a proper debate when you can't remember the last point discussed.

In answer, the same sort of people why put food on the shelves of the supermarket you visit would build roads and schools etc. The only difference would be the price. It would be significantly cheaper as a huge and entirely unproductive middleman would be removed and the illegal and unlawful economic devices the state imposes in collusion with the banksters could be removed, such as the private interest tax on the money supply.

But you know this because we are in the ludicrous situation where statists claim the state is necessary in order to supply and manage infrastructure while the state farms out its responsibilities to private entities. The lunacy of it is incalculable. The state is therefore entirely unnecessary and doubly so when considering the way it operates today.

[Niall_Quinn]

Corbyn didn't take long to fall. Such a shame. Seeing him rolled out to slavishly repeat the corporate line today, very sad. All the years of opposing the elitist agenda, now he's trying to terrify the very people who are most at threat from the EU, the poor and lower income earners. Shameful, and it shows the futility of trying to change the system from within. By the time you reach a position of influence you are already hopelessly compromised.

The leave majority must be huge. For the mainstream to admit a 10 point margin means those figures are so overwhelming there's no amount of manipulation that can pull the data back to the agenda. The majority is also huge across Europe, except in the countries waiting with their hands out to join. So when the leader of the so-called Labour party steps out to represent the self-interested minority so shortly after complaining about the unrepresentative actions of a minority within his own party following his landslide win, well the hypocrisy smells to high heaven. UK Plc is back to having no leaders - again. False dawn, as ever.

Nothing can be won at the ballot box. And I imagine we're going to see just how tightly those ballot boxes are controlled come the end of June. I bet they don't bother with exit polls at all this time.

[Letters]

Where do you get 10 points from? I've seen loads of different figures but it's sounding quite close.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

[Özim]

big banks have always had our best interests at heart Nayan.

We must trust them.

:lol: Made me laugh when they were talking about raising taxation on the people who caused the problems salaries and banks came out and said if we do they'll all go abroad and we'll lose all the best people, as if it's that easy to just uproot and move.

Money men care about one thing, getting richer.

[Coney]

These would be the same expert bankers who helped fund the US credit companies who were not even selling mortages to people at random which would have been better than selling to people who were known defaulters, people with court judgements against them - generally selling to people with a known bad track record. Clearly they are experts who are way above our own understanding and are worth the ludicrously high salaries they pay themselves. They can f*** off as far as I am concerned. There are plenty of competent people in the UK who will do their job properly for a lot less. The greedy buggers can leave any time.

[Niall_Quinn]

Where do you get 10 points from? I've seen loads of different figures but it's sounding quite close.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Meant to say a 10 point deficit has been reversed. Now a 6 point advantage according to Guardian/ICM. Must be quite sizeable in reality.

[Letters]

Oh I see. Why do you have to think everything is a conspiracy?! :blink: