Sheeple Splinter Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I think the immigration crisis could be crucial in swaying opinion towards an out vote. Greece has more or less been threatened with being ring fenced for not doing Merkel's dirty work, and turning itself into a giant holding camp for the millions that Merkel invited in. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/12126279/Is-Greece-about-to-be-martyred-again-by-the-EU.html If they go ahead and re-introduce border controls between Greece and the rest of Schengen then it will have minimal effect on the numbers flooding into Greece from Turkey. What it will do is overwhelm Greece, and probably trigger all out riots along it's borders with the rest of the EU as they try to break out towards Germany. A substantial number of the immigrants will get nasty quickly if their progress is impeded. And we could be talking hundreds of thousands of fighting age blokes yelling about Allan's snack bar, etc. Footage of this on TV will be extremely damaging for Merkel and Cameron. Cast your mind back 6 weeks ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 i If the Queen is pro Brexit then she is no different to most old women without a university education. Yea right ,so you need a university education now to make an informed decision How bigoted is that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 As things stand, laws are made by the ruling party usually elected to office by 25% or less of the population Our system requires only a plurality not an absolute majority, that hardly makes it undemocratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Our system requires only a plurality not an absolute majority, that hardly makes it undemocratic. It's the best we can get. Arguing about a low turn out in government elections when you are also a member of an undemocratic super state is just plain dishonest. Of course democracy doesn't work under these conditions, so that's why people don't bother voting. Not that voting can't work, just that it's been made not to work. If the EU is so great then why is it a complete disaster on all counts, at all times for everybody involved? Even the queen of Europe is looking like an old bag lady these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 The best you can get? The best you can get got UKIP 1 seat at the General Election. The EU election gave them 24. I despise UKIP and everything they stand for but if you want to debate democracy then starting with Westminster being the best you can get is a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robo1968 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 The best you can get? The best you can get got UKIP 1 seat at the General Election. The EU election gave them 24. I despise UKIP and everything they stand for but if you want to debate democracy then starting with Westminster being the best you can get is a joke. I would say that UKIP have made a mockery of the establishment and have proved what can be done with their presence , with just one MP they have forced a referendum, there are a lot of parties with more MPs that have managed nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 The reason there is a referendum is that the Tory party was split 50/50 on Europe and Cameron would have had continued dissent from his backbenchers. Brexit will not give you anything that the UK has not given you in the past. Westminster will continue to govern in the interst of the minority because that is how the UK system works. The only difference will be that they will be able to govern without any restrictions from the EU on what they are able to do. As a member of the cohort that will continue to benefit from Westminster politics I am personally relaxed about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 The reason there is a referendum is that the Tory party was split 50/50 on Europe and Cameron would have had continued dissent from his backbenchers. Brexit will not give you anything that the UK has not given you in the past. Westminster will continue to govern in the interst of the minority because that is how the UK system works. The only difference will be that they will be able to govern without any restrictions from the EU on what they are able to do. As a member of the cohort that will continue to benefit from Westminster politics I am personally relaxed about that. Nonsenses he shit himself (if you can`t beat them join them) when the marginal seats in the local elections started to fall into UKIP`s hands it`s as simple as that ,that`s what democracy is all about ,yes what we have is far from perfect but`s it`s far better than the unelected dictators from the EU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheeple Splinter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 The reason there is a referendum is that the Tory party was split 50/50 on Europe and Cameron would have had continued dissent from his backbenchers. Brexit will not give you anything that the UK has not given you in the past. Westminster will continue to govern in the interst of the minority because that is how the UK system works. The only difference will be that they will be able to govern without any restrictions from the EU on what they are able to do. As a member of the cohort that will continue to benefit from Westminster politics I am personally relaxed about that. I know that you despise them but the rise of