Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The influence of the EU on Britain.

1323324326328329607

Comments

  • seth plum said:

    Great post.
    Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
    It is unarguable that immigration is good for the country. Always has been and always will be.

    History shows us that the hard right have always used immigrants as a scape goat and focus to move on their divisive hate filled agenda.



  • It is unarguable that immigration is good for the country. Always has been and always will be.

    History shows us that the hard right have always used immigrants as a scape goat and focus to move on their divisive hate filled agenda.



    It is arguable.

    Armed robbery is good for the country. It frees up money that was just sitting in vaults and it has been proven time and time again stolen money is spent quicker which benefits the economy.
  • seth plum said:

    Great post.
    Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
    No doubt and 95% of CL members would probably agree with you. It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.

  • It is arguable.

    Armed robbery is good for the country. It frees up money that was just sitting in vaults and it has been proven time and time again stolen money is spent quicker which benefits the economy.
    So immigration is like armed robbery?!

    Knob.

  • No doubt and 95% of CL members would probably agree with you. It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.

    Especially parts that have very little immigration!
  • So immigration is like armed robbery?!

    Knob.

    I apologise.
    I clearly over estimated your education level.

    Someone claimed something is unarguable. Everthing is arguable. I showed how a criminal act could be argued as a good thing.

  • seth plum said:

    I have sympathy for this view.
    However, I have met @Dippenhall and like the man, we have things in common like Charlton and outrage at the Olympic Stadium fiasco. You would think there is something to build on there, but he is implacably opposed to my view, and me to his. There is no common ground, and any way he can rightly say his side won, there is no need for any rapprochement the results are in.
    In that context what would even be the first baby steps towards any common ground?
    A vote with some clarity would not be easy for either side to argue against.
  • A vote with some clarity would not be easy for either side to argue against.
    Genuine question - how would you word the question on a second refrerebdum ballot?
  • I apologise.
    I clearly over estimated your education level.

    Someone claimed something is unarguable. Everthing is arguable. I showed how a criminal act could be argued as a good thing.

    In terms of overall economic benefit to the country. It is unarguable. There are other agendas at play of course.

  • Sponsored links:


  • I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?

    Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!
  • I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?

    Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!

    Would take an education campaign in order to get voters to understand the implications of either choice or others.

    It’s going to have to be simpler than that Mutts.

  • The complexity of asking the question is one reason why I doubt there will be a second referendum. Views are entrenched at this point and trying to get the electorate to understand exactly what they were voting for would be very difficult.

    The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.

    Whatever. It’s a sorry mess of our own making.
  • I think the best campaign would involve getting younger people to vote and to understand it's their future at stake. If the turnout amongst under 30s improves the result would almost certainly be a clear Remain. Focusing on the positives of free movement and co-operation with Europe and not just the economic perils of Leaving would help. Younger people have much more of a positive view of the EU and need to be included. It feels like most of the rhetoric is aimed towards pleasing the older Daily Mail/Express generation.
  • Latest immigration figures shows that EU net immigration is falling (though still over 100k for 2017) but non EU immigration is rising. Many of the non EU immigrants are students but their numbers should be relatively stable. Most of the EU immigrants have jobs to go to (huge drop in the numbers looking for work).

    The Government could "solve" immigration numbers to their target in a stroke by stopping all non EU immigration... Ain't going to happen is it?

    I agree there's pros and cons to immigration and there is a serious discussion to be had. We just haven't been having it.
  • edited July 2018

    I would start it with yes or no - then have a secondary question for all to answer - If the vote is to leave the EU, do you wish for the government to try to negotiate trading links to the EU similar to Norway or Do you want the government to leave with no agreements on trade or borders?

    Some might say a bit long - well it is an important question and it gives the government a direction and justification for a position they don't seem to be able to agree on now!

    The complexity of asking the question is one reason why I doubt there will be a second referendum. Views are entrenched at this point and trying to get the electorate to understand exactly what they were voting for would be very difficult.

    The obvious solution is for parliament to have the final vote.

    Whatever. It’s a sorry mess of our own making.

    Agreed - leaving the EU is a vastly complicated proposition, as we are learning, with myriad different outcomes and potential results from a leave vote.

    Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.

