Chat Forum
It is currently Wed May 23, 2018 2:03 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1700 ... 1724  Next

Whether you can or can't actually vote IRL, In, or Out
In 60%  60%  [ 236 ]
Out 40%  40%  [ 155 ]
Total votes : 391
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10874
Already starting to sell the family jewelries I see. It has not even started yet!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24267
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
camroc1 wrote:
Barnier tells the UK to put up or shut up.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SP ... 511_en.htm


Quote:
will require adequate enforcement and dispute settlement mechanisms


Interesting that bit- adequate doesn’t mean European court.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15344
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Of course not. We sell more to the ROW year on year than we do to the EU. I don't know how much that extends to other member states. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar stat for the more evolved economies.



thought this was quite interresting when it comes to calculating those trade figures.

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how ... s-11057545



2% is considerable.


Quote:
In July alone, the latest month for which trade figures exist, gold accounted for more than a tenth of the value of everything exported by the UK overseas - making it Britain's top export above cars, engines and pharmaceuticals.

...

In the fourth quarter of last year, a sharp outflow of gold showed up as a sudden spike in exports, causing some economists to conclude that Britain's manufacturers were starting to benefit from a post-Brexit jump in confidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 980
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Of course not. We sell more to the ROW year on year than we do to the EU. I don't know how much that extends to other member states. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar stat for the more evolved economies.



thought this was quite interresting when it comes to calculating those trade figures.

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how ... s-11057545



2% is considerable.


Yeah, massive

Will of the people
, innit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 980
goose81 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
goose81 wrote:
@gospel whatever about the trade deals, how do you think you will get a better deal with a population of 80 m or whatever it is v the EU doing deals with these countries with 500m population? You'll get the deals done but they will be worse than the deals you would have had with them if in the EU..



This isn't remarkably stupid post regarding trade deals. 200 million of those 500 are poor and an irrelevance in terms of much of the trade that is important.

Trade is reciprocal ..... You get this right ?

Currently there's one signed EU trade deal.


It's potential market, potential for cheap fdi jobs etc. God speed on your negotiating but I think you are going to be bent over. The US won't even do a deal until you put the NHS on the table


Quite. Watch the red line mentality vanish.

Theresa: Donald, we've noticed we run a decent surplus in trading with the USA. Anything you can do to help?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48681
Rinkals wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Of course not. We sell more to the ROW year on year than we do to the EU. I don't know how much that extends to other member states. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar stat for the more evolved economies.



thought this was quite interresting when it comes to calculating those trade figures.

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how ... s-11057545



2% is considerable.


Quote:
In July alone, the latest month for which trade figures exist, gold accounted for more than a tenth of the value of everything exported by the UK overseas - making it Britain's top export above cars, engines and pharmaceuticals.

...

In the fourth quarter of last year, a sharp outflow of gold showed up as a sudden spike in exports, causing some economists to conclude that Britain's manufacturers were starting to benefit from a post-Brexit jump in confidence.




Yeah they cherry picked. Though cars are still well down, we export 15-16 billion of gold annually out of 300 billion. You should have read the long article.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15344
bimboman wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
Gospel wrote:
Of course not. We sell more to the ROW year on year than we do to the EU. I don't know how much that extends to other member states. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar stat for the more evolved economies.



thought this was quite interresting when it comes to calculating those trade figures.

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how ... s-11057545



2% is considerable.


Quote:
In July alone, the latest month for which trade figures exist, gold accounted for more than a tenth of the value of everything exported by the UK overseas - making it Britain's top export above cars, engines and pharmaceuticals.

...

In the fourth quarter of last year, a sharp outflow of gold showed up as a sudden spike in exports, causing some economists to conclude that Britain's manufacturers were starting to benefit from a post-Brexit jump in confidence.




Yeah they cherry picked. Though cars are still well down, we export 15-16 billion of gold annually out of 300 billion. You should have read the long article.

Christ.

I was responding to your claim that 2% is not significant.

2% probably isn't all that significant (see Shereblue's post above), but it's the use of misleading statistics to propel your argument that I was trying to draw attention to.

But you knew that already, didn't you, you dishonest f*ck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48681
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19574
Zico wrote:
The problem with giving a balanced platform on Brexit is that you end up giving equal standing to the outright lies and fairytales from the Brexiters. The BBC doesn't do enough to call them out on the lies and so a lot people will then think they might actually be true. They don't give airtime to Russian propaganda without making clear it's complete bullshit.


