However back in 2010 David Cameron was campaigning hard for Turkey to join the EU, which just goes to show how disingenuous everything he says is.

 

My view is clear. I believe it's just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent.

 

Of course that was before Erdoğan starting turning Turkey back into a dictatorship that is dying to leave NATO and silence/jail its critics.

Um, the papers have had a sustained campaign against the EU for years.

 

People, such as two dumb dumbs I heard shouting on the train yesterday, saying '50 million per week (lol) for the NHS', 'leave the EU to bring back hanging' :rolleyes: , are voting based on nonsense. That is brainwashing.

 

Sorry.

 

Perhaps you can cite *any* source that has claimed Brexit will allow us to bring back hanging?

 

 

Further steps towards political union can also only happen with the agreement of member states.

 

Are we talking unanimity or QMV here?

You literally have no idea how the EU actually functions do you?

Perhaps you can cite *any* source that has claimed Brexit will allow us to bring back hanging?

Are we talking unanimity or QMV here?

 

I am referring to the brainwashed dumb people voting for Brexit.

 

I LITERALLY heard them shout that on the train.

 

If those are their reasonings, they voted on badly remembered facts, these facts were also LIES btw, so they voted on badly remembered lies, and on absolute nonsense and right wing poress brainwashing.

I am referring to the brainwashed dumb people voting for Brexit.

 

I LITERALLY heard them shout that on the train.

 

Yes, but you cannot be 'brainwashed' by something that the media has *never* said!

 

You literally have no idea how the EU actually functions do you?

 

In the specific instance you refer to, no - that's why I asked the question!

In the specific instance you refer to, no - that's why I asked the question!

 

Oh, reaaaally?

 

So the media HASN'T painted the EU as some bogeyman forcing OMG HUMAN ROIIIGHTS!! on us? They put two and two together and get 5.

However back in 2010 David Cameron was campaigning hard for Turkey to join the EU, which just goes to show how disingenuous everything he says is.

Of course that was before Erdoğan starting turning Turkey back into a dictatorship that is dying to leave NATO and silence/jail its critics.

Ultimately I would love to see Turkey join as that would mean it has become a functioning democracy. It would also mean that the dispute over Cyprus had been resolved. Until that happens Greece and Cyprus would both veto membership.

Oh, reaaaally?

 

So the media HASN'T painted the EU as some bogeyman forcing OMG HUMAN ROIIIGHTS!! on us? They put two and two together and get 5.

 

The problem is not HR laws per se, but the abuse of them by criminals to avoid some of the consequences of their actions.

 

 

Ultimately I would love to see Turkey join

 

That makes you, and ISIS, then... :teresa:

The problem is not HR laws per se, but the abuse of them by criminals to avoid some of the consequences of their actions.

That makes you, and ISIS, then... :teresa:

 

Feel free to list criminals who have avoided convictions due to Human rights legislation. As far as I recall, they may have DELAYED the inevitable by making claims - which is their legal right - but if they were guilty of something then they were found guilty.

 

I had no idea ISIS were campaigning for Turkey to jojn the EU. How could I be so ill-informed! Here I was thinking they were out to overthrow democracy and all other religions and force the whole world into their warped and distorted view of what Islam is. Not that your remark could be fatuous or anything, but I look forward to a link to a Daily Mail article about that very thing.....

Remaining in the EU is what really frightens me!

 

Ever heard the expression 'all's fair in love & war'? :teresa:

For me, anything less than a withdrawal with no agreement, is a soft Brexit.

I've never denied that. What annoys me is the holier-than-thou self-delusion of many Remainers - there was much scaremongering, e.g.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/accurate-pr...ned-out-so-far/

 

1. We know.

 

2. This is neither love nor war, it's a political discussion with our future at stake.

 

3. Your definition of a Soft Brexit is as relevant as your definition of anything in the dictionary that doesn't actually mean what it is. That is to say, made up definitions because you are wrong.

