southmartin
-
Posts
771 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by southmartin
-
-
Good post southmartin...
Thank you.
I pinched it from here: https://www.facebook.com/remainiacs/
-
LOL! Great thread title.
Sorry Guido beat you to it by about 12 hours ;-)
-
The creation of the EU has been the main factor in what happened between 1918 and 1939 happening again.
Churchill knew this was neccessary then just as it is now.
As for the Commonwealth and the USA, I don't know if you have noticed but the colonials had enough of bailing out Little England about 60 years ago and in the USA Roosevelt is now Ronald Regan, George Bushx2 abd Donald Trump. The current crop of British Nationalists are as far away from Churchill as they are from Roosevelt.
Your suggestion that the EU stops wars is grossly incorrect, and I’d advise you not to suggest that to anybody from the former Yugoslavia else you’ll find yourself waking up with a crowd standing over you. Not to mention the conflict that the EU created in the Ukraine by funding an uprising to depose the elected President thus poking the ‘Russian Bear’ into action to defend it’s border. The EU’s aggression to expand eastwards is one of the most dangerous things it’s done and even during the cold war NATO commanders had the good sense to never push further east than Poland.
There are 3 reasons whey we’ve not had a world war in 70 years
1. Nuclear weapons
2. NATO
3. Democracy
Whether you agree with nuclear weapons or not, it cannot be argued that the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (or “MAD”) has worked.
The UK is a founder member of NATO, which due to the might of the American military together with UK forces (we’re still the 4th largest military power) has ensured that no one’s ever decided to take us on. It’s worth noting that in the Bosnian conflict it was President Clinton to ignored the EU and parachuted in the 101st Airborne to try and stop the massacres that were happening there. He did that unilaterally and without consent from the EU or UN. Laughable the UN then granted a retrospective resolution to the USA so they didn’t look foolish. The EU want to take our seat at the UN and at NATO - do you trust them to make good strategic and military decisions?
Democracy: It’s a little known fact that no two democratic nations have ever gone to war against each other. The EU is an authoritarian regime and rides roughshod over the democratically elected governments of member states. Less democracy = more chance of war.
The point of the EU was to get member states trading peacefully with each other in the belief that trading nations are less likely to go to war with each other. The evidence for that is generally pretty supportive, but we don’t need to be in a political union to buy wine from the French or cars from the Germans.
Remember what Churchill said: “If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea”
Trade, friendship, holidays all fine. But we must reassert our democracy and take charge of our own country.
-
You're all forgetting the hair and eyebrows indicators when it comes to the stock market.
All you have to do is look at the chancellor. Does this hair match his eyebrows? If so, market goes up. If not, market crashes.
Darling, Lamont, Healy
I'd pull my money out if Osbourne starts going grey...
-
It could have been any story and they probably would have run that one first & given only a few secs to the immigration issue.
except this is the one story that the BBC had total control over in regard to timing and reaction.
-
Haven't read thread but this got a 9 second mention on BBC R4 news tonight (where they managed to put the phrase "a decrease") behind a 4 minute section on James Saville. BBC doing the absolute, legal, bare minimum to appear impartial. Still terrified to talk about mass immigration. Shocking!
edit to add: Whenever the BBC do do a piece on immigration they always do it from the pov of the (poor, oppressed) immigrant, who's travelled across vast continents in search for a better life. No; for most it's a three hour trip on Eurostar, it would take you longer to get round the M25. Only latterly have they been giving the British persons pov (clogged infrastructure) and then only as a very brief, afterthought tacked onto the end of the piece.
The BBC need to understand what the first B in BBC stands for when they do pieces on mass immmigration. At the moment it stands for bias.
You think it's a lucky coincidence that the Blackburn/Savile story got released on the same day as the official immigration figures?
-
I'm going to be renting soon, and i've never paid a TV license and never intend to.
Anyway i've put this link into my bookmarks and took 3 screenshots today each time they have been pro EU or scaremongering.
Plan is in 120 days when its all over to prove how biased the BBC is, which is enough to get out of paying the licence.
The fckers can't help themselves, even why they try to be balanced they simply cannot do it.
We need the broadcast news media deregulated to enable us to have a UK Fox news, people may knock it but most of the debates on there are far more informative than any shyt we get in Blighty, you get true balance from either side of the agenda.
Put them all on a website - update daily... then thousands of people can use your hard work (thanks) to also leave the BBC and kill it for good
-
I've been reading some threads on Mumsnet - the majority there are voting leave, although it's a bit closer than on here.
Blimey - hooking up with the Mumsnetters would be like Farage and Galloway joining forces
Oh, hang on...
