Have you really never heard of the word veto?

 

he really HASN'T heard of the concept of veto at all has he? All countries must agree on changes, as we shall shortly find out on the other end of it.

1. Yes

 

2. No it isn't. You are saying murdering swathes of native populations is preferable to democratic changes. You are wrong and your morality is deeply flawed. Before you say "misunderstanding what i say" if that isn't what you believe then correct your sentence, because mass murder and ethic cleansing is evil, and the other situation is at best just annoying to people like you.

 

1. Then why did so many people who must've voted Yes in 1975, change their minds?

 

2. The British Empire sincerely believed that they were civilizing the colonies, and that those who resisted the process had to be 'dealt with'. That doesn't excuse what they did, but they were certainly no worse than anyone else by the standard of those times. They did create infrastructure that is still useful to this day though.

We got it wrong on Brexit gloom, economists admit: Buoyant British economy is set to power past France by 2020

 

CEBR think-tank claimed the economy would slow because of a drop in spending

But last night the organisation admitted it had got this wrong

Its economists accepted the fears they expressed last year that Brexit would leave the UK behind the French economy for five years were exaggerated

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-52...ists-admit.html

1. Then why did so many people who must've voted Yes in 1975, change their minds?

 

2. The British Empire sincerely believed that they were civilizing the colonies, and that those who resisted the process had to be 'dealt with'. That doesn't excuse what they did, but they were certainly no worse than anyone else by the standard of those times. They did create infrastructure that is still useful to this day though.

 

1. how would you know? You werent of voting age and neither was I. My parents were and didnt change their mind. They were also post WW2 and were young. A lot of old people feel insecure as they grow older and rose-tint back to happier times that actually werent happier then for older people - they were just young. Neither of us has statistics to back up our viewpoint, its just assumption.

 

2. I don't care what the moral standards were hundreds of years ago. We are talking about moral standards now. Do you or don't you believe that genocide is preferable to a democratic system that legally protects human rights. If your answer is not "No" then your morals are warped. If you have proof that the EU does not practice what it preaches feel free to provide evidence.

1. how would you know? You werent of voting age and neither was I. My parents were and didnt change their mind. They were also post WW2 and were young. A lot of old people feel insecure as they grow older and rose-tint back to happier times that actually werent happier then for older people - they were just young. Neither of us has statistics to back up our viewpoint, its just assumption.

 

2. I don't care what the moral standards were hundreds of years ago. We are talking about moral standards now. Do you or don't you believe that genocide is preferable to a democratic system that legally protects human rights. If your answer is not "No" then your morals are warped. If you have proof that the EU does not practice what it preaches feel free to provide evidence.

 

1. Obviously I can't *know* for certain, but I can think of no other place for the Brexit vote to come from, if not disillusioned 1975 Yes voters, since we *do* know it didn't come from the young.

 

2. Of course my answer is No (I'm dismayed you could ever doubt that. :o ), but does that mean I should ignore other potential methods of gaining influence over a country?

1. Obviously I can't *know* for certain, but I can think of no other place for the Brexit vote to come from, if not disillusioned 1975 Yes voters, since we *do* know it didn't come from the young.

 

2. Of course my answer is No (I'm dismayed you could ever doubt that. :o ), but does that mean I should ignore other potential methods of gaining influence over a country?

 

1. The bulk of the votes came from people like you, those too young to remember the 40's to 60's, but old enough to look back on those times as some sort of glorious golden age that never existed, assuming things were much better then (they weren't).

 

2. Glad to hear it. I have no problem with you disliking any political system, but you tend to hyperbole when it comes to the EU, as if it is as bad as some evil murdering Nazi empire, when at worst it's a bureaucratic, albeit well-intentioned, flawed system. Just like every other democratic system in the world. Democracy is a work in progress and always will be until the end of time because life is complex. You think the Tories have our interests at heart as a nation, I don't, I trust the EU more than I trust the Tories or Corbyn. So no more hyperbole, and just agree to disagree.

1. The bulk of the votes came from people like you, those too young to remember the 40's to 60's, but old enough to look back on those times as some sort of glorious golden age that never existed, assuming things were much better then (they weren't).