 

4. I take your article and raise my 6 articles which you intended to peruse. How did that perusing go?

 

PS that article is bullshit. It takes comments made by Osbourne and Cameron (2 men about to lose their jobs, not the actual campaign) and then makes ludicrous claims about them not coming true.

 

a) they talk about things far in the future and it's impossible to say one way or the other what will happen long-term BECAUSE WE HAVENT LEFT YET!

 

b) It's 6-months out-of-date

 

c) Their case that the economy hasnt collapsed is based on rising employment figures, as if that in some flags how marvellous things are. It doesn't. More people doing part-time/reduced hours does not mean more hours are being worked in total nor that more jobs are being created. Me, for example. I work part-time to care for my parents because I have no other choice. So now 2 people do the job. That isn't an increase in jobs, it's an increase in people working to do the job that used to be done by one. So employment in my field has just doubled if you want to look at that way. Another way of looking at it is that wages for the average employee doing my job just halved.

 

So, as i say, meaningless and pathetic arguments that are easily shown up to be more attempts to obscure facts using vague statistics. Try quoting a reputable, well-analysed source.

Feel free to list criminals who have avoided convictions due to Human rights legislation. As far as I recall, they may have DELAYED the inevitable by making claims - which is their legal right - but if they were guilty of something then they were found guilty.

 

I never claimed they were avoiding conviction, only deportation.

 

I had no idea ISIS were campaigning for Turkey to jojn the EU. How could I be so ill-informed! Here I was thinking they were out to overthrow democracy and all other religions and force the whole world into their warped and distorted view of what Islam is. Not that your remark could be fatuous or anything, but I look forward to a link to a Daily Mail article about that very thing.....

Yeah, like you would have read it, even if I had posted one. :rolleyes:

 

In any case, I was obviously referring to the fact that it would be much easier to smuggle terrorists in if a Muslim country were part of the EU.

 

 

 

 

4. I take your article and raise my 6 articles which you intended to peruse. How did that perusing go?

 

PS that article is bullshit. It takes comments made by Osbourne and Cameron (2 men about to lose their jobs, not the actual campaign) and then makes ludicrous claims about them not coming true.

 

a) they talk about things far in the future and it's impossible to say one way or the other what will happen long-term BECAUSE WE HAVENT LEFT YET!

 

b) It's 6-months out-of-date

 

c) Their case that the economy hasnt collapsed is based on rising employment figures, as if that in some flags how marvellous things are. It doesn't. More people doing part-time/reduced hours does not mean more hours are being worked in total nor that more jobs are being created. Me, for example. I work part-time to care for my parents because I have no other choice. So now 2 people do the job. That isn't an increase in jobs, it's an increase in people working to do the job that used to be done by one. So employment in my field has just doubled if you want to look at that way. Another way of looking at it is that wages for the average employee doing my job just halved.

 

So, as i say, meaningless and pathetic arguments that are easily shown up to be more attempts to obscure facts using vague statistics. Try quoting a reputable, well-analysed source.

 

2. Concern for our future is exactly why I voted for Brexit - the only difference between is that my concern is not solely economic.

 

4. It was very tedious - there was a lot of repetition between articles, and the BBC one was eleven years old (since age of articles seems to be relevant to you).

 

Since when was falling unemployment a sign of a collapsing economy?

 

I am not at all confident that there is *any* source that we could both accept.

In any case, I was obviously referring to the fact that it would be much easier to smuggle terrorists in if a Muslim country were part of the EU.

Still claiming not to be a racist?

 

All the terror attacks in the EU have been carried out by European nationals.

 

The Irish have killed more Brits in terror attacks than Muslims. I must have missed your concern about our open border with Ireland being a route to “smuggle terrorists in”

Still claiming not to be a racist?

 

All the terror attacks in the EU have been carried out by European nationals.

 

Technically, Muslims are not a race - in any case, it's not racist to express concern about a *legitimate* threat. Also, I've never claimed *all* Muslims are terrorists - that would be absurd.