Given their propaganda during the referendum and the fact none of their predictions post the vote and triggering article 50 then shouldn't this point be equally applied to Remainers?

Oh and as it's been measured the BBC do not give equal airtime to brexiters as they do remainers. Just about all news shows have had more Remainer guests than pro-Brexit ones and they have given more emphasis to connecting negative economic news to Brexit #despitebrexit then the more frequent good news of the economy to Brexit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14943
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
The numbers I used came from this notorious Brexit cheerleader mouthpiece: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
nardol wrote:
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.

The BBC have been flailing since the referendum result because the last thing they expected to happen was for the UK to vote to leave and it's been said that many in the organisation feel responsible because they provided balance where they should have challenged Brexiteers more on the key issues. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19574
Gospel wrote:
nardol wrote:
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.

The BBC have been flailing since the referendum result because the last thing they expected to happen was for the UK to vote to leave and it's been said that many in the organisation feel responsible because they provided balance where they should have challenged Brexiteers more on the key issues. :|


The question is I wonder is how much does the media influence public opinion? If it's got such an impact why would Corbyn have such a foothold last election? Why has Brexit opinion not changed despite a savage 18 month campaign against it? I rather suspect the media over state their influence. I also rather suspect, and have always claimed this, Britain always had a good chance of voting out due to a passionate working class voice up north and urban media types and politicians and chattering classes in London have no idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 10976
So whats the latest over in Pigdogland

May facing down the brokenteers to save the UK with a Customs Union deal or not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15344
eldanielfire wrote:
Gospel wrote:
nardol wrote:
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.

The BBC have been flailing since the referendum result because the last thing they expected to happen was for the UK to vote to leave and it's been said that many in the organisation feel responsible because they provided balance where they should have challenged Brexiteers more on the key issues. :|


The question is I wonder is how much does the media influence public opinion? If it's got such an impact why would Corbyn have such a foothold last election? Why has Brexit opinion not changed despite a savage 18 month campaign against it? I rather suspect the media over state their influence. I also rather suspect, and have always claimed this, Britain always had a good chance of voting out due to a passionate working class voice up north and urban media types and politicians and chattering classes in London have no idea.

I think what you're trying to say is that the average British voter prefers to be uninformed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5128
Rinkals wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Gospel wrote:
nardol wrote:
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.

The BBC have been flailing since the referendum result because the last thing they expected to happen was for the UK to vote to leave and it's been said that many in the organisation feel responsible because they provided balance where they should have challenged Brexiteers more on the key issues. :|


The question is I wonder is how much does the media influence public opinion? If it's got such an impact why would Corbyn have such a foothold last election? Why has Brexit opinion not changed despite a savage 18 month campaign against it? I rather suspect the media over state their influence. I also rather suspect, and have always claimed this, Britain always had a good chance of voting out due to a passionate working class voice up north and urban media types and politicians and chattering classes in London have no idea.

I think what you're trying to say is that the average British voter prefers to be uninformed.


Lots of people during the referendum complained they didn't know what the right choice was, what the actual details of the argument were. I don't recall many people running around making sure they'd read and understood the various European treaties though, and of course it was impossible to scrutinise the leave campaign as it was pie in the sky gibberish.

That people aren't going to spend time trawling through treaties and whatnot is why referendums are a bad idea, if every voter was informed on every issue you could start to function less with a representative parliament but it's just not the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4160
Mullet 2 wrote:
So whats the latest over in Pigdogland

May facing down the brokenteers to save the UK with a Customs Union deal or not?


Brexiteers want both free trade and protectionist policies. We can get trade deals with everyone without any compromises from ourselves. We won't know what we will get until we get it which is in the capable hands of theresa may, DD and Liam Fox.

We shouldn't point out that approaching 2 years later and a lot of money spent we don't really know what we heading for but what we really want is a chocolate cake, fruit cake and a delightful sponge but are likely to be served a shit fudge cake because the remain campaign which was shit said something stupid to counter some other bullshit from the other side in the slurry pool of shit that is UK politics.

Listening to theresa may on brexit is like listening to corporate bullshit that makes me want to be disruptive and take the piss. Next we are going to learn our brexit policy is extremely granular and organically growing while we negotiate to reach a synergy with the EU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
Petej wrote:
Listening to theresa may on brexit is like listening to corporate bullshit that makes me want to be disruptive and take the piss. Next we are going to learn our brexit policy is extremely granular and organically growing while we negotiate to reach a synergy with the EU.