 

2. Glad to hear it. I have no problem with you disliking any political system, but you tend to hyperbole when it comes to the EU, as if it is as bad as some evil murdering Nazi empire, when at worst it's a bureaucratic, albeit well-intentioned, flawed system. Just like every other democratic system in the world. Democracy is a work in progress and always will be until the end of time because life is complex. You think the Tories have our interests at heart as a nation, I don't, I trust the EU more than I trust the Tories or Corbyn. So no more hyperbole, and just agree to disagree.

 

1. Doesn't *everyone* strive towards something better than currently exists, whether it be past or future?

 

One of my particular bugbears is the casualisation of the Labour market over the last several decades. My dad worked at the same company for almost his whole working life, and that gave his family the security all always knowing where the next paycheque was coming from. That security is now lost for most people in the workplace now.

 

But I digress.

 

2. I have very little trust in governments, period, that's why I prefer referenda - they are voted on by people who have direct experience that gov'ts know about only secondhand. Yes, I employ hyperbole, but I'm hardly alone in that, and cynicism plus devils advocacy has always been part of my posting style - I find that's the best way of projecting the sincerity of my opinions.

If all countries decided major issues by referendum, homosexual acts would still be illegal. Is that OK by you?

 

On your other point, the loss of job security is down to the action (or inaction) of successive governments, not the EU. The same applies to so many other things that Leave voters have raised.

*everything.

 

 

People are going to find out real quick that the EU was used as a boogeyman and isn't actually the cause of the issues that the right-wing rags used to blame on the EU.

If it worked, we wouldn't be leaving the EU in the first place.

But it did work. Can you name any law which we have had to implement against the will of the British government?

I think the fact he thinks it did not work shows he was manipulated by big right wing media.

1. Doesn't *everyone* strive towards something better than currently exists, whether it be past or future?

 

One of my particular bugbears is the casualisation of the Labour market over the last several decades. My dad worked at the same company for almost his whole working life, and that gave his family the security all always knowing where the next paycheque was coming from. That security is now lost for most people in the workplace now.

 

But I digress.

 

2. I have very little trust in governments, period, that's why I prefer referenda - they are voted on by people who have direct experience that gov'ts know about only secondhand. Yes, I employ hyperbole, but I'm hardly alone in that, and cynicism plus devils advocacy has always been part of my posting style - I find that's the best way of projecting the sincerity of my opinions.

 

1. I agree with your digression, every word. Don't be shocked! :)

 

2. Neither do I trust governments, but I dont trust stupidly simple referendums on complex issues either. The honest approach would be to go back to the people - if we MUST accept that Brexit os 100% happening - and now that there has been a period of reflection explain the options and see what people actually WANT, not what politicians claim they want (and that means EVERYBODY who is affected by Brexit, not just those that voted Leave).

 

 

To change tack slightly, I've got a thought that I'm not too sure has been addressed yet - if, as it appears to be with the current negotiations, that the UK does not leave in 2019 after the 2 year process, and instead leaves in 2020 or 2021, what will happen in regards to elections to the European Parliament in 2019? I'd taken it as a given that if the UK left in 2019, then there wouldn't be any elections in the UK to the European Parliament as the UK would already have been withdrawn from the EU at that point. However, if this is delayed by two years, then there is the argument that the UK should be allowed to vote in the EU elections in 2019, as there would still be two years that the UK would still be in the EU, and there would need to be some representation in the EU for the UK until the point that the Brexit actually happened.

 

And if that were the case, and the UK did vote in the EU in 2019, then there could be some major surprises if certain parties did better/worse than expected. UKIP would most likely lose a lot of their seats, and an improvement in strength of the Lib Dems could give the Remainers a 2nd wind (although it wouldn't be hard for the Lib Dems to improve on the sole MEP they won in 2014).

I think it depends a lot on whether it is still assumed that the UK will ultimately leave the EU. If that is the assumption, I would guess that the UK's MEPs would stay in office until the day we leave. OTOH, if the elections go ahead, it would be an ideal opportunity for parties supporting Remain to get their message across and, potentially, win more votes than the neanderthals.

If all countries decided major issues by referendum, homosexual acts would still be illegal. Is that OK by you?

 

To clarify : Do you mean 'Do I think that homosexual acts should still be illegal' or 'Do I think that people should be able to decide issues like that in referenda'?

 

*everything.

