- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,181
Why? Could just be a standard statement.
Why? Could just be a standard statement.
Surely something to report if it’s so specific?Why? Could just be a standard statement.
It saysSurely something to report if it’s so specific?
Also do we think 07:50 or 19:50?
Typical ambiguous EU! heh
If so do you think you would pay more or less tax?A European government would probably be better than the shower of shite we currently have governing us.
You keep repeating it and it's still not true.If so do you think you would pay more or less tax?
UK and Germany are the only net contributors so their taxes would be needed to support the rest and a number are real basket cases.
If so do you think you would pay more or less tax?
UK and Germany are the only net contributors so their taxes would be needed to support the rest and a number are real basket cases.
Except they aren't the only net contributors.If so do you think you would pay more or less tax?
UK and Germany are the only net contributors so their taxes would be needed to support the rest and a number are real basket cases.
Come on chaps tell me who the others are?
I accept Ireland may be about to become one and the rest?
Already had this stupid debate with another bullshitter in here.Come on chaps tell me who the others are?
I accept Ireland may be about to become one and the rest?
2007 from the BBC News Channel EU Budget
You're a parody of yourself at this stage.
I assume if you trust the BBC News Channel EU whatever, you'll also trust a report from the House of Commons, or maybe you won't because it doesn't go along with your bullshit claim?
Even the anti-EU rag the Telegraph said the following countries are net contributorsCome on chaps tell me who the others are?
I accept Ireland may be about to become one and the rest?
Ireland were last year too!Even the anti-EU rag the Telegraph said the following countries are net contributors
Finland, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, France, UK, Germany
I wonder what it's like to live in an alternative universe, on the other hand, perhaps not.Ireland were last year too!
My question was what out means? "Out means out" is a great sound bite but means nothing in practical terms unless you want to sever all ties completely. Who decides which ties are kept and which are severed, and can they still claim that their choices are a result of the referendum? I disagree with a bunch of your other points too but don't want to take this thread off topic.Yeah but every brexiteer that talked about it at depth was given a platform. There would be plenty who didn't want to remain regarding anything these psychos want to involve us in and they would not be given a platform of any real meaning. Maybe a thread on an internet forum that will one day be removed. We talk about security yet Europe is being flooded either by insidious means or complete stupidity. Cause these freaks that talk of security, try to convince anyone who will listen that war can bring peace. When it can't and it won't. So for me, I know it will offend many and it will because we're a 'multicultural' society, but this is yet another divisive tactic. The people are not ready mentally, and they're not mature enough and so this would be another method of being dictated too - through an illusion of negotiations. They wanted out. Out means out. But then what is created is...well, what does out mean?....No, it means out. It means out when people voted. And it still means out. The elongated negotiations are nothing more then tactics used to stretch out something that should be very simple. You will get a vote on whether we should go do something in Syria (and they will in time ignore it) but they won't really give you a say on closing borders. People went to war to protect their lands and their lands have been stolen using a thing called empathy. So what we have is complete bs and people in a nation who have been conned into giving it up. So there will be plenty who wanted to remove this nonsense because if we want to talk about security? You close borders. You can bring in but numbers that don't threaten to overrun the country. You also do multiple background checks etc. I wouldn't trust clowns in suits at the EU to give a damn about the average person or our security. It might seem empathetic to reach out but it's not wise.
My question was what out means? "Out means out" is a great sound bite but means nothing in practical terms unless you want to sever all ties completely. Who decides which ties are kept and which are severed, and can they still claim that their choices are a result of the referendum? I disagree with a bunch of your other points too but don't want to take this thread off topic.
That's not completely true on everyone.I actually think this is clearer than people make out. People voted to take back control, to limit immigration. I think a vast majority of people who voted to leave did so on that basis. If we limit immigration we leave the SM & CU. So where's the need for the debate?
If the EU were giving us more options there'd be more to talk about. Obviously we can talk about whether we actually don't limit immigration and the whole thing becomes a huge waste of time - that's an option. Or we call it off. Or it's a hard brexit, which means we control our borders. But as time goes on I am increasingly convinced there is no debate to be had. We voted for a hard brexit.
But the problem is what a hard Brexit entails and what people are willing to sacrifice in order to obtain it. Generally I'd argue the population want to limit immigration, but limiting immigration isn't something you can do (within the EU, certainly) without significant sacrifice. There's a lot everyone would like to see within society but the problem is that to get something, you generally have to give something up in return, whether it be economic stability, paying more taxes etc.I actually think this is clearer than people make out. People voted to take back control, to limit immigration. I think a vast majority of people who voted to leave did so on that basis. If we limit immigration we leave the SM & CU. So where's the need for the debate?