-
The biggest problem the out campaign has is that they are/ will be unable to say with any degree of certainty what out will result in. Talking of regaining sovereignty, renogotiating trade deals and keeping jobs in the UK because companies will not relocate is just talk. It means nothing because nobody really knows and how many people are prepared to vote for the unknown? Ok people with not a lot to lose maybe but what % of the UK population is that?
(my bold)
But surely can't you see, that The biggest problem with the IN campaign has is that they are/ will be unable to say with any degree of certainly was IN will result in
Can you honesty say that if we vote to stay IN the following will be the same
- Immigration (no EU limits, so 1m or 20m coming here in the next 5 years?) - tell me how many?
- Economy. Being shackled to trading with the EU and unable to make our own Free Trade Agreements with the rest of the world
- Economy (2) Being forced to eventually join the Euro (the 'agreement' not to have to do this can be overturned by the EU Parliament, and hence is not worth the paper it's written on)
- Political stability? The EU is a total basket case, Political union between the richer, north states, and the southern ones was always going to result in disaster
- Demand for housing - do we need 30,000 houses per year, or 2 million? Surely on a HPC forum we should be supporting measures that will reduce the demand and thus stabilise prices
The facts is, that there are just as many (if not more) risks to staying in the EU. The EU we know at the moment will not be the EU in 10 years time. We will never stop their ingrained march to greater fiscal and political integration.
And, as the late Tony Benn said. If you are unable to vote to remove your rulers, you are a slave.
You are saying we should stay slaves because the cells are nicely decorated. You sir, are a coward, and I suspect your prolific posting is due to you being paid for (either directly or indirectly) by an EU institution.
Luckily though, it seems that you're pretty much the only person who wants to stay in, and you seem to be aiming most of your posts at slagging off the various OUT campaigns. Not sure why you think having multiple OUT groups is a bad thing? Seems to me that GO are concentrating on the immigration arguments, and Vote.Leave on the Economic. Frankly there are so many reasons to leave that I think 5 groups couldn't cover it all!
Play the ball, not the man.
Now reply with some numbers, and let's get back to facts... come on, we're all waiting
-
What it is is to highlight the negotiating position of both sides if Brexit. I have 2 bullets, you have 6. Lets lose one each and see who ends up in a better place.
Myth debunked for you ( and Daniel Hannon)
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.VsGJfcSkqrU
EU exports to UK represents 16% of EU total exports, around a third of UK % to EU. EU more important to UK than UK important to EU.
“But the EU accounts for over 50% of our trade - why would you do anything to risk that?”
You’ve probably heard Pro EU politicians say this, but it’s simply not true. The UK GDP is around £1.6 trillion, and International trade represents about £300 bn, or just 19% of our total. Of which around 42% is represents our trade with other EU nations. So 42% of 19% = 8.0%. Only a small part of our economy is trade with the EU.
EU trade is about 8% of GDP
But of course that’s not the whole story either, as the UK imports far more from the EU than we export to it. Meaning that we have a trade deficit.
This means that trade with the EU will simply continue as it currently does. Anyone who thinks German automotive manufacturers won’t sell us their cars because we didn’t want to be part of a political block, is not being realistic.
*But even that figure of 42% is hard to verify, due to the bizarre way the EU collects the data. In 1997 the EU instigated “The Rotterdam Accord” as a way of recording the volume of trade between the UK and other European nations. But the method of calculation is very basic.Quite simply, they record what volume of shipping leaves UK ports, and then arrives at EU ports. However, they do not factor in if any of this cargo is only docking temporarily at EU ports, before continuing it’s journey to other parts of the world.
Based on this, we believe it’s reasonable to suggest that the figures they give are an over estimation.
-
Haha. I didnt say which year did I?
Touché !!
-
OK then.
It's about time I had a shot at this.
Black Monday. 16th Feb.
Put someone else's house on it.
Hope you're guessing is better than your ability to read a calendar ;-)
-
Does nobody call Black Mondays on here anymore?
I don't like [black] mondays :-)
-
http://capx.co/if-david-cameron-thinks-the-eu-wants-to-shunt-illegal-immigrants-on-to-britain-why-does-he-want-to-stay/
Let’s start with the basics. The reciprocal stationing of UK and French immigration officials on both sides of the Channel has nothing whatever to do with the EU. It rests on two bilateral deals between London and Paris: the 1993 Sangatte Protocol and the 2003 Le Touquet Treaty. This is the key point to remember when David Cameron says that Brexit might somehow shift migrants from Calais to Kent.
http://order-order.com/2016/02/08/french-government-disputes-cameron-on-calais/
The French interior minister last year rubbished the idea promoted by Cameron today that France might tear up their agreement with Britain on border controls if we left the EU. Bernard Cazeneuve said:“Calling for the border with the English to be opened is not a responsible solution. It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to flow to Calais in far greater numbers. A humanitarian disaster would ensue. It is a foolhardy path, and one the government will not pursue. On the contrary, we’re going to make the border even more watertight to dissuade smugglers and migrants, respect international rules and reduce the pressure on Calais.” -
The main purpose of the EU was to stop us fighting each other, that has worked. The only reason I can think for us to stay in the EU is because it is better for some of the smaller weaker countries. However they don't seem to give a dam that our housing schools health service is struggling under massive immigration so I have to wonder should we care about them?