That's depressingly spot on. We all know she's just treading water because there's no compromise to be had in either her cabinet or elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3978
Location: France
piquant wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Gospel wrote:
nardol wrote:
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.

The BBC have been flailing since the referendum result because the last thing they expected to happen was for the UK to vote to leave and it's been said that many in the organisation feel responsible because they provided balance where they should have challenged Brexiteers more on the key issues. :|


The question is I wonder is how much does the media influence public opinion? If it's got such an impact why would Corbyn have such a foothold last election? Why has Brexit opinion not changed despite a savage 18 month campaign against it? I rather suspect the media over state their influence. I also rather suspect, and have always claimed this, Britain always had a good chance of voting out due to a passionate working class voice up north and urban media types and politicians and chattering classes in London have no idea.

I think what you're trying to say is that the average British voter prefers to be uninformed.


Lots of people during the referendum complained they didn't know what the right choice was, what the actual details of the argument were. I don't recall many people running around making sure they'd read and understood the various European treaties though, and of course it was impossible to scrutinise the leave campaign as it was pie in the sky gibberish.

That people aren't going to spend time trawling through treaties and whatnot is why referendums are a bad idea, if every voter was informed on every issue you could start to function less with a representative parliament but it's just not the case.


It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
eldanielfire wrote:
Gospel wrote:
nardol wrote:
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.

The BBC have been flailing since the referendum result because the last thing they expected to happen was for the UK to vote to leave and it's been said that many in the organisation feel responsible because they provided balance where they should have challenged Brexiteers more on the key issues. :|


The question is I wonder is how much does the media influence public opinion? If it's got such an impact why would Corbyn have such a foothold last election? Why has Brexit opinion not changed despite a savage 18 month campaign against it? I rather suspect the media over state their influence. I also rather suspect, and have always claimed this, Britain always had a good chance of voting out due to a passionate working class voice up north and urban media types and politicians and chattering classes in London have no idea.

According to YouGov 80% of the public had already decided which way to vote before the campaigning began. Given the dominant motivation behind the vote to leave was a return of sovereignty the detail was never really in play. Try telling a passionate scots nationalist he'll be poorer out of the Union - he won't give a flying fuck. The EU has never captured the hearts and minds of the UK public in the way it has for those on the continent which is not to blame the bloc but more a case of the cynicism and lack of democratic transparency from our own politicians.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10874
Gospel wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.



How so?

Your post illustrates Clement's point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5128
clementinfrance wrote:
piquant wrote:

Lots of people during the referendum complained they didn't know what the right choice was, what the actual details of the argument were. I don't recall many people running around making sure they'd read and understood the various European treaties though, and of course it was impossible to scrutinise the leave campaign as it was pie in the sky gibberish.

That people aren't going to spend time trawling through treaties and whatnot is why referendums are a bad idea, if every voter was informed on every issue you could start to function less with a representative parliament but it's just not the case.


It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...


Very true, the amount of nonsense spouted and accepted about what the EU could so was shameful, both on those making so many false claims and the gullibility of those accepting the claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3978
Location: France
La soule wrote:
Gospel wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.



How so?

Your post illustrates Clement's point.


:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15344
piquant wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Gospel wrote:
nardol wrote:
1. I doubt that.


2. Its not the BBC's fault that there are maybe 4 articulate Brexiteers on the whole of the UK.

The BBC have been flailing since the referendum result because the last thing they expected to happen was for the UK to vote to leave and it's been said that many in the organisation feel responsible because they provided balance where they should have challenged Brexiteers more on the key issues. :|


The question is I wonder is how much does the media influence public opinion? If it's got such an impact why would Corbyn have such a foothold last election? Why has Brexit opinion not changed despite a savage 18 month campaign against it? I rather suspect the media over state their influence. I also rather suspect, and have always claimed this, Britain always had a good chance of voting out due to a passionate working class voice up north and urban media types and politicians and chattering classes in London have no idea.

I think what you're trying to say is that the average British voter prefers to be uninformed.


Lots of people during the referendum complained they didn't know what the right choice was, what the actual details of the argument were. I don't recall many people running around making sure they'd read and understood the various European treaties though, and of course it was impossible to scrutinise the leave campaign as it was pie in the sky gibberish.

That people aren't going to spend time trawling through treaties and whatnot is why referendums are a bad idea, if every voter was informed on every issue you could start to function less with a representative parliament but it's just not the case.

Yes, but isn't it inevitable that the moment you start to become informed you lose your objectivity?