 

European nationals brainwashed by radical Muslims from the Middle East.

Edited February 19, 20187 yr by vidcapper

I never claimed they were avoiding conviction, only deportation.

 

Yeah, like you would have read it, even if I had posted one. :rolleyes:

 

In any case, I was obviously referring to the fact that it would be much easier to smuggle terrorists in if a Muslim country were part of the EU.

2. Concern for our future is exactly why I voted for Brexit - the only difference between is that my concern is not solely economic.

 

4. It was very tedious - there was a lot of repetition between articles, and the BBC one was eleven years old (since age of articles seems to be relevant to you).

 

Since when was falling unemployment a sign of a collapsing economy?

 

I am not at all confident that there is *any* source that we could both accept.

 

 

1. Feel free to list those who havent been deported where the crimes were committed abroad

 

2. I was being faceitious. The Daily Mail wouldnt be able to write an article of propaganda without also having to print an apology and being ridiculed for being so obviously liars and propagandists

 

3. But that is a lie, always was a lie. No way Turkey will ever enter the EU while Greece is a member. And the comments made by others prove it is irrelevant anyway. Propaganda and brainwashing recognises no borders.

 

4. You have no concern for our economic future, because you ignore facts of life. You put your own personal prejudices ahead of our well-being. If it was just your own well-being at stake, we wouldnt give a toss, you can be as poorly off as you like. If you insist on courses of action that affect our financial and general well-being, which is what you are promoting, then we have a perfect right to fight against them till our last dying breath - which judging by the Tories in power who will have even more of a free run, will be much sooner than otherwise.

 

5. The difference in age of articles depends on purpose. Pointing out the benefits of EU membership over the course of 43 years is historical fact and doesn't date. Making claims about things that have not happened (yet) is speculation when he have yet to leave the EU. Not fact. Huge difference. Glad to hear you didnt read them though, wouldnt want facts interfere where your preconceived bias.

 

 

6. Try reading what I said. I said no such thing. I criticised the poor efforts to use one set of vague figures which take no account of full-time jobs/hours as proof of anything when we havent left the EU yet.

 

7. That's because you don't read reputable sources, preferring to use Trump's and Farage's "Fake News" propaganda approach. Can't find reputable sources to support my view therefore they are all biased and the liars are right. Even though it can be proven they are lying. Even if there are photos and emails and a billion physical pieces of evidence. just keep lying and at least some will believe it because you can sell gullible uninformed people anything. You can't even believe the information handed out by the government (or rather "leaked" out) that is desperately arguing for the Hard Brexit you want. This is not data carried out by people who oppose it, it's by people in favour of it.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the main problem that I have with binary referenda, such as the EU referendum in June 2016, is when one option is defined and the other is undefined.

 

So for example- asking 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' gives one clearly defined answer 'remain a member of the European Union' where everything continues as it currently is; yet there is also an option that is undefined: 'leave the European Union?'.. it doesn't for example allow a real choice because if both options are not completely defined then you are not getting a true result which ultimately skews towards the undefined result (e.g. everybody who disagrees with the defined option). It would be like asking at a General Election - 'Would you like the Conservatives to lead the country, or would you like the Conservatives to NOT lead the country?' the second option is again undefined and would at pretty much all General Election's in the 20th and 21st Century have carried the highest vote, but it doesn't actually represent the 'will of the people', it doesn't clearly define what those people want other than to say they would not like the Conservatives to lead the country.

 

It is this 'fuzziness' in the result that means it gives carte blanche for whoever is in government to say well 'this is what the people wanted' without any evidence to support their argument. This is also why you have the bizarre situation whereby polls suggest a majority of UK voters would want to remain in the single market, and yet membership of the EU is split at 50/50.