Utter nonsense for 3 reasons:
- NATO
- Nuclear deterrents
- Democracy
It's our NATO membership that has prevented war, alongside No.2: Nuclear weapons. Finally no two 'democratic' countries have ever gone to war against each other.. So more democracy = less chance of conflict. The EU want to remove nation democracy and also take our seat on the UN Security Council. This in direct contrast to No. 1 + 3 above.
Finally, I might advise you not to use the 'EU stops wars" argument if you're ever discussing the matter with someone from the former Yugoslavia - you're likely to end up with some impressive bruises. Look what happened there when different nations and cultures were forced into one identity. That went well eh?
-
UK house prices to crash as global asset prices unravel
House prices have broken free from reality and defied gravity for far too long, but they are an asset like anything else, and there are six clear reasons a nasty correction looms in the coming year .
-
Is their housing spokesman still a benefits landlord too?
sadly i'm afraid so. But he'll probably be in the press for some old dodgy porn scandal net week, so he'll get replaced soon enough ;-)
-
Unfortuantely as the idea has surfaced it will be picked up by all the main 3 (if Lib Dems can be considered one of them still). I also wouldn't be surprised if UKIP go with it
One way or another these the parasites in these lot will wedge their way into power.
UKIP won't go with that - mainly because they have an economics spokesman (Patrick O'Flynn) who actually has a first class degree in economics, unlike Osbourne, Brown or Darling (though Darling did have his head screwed on a little)
-
ok - left of field question: What's the legal definition of a terrorist organisation? I mean if it's something that can be proved to be deliberately harming the welfare of the citizens, and a danger to the country (e.g the PFI companies) then can't their assets be seized by the government and thus be returned to public ownership... ergo cancelling out the need for payments?
Am sure even if there was a barely credible possibility this might happen, it'd be enough to get the interest rates renegotiated to something that's reasonable...
It's take someone with the ball (s) of Farage to pull it off though. (Though I note UKIP health policy does advocate paying off PFI contracts early).
-
I'm not 100% convinced Farage is genuine
But I'm 95% convinced..........which is good enough at the moment
I've met him several times, had drinks with him (ok, it might be quicker just to list people that haven't done that) But my point is that i'm 100% convinced he's genuine - in fact so are almost everyone i've met in UKIP (barring a few opportunistic nutters) and to be fair, every party has those.
-
Bugger. Not only are the sweaties staying with us, but the title of this thread will linger to haunt me forever
Wrong again it seems!
-
They (the NO campaign) made some glaring mistakes - it's almost like Cameron wants them to leave and take 42 Labour MPs out of the Commons...
1. They allowed them to be the YES campaign. Surely the referendum should be "do you want Scotland to stay as part of the UK" - that way the positive sentiment is with staying
2. allowing 16 year olds to vote - I mean that's just bloody silly! Most school kids have even less idea of how the world works than Labour voters, and can easily be led into believing that the land of milk ad honey just requires them to split from England
-
I think the pollsters have got it wrong. I don't think they've been able to take into account the "motivation" factor. I.e. the willingness of the voter to actually get off their backside and go vote.
Therefore I predict that the Yes voters (who will be up at the crack of dawn come rain or shine to vote) will actually score a relatively comfortable win.
Who's going to offer me odds on the Scots voting to leave by 53:47 - a 6 point gap?
-
Doesn't anybody else see the irony of this man's back-ground in Kenya and Uganda and him joining an anti-immigaration, xenophobic, Little-Englander party? :-))
They're not anti-immigration, they're anti uncontrolled immigration. And they don't blame migrants for coming here - they blame the system.
The term "little Englander" is wrong too, quite apart from the fact that leaving the EU means we can then get out into the rest of the world and have greater free-trade with more countries, the term you mention there was originally coined back in the Napoleonic era to describe people in the UK who didn't want to send our troops abroad to fight wars and conquer lands that had nothing to do with the security of England...
So in that respect I'm happy to be labelled as one, thanks!
The Official Brexit - Remain Thread - All New Threads Will Be Merged Into This One
in Politics
Posted
Propaganda is normally information that's factually incorrect - the text on that page appears to be very accurate
And it seems to have silenced a certain VW loving poster here anyway! Perhaps he's been recalled to Brussels for further 'training' ;-)