Anyone who knows what they're are talking about is tainted by that knowledge and therefore cannot be trusted to be objective.

Therefore, the only people whose opinion one can trust are the hopelessly uninformed. Ergo, the MSM is untrustworthy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
La soule wrote:
Gospel wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.



How so?

Your post illustrates Clement's point.

The UK public were not consulted over Nice, Maastrict or Lisbon which fundamentally changed the UK's relationship with the bloc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
piquant wrote:
Very true, the amount of nonsense spouted and accepted about what the EU could so was shameful, both on those making so many false claims and the gullibility of those accepting the claims.

If this is true then how come after two years of blanket coverage of the UK's intimate relationship with the EU has the leave vote remained the same? Why can't you understand as I have that leave voters just want out of the bloc regardless. Personally speaking I've moved from being fairly ambivalent about membership to a reluctant leaver on account of what I have learned and observed in the last 24 months.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10874
Gospel wrote:
La soule wrote:
Gospel wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.



How so?

Your post illustrates Clement's point.

The UK public were not consulted over Nice, Maastrict or Lisbon which fundamentally changed the UK's relationship with the bloc.


OK. Those were "just" further steps in the European project though so Clement's point still stands.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10874
Gospel wrote:
piquant wrote:
Very true, the amount of nonsense spouted and accepted about what the EU could so was shameful, both on those making so many false claims and the gullibility of those accepting the claims.

If this is true then how come after two years of blanket coverage of the UK's intimate relationship with the EU has the leave vote remained the same? Why can't you understand as I have that leave voters just want out of the bloc regardless. Personally speaking I've moved from being fairly ambivalent about membership to a reluctant leaver on account of what I have learned and observed in the last 24 months.



You are blaming the evil EU for holding its ground, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3978
Location: France
Gospel wrote:
La soule wrote:
Gospel wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.



How so?

Your post illustrates Clement's point.

The UK public were not consulted over Nice, Maastrict or Lisbon which fundamentally changed the UK's relationship with the bloc.


Yet the govts/parties in charge at the time of signature of the Maastricht and Nice treaties were re-elected by the British electorate.

So the UK public did have its say...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5128
Gospel wrote:
piquant wrote:
Very true, the amount of nonsense spouted and accepted about what the EU could so was shameful, both on those making so many false claims and the gullibility of those accepting the claims.

If this is true then how come after two years of blanket coverage of the UK's intimate relationship with the EU has the leave vote remained the same? Why can't you understand as I have that leave voters just want out of the bloc regardless. Personally speaking I've moved from being fairly ambivalent about membership to a reluctant leaver on account of what I have learned and observed in the last 24 months.


I suspect the balance don't want out regardless, they want out and more jobs and more money which will not result, they want out and no further payments into the EU which they'll likely not get, they want out and less immigration and so the outcome of a trade agreement with India and others could well annoy them. Maybe if they're pushed on all the gaps between their expectations and what's far more likely to result they'll declare 'stuff it I just want out anyway' but at that point you'd know you were listening to a moron


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1229
clementinfrance wrote:
Gospel wrote:
La soule wrote:
Gospel wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.



How so?

Your post illustrates Clement's point.

The UK public were not consulted over Nice, Maastrict or Lisbon which fundamentally changed the UK's relationship with the bloc.


Yet the govts/parties in charge at the time of signature of the Maastricht and Nice treaties were re-elected by the British electorate.

So the UK public did have its say...


None of the parties in the HoC were advocating a referendum. So the UK public had no opportunity to "have its say".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
La soule wrote:
Gospel wrote:
La soule wrote:
Gospel wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:
It's been said many times before on this thread but the vast majority of the British public have never really understood what the ECSC/EEC/EU was about because they were never told.
Not by politicians, not by business leaders, not by the media and not in schools or universities...

They know it's a trading bloc that's grown beyond it's remit and wants to be a superstate. It's the over reach that has got people's backs up and the fact we were denied a say for multiple treaties.



How so?

Your post illustrates Clement's point.

The UK public were not consulted over Nice, Maastrict or Lisbon which fundamentally changed the UK's relationship with the bloc.


OK. Those were "just" further steps in the European project though so Clement's point still stands.

For the majority of the UK public they were getting more Europe than they voted for. Why is that so hard to understand?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3978
Location: France
Tony Blair's Therapist wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:

Yet the govts/parties in charge at the time of signature of the Maastricht and Nice treaties were re-elected by the British electorate.