UKIP, defection of MP's and the internal schisms in the blue camp were the main reasons for the referendum pledge. The blues thought they were going to be forming another coalition. The UK system does need reform and that will manifestly be easier out than in. If it is Brexit, I envisage the blues hitting welfare spending hard as I can't see Cameron standing down. Osborne, as reported, appears to be positioning himself for either outcome. sbefore GE 2015 put the but Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I know that you despise them but the rise of UKIP, defection of MP's and the internal schisms in the blue camp were the main reasons for the referendum pledge. The blues thought they were going to be forming another coalition. The UK system does need reform and that will manifestly be easier out than in. If it is Brexit, I envisage the blues hitting welfare spending hard as I can't see Cameron standing down. Osborne, as reported, appears to be positioning himself for either outcome. sbefore GE 2015 put the but Thats the way i see it ,their will be a massive layer of pass the buck type bureaucracy removed ,that the government will no longer be able to hide behind No more our hands are tied because it`s against EU rules ....the buck stops with them..it will be them that the electorate hold accountable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 And at that point those who voted out might think to themselves maybe the EU wasn't the problem after all. Too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I know that you despise them but the rise of UKIP, defection of MP's and the internal schisms in the blue camp were the main reasons for the referendum pledge. The blues thought they were going to be forming another coalition. The UK system does need reform and that will manifestly be easier out than in. If it is Brexit, I envisage the blues hitting welfare spending hard as I can't see Cameron standing down. Osborne, as reported, appears to be positioning himself for either outcome. sbefore GE 2015 put the but Why would it be easier to reform if out? Pretty much every other EU country has more democracy than the UK, that is why more of their population vote in National and EU elections than in the UK. Nothing to stop the UK being like the rest of Europe , it just chooses not to because it is not in the interests of the ruling elite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheeple Splinter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Why would it be easier to reform if out? Pretty much every other EU country has more democracy than the UK, that is why more of their population vote in National and EU elections than in the UK. Nothing to stop the UK being like the rest of Europe , it just chooses not to because it is not in the interests of the ruling elite. I concede democratic reforms could be made whether we are in or out e.g. proportional representation. However, reform around immigration 'Pull Factors' e.g. In and out of work benefits - which was Cameron's aim at the start of the renegotiations has proved impossible. Poland & Romania were two countries that vetoed the changes. Poland received 17.5 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 3.5 bn) +14bn Romania received 6 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 1.4 bn) + 4.6bn UK received 7 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 11.3 bn) - 4.3bn. I couldn't find any figures for how much benefit is paid to those countries' citizens not their tax contribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Reform when in??? What sort of bolloxx is this? Yes I entered the pedophilia sex ring, but only to reform it from within! Yes I became a muslim, but only to reform it from within! Yes I became a nazi, but only to reform it from within! This isn't a do you want to stay in the EU 'to reform it from within' vote. This is a 'do you want a bag put over your head and be beaten to death' vote. Being an active partner in the EU isn't about being beaten over the head or not. It's about the degrees of beating you will have to endure. F**k that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Angela's deal with Turkey is already in the gutter.... http://www.france24.com/en/20160312-hollande-vows-no-concessions-turkey-rights-visas-migrants French President Francois Hollande said Saturday that the EU must not grant Turkey any concessions on human rights or visas in exchange for guarantees to stem the flow of migrants to Europe."There cannot be any concessions on the matter of human rights or the criteria for visa liberalisation," Hollande told reporters ahead of the resumption next week of tough negotiations between Turkey and the EU in Brussels. Yet another example of why the EU is destined to fail. They cannot agree a policy on how to stop the migrants..