7. That's because you don't read reputable sources, preferring to use Trump's and Farage's "Fake News" propaganda approach. Can't find reputable sources to support my view therefore they are all biased and the liars are right. Even though it can be proven they are lying. Even if there are photos and emails and a billion physical pieces of evidence. just keep lying and at least some will believe it because you can sell gullible uninformed people anything. You can't even believe the information handed out by the government (or rather "leaked" out) that is desperately arguing for the Hard Brexit you want. This is not data carried out by people who oppose it, it's by people in favour of it.

 

What is a 'reputable source' is a matter of opinion, depending solely on which side of an issue you are on - therefore it should be no surprise that I give that Guardian as little credence as you do the Mail.

What is a 'reputable source' is a matter of opinion, depending solely on which side of an issue you are on - therefore it should be no surprise that I give that Guardian as little credence as you do the Mail.

 

facts is facts. Ignore facts and its propaganda or opinion. You may not liked the opinion of the Grauniad but it isn't stuffed with lies. I may not like the opinion of the daily mail, because it IS stuffed with lies. Subtle difference. Putting forward a logical case for something USING EVIDENCE is fine, using lies to manipulate public opinion is propaganda.

 

 

DOMINIC LAWSON: I greatly admire the academics who've come out for Brexit but they'll need thick skins and courage

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...it-website.html

 

Perhaps the most tediously familiar insult hurled at those who voted for Britain to leave the European Union is that they — we — are stupid.

 

This is now being used as a sort of licence for the growing campaign to ignore the result of the 2016 referendum: if those 17.4 million people who voted Leave can be collectively defined as uneducated knuckle-scrapers, it amounts to a justification for disregarding the ballot-box.

 

This argument — which seeks to redefine democracy in an astonishingly self-serving way — has finally provoked beyond endurance not the ill-educated, but some of the most sophisticated minds in the country.

 

A group of 38 leading academics and ex-academics across a range of disciplines has launched a website called Briefings for Brexit.

 

It is led by two notable members of Cambridge University: the economist Dr Graham Gudgin and the historian Professor Robert Tombs (whose 1,000-page epic The English And Their History was published in 2014 to near-universal acclaim).

 

Unlike Best for Britain, the group trying to overthrow the referendum result, Briefings for Brexit has no backing from billionaires, foreign or otherwise. It is entirely independent, funded by the academics themselves.

 

Their anger at what is happening burns through in their letter in today's Times: 'Sir, Those who seek to prevent or nullify our exit from the EU too often try to undermine the Referendum decision by dismissing Leave voters as ignorant, by describing the decision itself as meaningless, and by giving credence to a stream of alarmist and distorted propaganda.

 

'This inflames division, undermines democracy, and weakens the country's negotiating position.'

 

[article continues]

 

************************************

 

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/

 

I clicked on one article from a Dr - I don't see what a historian has to say that is any more of relevance to what anyone on here says, so I ignored that on the grounds that this has never happened in history before so he has zero to go on - and it's main point of argument was that the warnings of loss of UK industry didn't take into account that figures used a decline in the whole of the EU which was added onto the Campaign estimates. Taking that out industry "only" falls by 23% by leaving the EU.

 

Wow! I'm convinced then that it was all a huge fake story then and I have been so easily misled by fake data. Silly me. If I'd only known it was going to fall only 23% I would have voted Leave!

 

PS that one fails to mention what the actual EU has been doing since the referendum. Errr, doing rather well compared to the UK, so I hear. So, I can knock that short article by a learned Doctor out of the stands then, cos even if he is 100% right he isn't arguing Leavers were wrong, he's arguing they were less right. That isn't a convincing position to take...

 

Try printing another one. maybe the Times (Murdoch-owned) would be a better source. I'm sure they can come up with some reputable data cos this website is virtually begging for professional people to put some articles on it. As many as 28 economists! Not paid for by millionaires or interest groups, apparently. Now that would make them more reputable, if correct....and if they have substance to offer up, rather than arguing the toss about the how the decline has been slightly exaggerated (still to be proven one way or the other)