So the UK public did have its say...


None of the parties in the HoC were advocating a referendum. So the UK public had no opportunity to "have its say".


When voting for a party or MP you have a load of binary choices to make.

One of those choices is Pro-EU MP or Anti-EU MP.

Unless there was literally zero anti-EU MP's during the elections following the signature of these treaties then actually yes the Brtitsh public did have its say...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5082
Quite bizarre how certain posters think they speak for everyone who voted for leave.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
piquant wrote:
Gospel wrote:
piquant wrote:
Very true, the amount of nonsense spouted and accepted about what the EU could so was shameful, both on those making so many false claims and the gullibility of those accepting the claims.

If this is true then how come after two years of blanket coverage of the UK's intimate relationship with the EU has the leave vote remained the same? Why can't you understand as I have that leave voters just want out of the bloc regardless. Personally speaking I've moved from being fairly ambivalent about membership to a reluctant leaver on account of what I have learned and observed in the last 24 months.


I suspect the balance don't want out regardless, they want out and more jobs and more money which will not result, they want out and no further payments into the EU which they'll likely not get, they want out and less immigration and so the outcome of a trade agreement with India and others could well annoy them. Maybe if they're pushed on all the gaps between their expectations and what's far more likely to result they'll declare 'stuff it I just want out anyway' but at that point you'd know you were listening to a moron

Poling doesn't back you up on this from what I have seen. People expect to be poorer following Brexit and immigration was never about the numbers - it was about having the right to say who can and who can't come into the country. According to the EU the UK is the most tolerant society for non-European immigration so i don't believe we're suddenly going to get upset over a few more visas for Indian students and professionals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1229
clementinfrance wrote:
Tony Blair's Therapist wrote:
clementinfrance wrote:

Yet the govts/parties in charge at the time of signature of the Maastricht and Nice treaties were re-elected by the British electorate.

So the UK public did have its say...


None of the parties in the HoC were advocating a referendum. So the UK public had no opportunity to "have its say".


When voting for a party or MP you have a load of binary choices to make.

One of those choices is Pro-EU MP or Anti-EU MP.

Unless there was literally zero anti-EU MP's during the elections following the signature of these treaties then actually yes the Brtitsh public did have its say...


You're splitting hairs. Many constituencies don't have an anti-EU MP (or an anti-EU electable candidate).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5128
Tony Blair's Therapist wrote:

None of the parties in the HoC were advocating a referendum. So the UK public had no opportunity to "have its say".


We also didn't get a vote on Iraq, or Libya, we didn't get a vote on aircraft carriers with no aircraft (and Corbyn mayn't offer a vote on nuclear subs with no nukes), we didn't get a vote on Cameron kicking off a massive reform of the NHS, this could go on and on when really we shouldn't given the general lack of understanding, instead we have a representative parliament. And when it comes to the EU those who do spend their time reading up on the issues find themselves strongly in favour of the EU, which isn't really all that surprising


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15525
Location: West of Londinium
Calculus wrote:
Quite bizarre how certain posters think they speak for everyone who voted for leave.

I'm reiterating the results of extensive poling that has been ongoing since the referendum two years ago. I'm just trying to understand the trends.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1229
piquant wrote:
Tony Blair's Therapist wrote:

None of the parties in the HoC were advocating a referendum. So the UK public had no opportunity to "have its say".


We also didn't get a vote on Iraq, or Libya, we didn't get a vote on aircraft carriers with no aircraft (and Corbyn mayn't offer a vote on nuclear subs with no nukes), we didn't get a vote on Cameron kicking off a massive reform of the NHS, this could go on and on when really we shouldn't given the general lack of understanding, instead we have a representative parliament. And when it comes to the EU those who do spend their time reading up on the issues find themselves strongly in favour of the EU, which isn't really all that surprising


I was answering Clement who said the UK public could have voted for parties who were against the treaties.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1700 ... 1724  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArnoldVDH, Beaver_Shark, Big Nipper, Bing [Bot], BokJock, brokerGObroke, Chilli, danny_fitz, Don Brooks, fishooks15, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, handyman, Homer, Hong Kong, HurricaneWasp, Kiwias, Liathroidigloine, Liquid_Len, Madness, Man In Black, matta25, obelixtim, Oxbow, penguin, rabble, Raggs, Ramming Speed, rfurlong, RichieRich89, Risteard, SFBB, slick, St_Badger, tabascoboy, The Sun God, troglodiet, Ulsters Red Hand, Winnie, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group