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheeple Splinter Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Reform when in??? What sort of bolloxx is this? Yes I entered the pedophilia sex ring, but only to reform it from within! Yes I became a muslim, but only to reform it from within! Yes I became a nazi, but only to reform it from within! This isn't a do you want to stay in the EU 'to reform it from within' vote. This is a 'do you want a bag put over your head and be beaten to death' vote. Being an active partner in the EU isn't about being beaten over the head or not. It's about the degrees of beating you will have to endure. F**k that! Could you be describing some of the people who frequent the Palace of Westminster? If Cameron had achieved the full package of EU reforms, would you still vote to leave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 If Cameron had achieved the full package of EU reforms, would you still vote to leave? No. I feel the EU is what would have happened if Germany had won WWII. It didn't. Cornish pasty makers have been left baffled after it emerged Brussels bureaucrats have invented a "phantom turnip". The European Commission is preparing guidelines on what ingredients should be allowed in the traditional Westcountry dish as it looks to afford the delicacy protected status. Officials have ruled that pasties must contain swede if they want to be considered the genuine article. But in a confusing twist that has drawn criticism from eurosceptics, Cornish pasties will be allowed to go on sale advertised as containing turnip. Yet the dish will be considered a fake if they actually do contain the errant root vegetable. Source :- http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Turnips-baffle-Eurocrats-swedes-ruled-crucial-genuine-pasty/story-11501358-detail/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) I concede democratic reforms could be made whether we are in or out e.g. proportional representation. However, reform around immigration 'Pull Factors' e.g. In and out of work benefits - which was Cameron's aim at the start of the renegotiations has proved impossible. Poland & Romania were two countries that vetoed the changes. Poland received 17.5 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 3.5 bn) +14bn Romania received 6 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 1.4 bn) + 4.6bn UK received 7 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 11.3 bn) - 4.3bn. I couldn't find any figures for how much benefit is paid to those countries' citizens not their tax contribution. Net payments into the EU budget are based upon the relative wealth of member states. It is a bit like saying people with big houses should pay more council tax. Blaming Poland and Romania for being poorer than the UK or Germany is a bit like blaming a young person for being poorer than an older person in the UK. I assume you are in favour of wealth redistribution in the UK.In respect of the benefit restrictions that Cameron has achieved. Well apart from the financial effect which would never have amounted to much anyway even if the UK had got everything it wanted, nobody knows at this stage how they will affect migration from Eastern Europe into the UK. Edited March 13, 2016 by campervanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) No. I feel the EU is what would have happened if Germany had won WWII. It didn't. Source :- http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Turnips-baffle-Eurocrats-swedes-ruled-crucial-genuine-pasty/story-11501358-detail/story.html Maybe you should read the speches of Winston Churchill following the war in which he speaks of creating a United States of Europe. Edited March 13, 2016 by campervanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Maybe you should. There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men? Sounds like an EU, but without the UK. We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the invasions of the Mongols in the fourteenth century and no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished. Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war. Same $hit, different century. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine. So there you go. Source :- http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html “Mark this—on each occasion that we shall have to choose between Europe and the open seas, we will always choose the open seas. On each occasion that I shall have to choose between you and Roosevelt, I will always choose Roosevelt.” Source :- http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/260-finest-hour-157/3056-churchill-proceedings-how-charles-de-gaulle-saw-the-anglo-saxon-relationship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheeple Splinter Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Net payments into the EU budget are based upon the relative wealth of member states. It is a bit like saying people with big houses should pay more council tax. Blaming Poland and Romania for being poorer than the UK or Germany is a bit like blaming a young person for being poorer than an older person in the UK. I assume you are in favour of wealth redistribution in the UK. In respect of the benefit restrictions that Cameron has achieved. Well apart from the financial effect which would never have amounted to much anyway even if the UK had got everything it wanted, nobody knows at this stage how they will affect migration from Eastern Europe into the UK. I will leave aside the debate about the real wealth of the UK as that is the subject of several threads already. Poland and Romania were two, pertinent examples of countries benefitting from massive EU grants which went on to thwart meaningful reform of UK welfare payments. Council tax is a good analogy: the bands, A - H, are set based on local prices at the time of survey and vary widely throughout the country. Council tax payers in Weymouth (Band D - £1,756) are not subsidising CT payers in Westminster (Band D - £674). They are distributing 'wealth' in their