    This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
  • se9addick said:

    Agreed - leaving the EU is a vastly complicated proposition, as we are learning, with myriad different outcomes and potential results from a leave vote.

    Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.

    This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
    The referendum was was used to subvert Parliament and was all about managing unruly Tory MPs. Cameron wanted to put Conservative party Eurosceptics back in their box. The "IN / OUT" question was supposed to provide such a stark, scary choice that Remain would be the only possible result. The British are generally conservative (with a small 'c'), he figured it was a safe bet the status quo option would win. He forgot that the British can also be contrary buggers!
  • Missed It said:

    The referendum was was used to subvert Parliament and was all about managing unruly Tory MPs. Cameron wanted to put Conservative party Eurosceptics back in their box. The "IN / OUT" question was supposed to provide such a stark, scary choice that Remain would be the only possible result. The British are generally conservative (with a small 'c'), he figured it was a safe bet the status quo option would win. He forgot that the British can also be contrary buggers!
    He also called it because the Tories were leaking votes to UKIP faster than anyone could count. The only way Cameron could claw their votes back was to offer a referendum. Shows just how out of touch the Tories are with the public that they didn’t even contemplate a leave vote.

  • Looks like the UK has dodged a bullet here Brexiters, thank goodness for you clear thinking...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44857317

  • Sponsored links:


  • se9addick said:

    Agreed - leaving the EU is a vastly complicated proposition, as we are learning, with myriad different outcomes and potential results from a leave vote.

    Referendums are, by their nature, supposed to be simple “yes” or “no” questions. Take the recent Irish abortion referendum. The legislation that would result from a “yes” vote and its full consequences were laid out objectively prior to the vote, everyone knew what they were voting on and what their vote would result in.

    This whole problem started from using a referendum as the method of public vote when it really should have been through traditional parliamentary politics (I.e the electorate voting for a particular manifesto) and I highly doubt a second referendum would solve any of he problems that we now face.
    This is very true, but the mess has been created.
  • Looks like the UK has dodged a bullet here Brexiters, thank goodness for you clear thinking...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44857317

    We need to go down the US route and start imposing more tariffs.
  • Democracy. The will of the people...let's see what a professional campaigner on the Leave side has to say about that...



    I hope he posts up his World at One interview, that was even better, left the interviewer flailing around, and absolutely slaughtered Kate Hoey who had preceded him.

    Respect, sir.
  • And now he is going to sue Downing Street after he was outed and fired. He is crowdfunding for the case.

    One courageous and principled dude. I just contributed.
  • Kate Hoey was utterly dreadful.She was denial squared, equivocation tripled, quadruple deluded.
    If Hoey's defence of the 'vote leave' criminal behaviour is the best they can do, then the leaders of that criminal 'vote leave' campaign are in for a very rough ride.
    The result remains the result though, however discredited it is.
    Never mind, blue passports and all that..........

  • seth plum said:

    Kate Hoey was utterly dreadful.She was denial squared, equivocation tripled, quadruple deluded.
    If Hoey's defence of the 'vote leave' criminal behaviour is the best they can do, then the leaders of that criminal 'vote leave' campaign are in for a very rough ride.
    The result remains the result though, however discredited it is.
    Never mind, blue passports and all that..........

    Short term pain, long term gain! We need to get our country back and take control of our borders. It's imperative we regain our sovereignty and any possible economic costs are a price worth paying.

    Communist loony left BBC trying to silence debate.
  • ''No doubt and 95% of CL members would probably agree with you.
    It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.''

    95% you sure, think you're having a laugh!
  • ''No doubt and 95% of CL members would probably agree with you.
    It's convincing voters in other parts of the country that is Labour's big problem.''

    95% you sure, think you're having a laugh!

    I agree with you JWC. I think immigration is great so long as it is controlled and matched with a similar amount of emigration.

    Norway was beautiful a week ago with of course its very low density of population and sparsely populated areas.

    Only Holland and Belgium are countries that have a higher density than us other than some small states e.g. Monaco Malta etc and of course so much of our population is concentrated in the South East.

    This country is fast becoming a tarmaced over multi pot hole of a shit hole.
  • I believe it is 5% of the land in the UK that is built on.
    Read that somewhere.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!