If the EU were giving us more options there'd be more to talk about. Obviously we can talk about whether we actually don't limit immigration and the whole thing becomes a huge waste of time - that's an option. Or we call it off. Or it's a hard brexit, which means we control our borders. But as time goes on I am increasingly convinced there is no debate to be had. We voted for a hard brexit.
There are plenty of EU-compiant immigration controls that are available to us already which we don't use. Most of them were ignored by Home Secretary Theresa May.
Also immigration will not reduce by leaving the EU and this has already been admitted by the Leave campaign. We'll just be swapping Poles and Dutch for Indians and Africans. I'm sure your average leave voters on the street will be delighted.
Boaty McBoatface.I agree with what you're saying, people were lied to, it isn't going to solve people's problems as they think it will and all the rest of it. And the poster above saying people voted for different reasons - also true. But ultimately people heard the case to leave and the case to remain and they made a choice and overwhelmingly they say it's about control and the leave campaign was clearly about control. So, again, what's to debate that we haven't already debated? Lying politicians will lie again if we debate it again. You want to argue we should never have asked the question in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree. But we did ask. And we got the answer.
I don't know, I could go off on any number of tangents. But my point is I think it's fairly clear - it seems clear to me - what people voted for, and it's equal clear what we have to do to deliver it.
If we decide the public makes shit choices and should be saved from their own folly that's another debate.
Theres a couple of new ones as well. A couple of farming vehicles they asked people to name, now called Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Clearing Up Machiney and David Ploughie.Boaty McBoatface.
Boaty McBoatface.
I thought we were talking about democracy making bad decisions here...Theres a couple of new ones as well. A couple of farming vehicles they asked people to name, now called Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Clearing Up Machiney and David Ploughie.
Yeah it does undermine that argument doesn't it. Maybe hard brexit would be OK after all.I thought we were talking about democracy making bad decisions here...
I'm sorry but if anything, that's democracy at its finest.Boaty McBoatface.
Roughly the equivalent of wetting your finger to feel which way the wind is blowing to estimate the impact of global warming.Davis says, "I am not a fan of economic models because they have all proven wrong". So on what is the predicted positive outcome of the future after Brexit based ?
Brexit was appealing because it seemed to have the right wrapping for everybody. Those who wanted control were told that Brexit will make it happen. Those who wanted control/hated the UK being a net contributer but still had sights on the economy were told that the UK is such a great nation that it will be allowed to cherry pick a deal if it wanted to because the EU needs the UK more then the EU needed the UK (the italian prosecco/German cars rule). Meanwhile those who hated the EU were told that the whole institution will soon be destroyed without the UK support and guidance while those who worried about Europe's welfare were told that the UK will make sure that it will keep on supporting Europe through thick and thin (ie the we're leaving the EU but not Europe nonsense). Experts were silenced to submission as facts looked dull and weak as opposed to posturing and this imperialistic nonsense.I actually think this is clearer than people make out. People voted to take back control, to limit immigration. I think a vast majority of people who voted to leave did so on that basis. If we limit immigration we leave the SM & CU. So where's the need for the debate?
If the EU were giving us more options there'd be more to talk about. Obviously we can talk about whether we actually don't limit immigration and the whole thing becomes a huge waste of time - that's an option. Or we call it off. Or it's a hard brexit, which means we control our borders. But as time goes on I am increasingly convinced there is no debate to be had. We voted for a hard brexit.
I'm not sure that's true. This is exactly what the Remain campaign said all along.No one had ever promised this Brexit (ie economy getting a massive hit, UK citizens losing rights in Europe, the Service industry/banks moving outside the UK in droves, the pound getting a serious hit etc)
So, a rigorous, disciplined and scientific approach ?Roughly the equivalent of wetting your finger to feel which way the wind is blowing to estimate the impact of global warming.
And it was qualified as scaremongering, a substantial part of the population thought that it was a lie. IIRC even Le Pen used it as an example of "fake news".I'm not sure that's true. This is exactly what the Remain campaign said all along.
It still is qualified as scaremongering, little has changed in that regardAnd it was qualified as scaremongering, a substantial part of the population thought that it was a lie. IIRC even Le Pen used it as an example of "fake news".
People didn't believe it but they were still told.And it was qualified as scaremongering, a substantial part of the population thought that it was a lie. IIRC even Le Pen used it as an example of "fake news".
I can't see that ever happening. You're basically giving the 48% the same option as before and then the 52% would have to split between two options. I mean it'd be great because Remain would win by a landslide but it'd never go down.People didn't believe it but they were still told.
I'm playing Devils Advocate really, I absolutely do think there should be a vote on the final deal. One where there is an option to cancel Brexit altogether. Would a 3 way referendum be possible? Yes to the deal, leave with no deal or don't leave. That really should be the choice.
All I'm saying is that this claim people make that nobody was told what brexit really meant isn't really true. It's not what Brexiteers were saying but it was still being said.