locality whereas the EU grant framework has flaws and it is virtually impossible to reform in the status quo. You may be right about the limited financial benefit and it is irritating that accurate information on tax, NI and benefits paid by and to EU workers is not forthcoming; which begs the question; Why are the Torys withholding requested information? Beyond this, it is the fact that a proportion of UK citizens feel that they have no control over such matters that drives them to Brexit. Trite defences like, 'nobody knows & into the dark' are not helping with an informed debate; they are a combination of stating the obvious, masking ignorance and/or FUD. I sincerely hope that both camps are beavering away to produce informative and accurate media to enable UK citizens to make an informed choice because it is low grade so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Is it just me or does anyone think that old Cameron has already lost it after a few short weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Is it just me or does anyone think that old Cameron has already lost it after a few short weeks? Are you talking about his mum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 I will leave aside the debate about the real wealth of the UK as that is the subject of several threads already. Poland and Romania were two, pertinent examples of countries benefitting from massive EU grants which went on to thwart meaningful reform of UK welfare payments. Council tax is a good analogy: the bands, A - H, are set based on local prices at the time of survey and vary widely throughout the country. Council tax payers in Weymouth (Band D - £1,756) are not subsidising CT payers in Westminster (Band D - £674). They are distributing 'wealth' in their locality whereas the EU grant framework has flaws and it is virtually impossible to reform in the status quo. You may be right about the limited financial benefit and it is irritating that accurate information on tax, NI and benefits paid by and to EU workers is not forthcoming; which begs the question; Why are the Torys withholding requested information? Beyond this, it is the fact that a proportion of UK citizens feel that they have no control over such matters that drives them to Brexit. Trite defences like, 'nobody knows & into the dark' are not helping with an informed debate; they are a combination of stating the obvious, masking ignorance and/or FUD. I sincerely hope that both camps are beavering away to produce informative and accurate media to enable UK citizens to make an informed choice because it is low grade so far. I would ask why is it that council tax is less than half in Westminster than it is in Weymouth? Can people in Weymouth ever expect to have the same level of council services or pay the same level of contributions as those in Westminster unless the factors that mean they have to pay twice as much for the same things are addressed by central government? Of course the free marketeers will say that is down to the people of Weymouth to make their economy as vibrant and wealth creating as London but that is not what happens when things are left to the market. The market results in wealth being concentrated, not redistributed.That is no different when considering the relationship of poorer EU countries with wealthier ones and why it is neccessary for central/EU government to have a role in redistributing wealth, not to subsidise inefficiency and waste but to provide a mechanism that enables those less wealthy areas to develop their economies in a way that market forces cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) I concede democratic reforms could be made whether we are in or out e.g. proportional representation. However, reform around immigration 'Pull Factors' e.g. In and out of work benefits - which was Cameron's aim at the start of the renegotiations has proved impossible. Poland & Romania were two countries that vetoed the changes. Poland received 17.5 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 3.5 bn) +14bn Romania received 6 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 1.4 bn) + 4.6bn UK received 7 bn Euros from the EU (Paid in 11.3 bn) - 4.3bn. I couldn't find any figures for how much benefit is paid to those countries' citizens not their tax contribution. The receipt/payment disparities between Poland, Romania and the UK are interesting - also that Poland and Romania vetoed the proposed UK. changes. Interesting because although both those countries are a bit poorer than the UK they're not that much poorer - at least in average purchasing power terms. In those terms they're only poorer to the UK in a similar sense/degree that the UK is poor compared to Germany - and they have higher home ownership rates than the UK. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Poland http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Poland http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate The average doesn't seem to be so much poorer these days that they would warrant a particular niche in the poor nation category and that categorisation seems to be a bit of a hangover from the Soviet days and doesn't seem to apply so much these days. Poor in total GDP terms maybe but not so much in average purchasing power - and they have much smaller populations than the UK despite similar or larger land areas. Edited March 14, 2016 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.