People are going to find out real quick that the EU was used as a boogeyman and isn't actually the cause of the issues that the right-wing rags used to blame on the EU.

 

I wish you'd tell 'Candlelit Snow' that iro the Tories, too.

 

I think the fact he thinks it did not work shows he was manipulated by big right wing media.

 

My opinions are based on by own observations & experience - any correlation to what the right-wing media posts is purely coincidental. :thinking:

1. I agree with your digression, every word. Don't be shocked! :)

 

2. Neither do I trust governments, but I dont trust stupidly simple referendums on complex issues either. The honest approach would be to go back to the people - if we MUST accept that Brexit os 100% happening - and now that there has been a period of reflection explain the options and see what people actually WANT, not what politicians claim they want (and that means EVERYBODY who is affected by Brexit, not just those that voted Leave).

 

1. I am surprised when anyone agrees with me on *anything* here. :heehee: The casualization of the workforce is inextricably connected with Thatcher's emasculation of the unions though.

 

2. Referenda need to be binary in order to produce a majority answer. I can't think of any way of asking the question that avoids the issues that causes.

 

To change tack slightly, I've got a thought that I'm not too sure has been addressed yet - if, as it appears to be with the current negotiations, that the UK does not leave in 2019 after the 2 year process, and instead leaves in 2020 or 2021, what will happen in regards to elections to the European Parliament in 2019?

 

I've been wondering that, too, :unsure:

 

 

I think it depends a lot on whether it is still assumed that the UK will ultimately leave the EU. If that is the assumption, I would guess that the UK's MEPs would stay in office until the day we leave. OTOH, if the elections go ahead, it would be an ideal opportunity for parties supporting Remain to get their message across and, potentially, win more votes than the neanderthals.

 

Does the above derogatory reference to Leavers grant me one opportunity to use the term 'Remoaners' in retaliation? :teresa:

To clarify : Do you mean 'Do I think that homosexual acts should still be illegal' or 'Do I think that people should be able to decide issues like that in referenda'?

You could always answer both.

You could always answer both.

 

Letting voters decide on moral issues tends to be a minefield - just look at what happened with US Prohibition.

 

Better to let politicians do it, then they get the flak if it all goes pear-shaped! :)

 

Edited December 28, 20177 yr by vidcapper

To change tack slightly, I've got a thought that I'm not too sure has been addressed yet - if, as it appears to be with the current negotiations, that the UK does not leave in 2019 after the 2 year process, and instead leaves in 2020 or 2021, what will happen in regards to elections to the European Parliament in 2019? I'd taken it as a given that if the UK left in 2019, then there wouldn't be any elections in the UK to the European Parliament as the UK would already have been withdrawn from the EU at that point. However, if this is delayed by two years, then there is the argument that the UK should be allowed to vote in the EU elections in 2019, as there would still be two years that the UK would still be in the EU, and there would need to be some representation in the EU for the UK until the point that the Brexit actually happened.

 

And if that were the case, and the UK did vote in the EU in 2019, then there could be some major surprises if certain parties did better/worse than expected. UKIP would most likely lose a lot of their seats, and an improvement in strength of the Lib Dems could give the Remainers a 2nd wind (although it wouldn't be hard for the Lib Dems to improve on the sole MEP they won in 2014).

 

I'm in favour of any option that gives Nigel Farage his 80+k pension sooner than later, as he will no longer be able to moan about the UK paying it's dues to the EU: effectively UK taxpayers will be paying his outrageous pension for the rest of his life. Perhaps one actual reasonable argument he had was the size of the pension - and he intends to have it, totally making him look like an utter hypocrite just spouting words.

 

If the shoe fits....

I'm in favour of any option that gives Nigel Farage his 80+k pension sooner than later, as he will no longer be able to moan about the UK paying it's dues to the EU

 

Unless the EU insist on it for continued access to the Free market...

Unless the EU insist on it for continued access to the Free market...

 

you miss the point. The Uk will be paying what it owes, that includes contributions to pensions (including British MEP's like Farage). He says he wants the UK to refuse to pay it - yet he still wants his diamond-plated pension. How does he think it will be paid for? That the UK voter is going to agree to give him one if the UK refuses to contribute and British MEP's get nowt? Pretty sure we would all say on yer bike, stick to mouthing off on radio which is money for old rope anyway.