- Joined
- Sunday September 6, 2009
Ach, I should be Banished and Banned right now. Love to you PC, you bearded down south freak. Miss your constant humour on here, since it became less constant. But then, I guess bringing up kids takes time.......sigh.
The European Union: in or out?
- Thread starter Rev-O
- Start Date
J
joe mcclaine
Guest
Pig Cat said:
UKIP aren't BNP Lite. The BNP were BNP lite after Nick (Cambridge educated, Cambridge where our spies come from) Griffin ousted John Tyndall. The BNP are now pretty much defunct.
UKIP is basically where anyone who has ever uttered the phrase "I'm not racist, but ... " hangs out now.
The 'old' BNP have gone back to the NF.
- Joined
- Sunday October 11, 2009
- Location
- Kent "Invicta"
Pig Cat said:
How very wrong me old mucker, (that's) the sort of view put forward by these self important, Graundiad reading bleeding hearted apologists' who think that an all controlling Stalinist welfare uberstadt dressed up as a Star-Trek style multiculturalism utopia is possible. Didn't they try to soften the blow by restyling as New Labour ?.
They are the cancer that has eaten in to every quarter of the public sector - especially national and local government with a heavy emphasis on the latter. The men think and dress like its still 1968 and the women are all lesbian. Beam me up! Maybe Labour could shift Diane Abbott over to race relations.
All the main parties are now winding up their spin doctors and employing their whispering campaigns as this upstart UKIP party is steadily gaining momentum, these lefties need to rein it in a bit as what they are constantly bleating about (see above) is actually turning people into their “anyone that isn't anywhere near middle left is a racist†bracket and the Tories who have bent the knee too far and look like they are getting ready to be shafted.
Get past the sensationalist headlines and its fairly obvious at how wide an audience UKIP is attracting and believe it or not, the majority of people I know who are leaning that way aren't even white (shock horror) pick the bones out of that one.
Or maybe ever increasing numbers of people are thinking that if these worries have led us here under Labour and Tory run governments what's the alternative.
Love hugs and kisses
Gairdner said:
That's a funny argument to have for leaving the EU from someone that is so opposed to Scottish independence!
As far as the EU goes, it needs more transparency - but I think it's one of the most impressive achievements of the 20th century. We've gone from having a number of warring world powers at the beginning of the century to a cooperating union of those same nations within just decades.
- Joined
- Wednesday August 26, 2009
- Location
- New Forest, England.
And that was the main aim behind the EU project. But the ending of wars was not the main reason for Britain joining - that was the idea of a common market - not a political union.
I love the idea of an independent United Kingdom. But it won't happen. Even if it comes to a vote we will stay in because of fears that we will suffer economically.
I love the idea of an independent United Kingdom. But it won't happen. Even if it comes to a vote we will stay in because of fears that we will suffer economically.
RB73 said:
Well call me cynical but it seems to me that many of these 'non-whites' are simply supporting UKIP for selfish reasons. Most people support the political party that is most likely to help them as an individual, not one that will be good for the whole country.
I will concede that I agree with them about that stupid high-speed railway.
- Joined
- Sunday October 11, 2009
- Location
- Kent "Invicta"
Fido said:
So if not by bearing arms, then by bringing financial and economic sanctions to bear.
Pig Cat said:
But surly that is as cynical; if non-whites are leaning towards UKIP they are obviously selfish. Blimey they can't win can they ?.
As Micheál touched on, transparency, auditors being able to complete audits without walking away due to huge irregularities, non traceable paths of payments and sheer mismanagement that make Labour and the Tories look like sound financial investors.
The British people knowing from the start at how far reaching and intrusive in regards to the running of their day to day lives and how the governments that they elected have their hands tied.
- Joined
- Sunday October 11, 2009
- Location
- Kent "Invicta"
Is that in the same direction of travel that leads us (UK)to bailing out Eire to the tune of 7 +Billion, Greece 1+ Billion and the princely sum of just over 12.5 Billion upto 2012 year end to prop up the Euro monetary zone.:icon_razz:
- Joined
- Sunday October 11, 2009
- Location
- Kent "Invicta"
jb74 said:
I applied for a loan last year fella, i have an outstanding credit finance track record, we have weathered the period of austerity, i was denied.:icon_rolleyes:
The current situation is a world apart from the common market which was voted for nearly 40 years ago. The rise of UKIP is because none of the mainstream parties have offered any alternative so the public have been unable to cast a vote to reflect their feeling on the devolving of power which has happened.
I have voted out as I believe that the system is fundamentally flawed but I am willing to listen to the arguments both for and against with an open mind. However I do believe that we have reached a point where the public should be allowed a vote to either end the arrangement or ratify it.
I heard Peter Mandleson on the today programme some weeks ago and he seemed to be suggesting that a referendum would be dangerous as the public might get it wrong, for me that sums up the whole problem with politics today. The politicians are only happy with the idea of democracy if it is going to yield them the result they want.
I have voted out as I believe that the system is fundamentally flawed but I am willing to listen to the arguments both for and against with an open mind. However I do believe that we have reached a point where the public should be allowed a vote to either end the arrangement or ratify it.
I heard Peter Mandleson on the today programme some weeks ago and he seemed to be suggesting that a referendum would be dangerous as the public might get it wrong, for me that sums up the whole problem with politics today. The politicians are only happy with the idea of democracy if it is going to yield them the result they want.
- Joined
- Sunday October 11, 2009
- Location
- Kent "Invicta"
Jeltz said:
+1
Been waiting for ages to do a +1.
Welsh lamb farmers have had to constantly turn their cheeks and hold their tongues with regards to EU mandates and regulations with the threat of tighter controls and cost leveling to guarantee competition, until it became apparent a couple of years ago that in fact Wales is the biggest exporter of lamb outside of the EU in the world per cap.
In spite of EU underhand tactics to restrain it.
- Joined
- Saturday January 15, 2011
- Location
- Norfolk, England
I voted to remain in the EU not because I'm a fan of it (I consider it to be flawed), but for the same reasons that I think it would be unwise for Scotland to leave the UK. I suppose I'm an adherent of the maxim "better the devil you know..."
Given you're reporting that it was Mandelson who said it, I'm prepared to agree that, in this case it probably was him wanting the public to follow his wishes.
I would, however, ask a partly rhetorical question - if we are saying that there's no such thing as a bad decision in a democracy (which comprises millions of individuals), then, by extension, we must also say that one of those individuals ought not be dissuaded from making a decision, as any such dissuasion must be selfish not altruistic as there's no such thing as a dangerously wrong decision!:icon_rolleyes: Would you agree with that, or do you consider that if you saw someone wandering distractedly towards a cliff edge you might shout a warning?
I'm well aware that I'm pushing the logic of your argument to its limits, but reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate philosophical tool, according to Dan Dennett, so I feel justified in using it. I'm also not comparing leaving the EU to wandering off the edge of a cliff, as I don't claim to have much, if any, insight into the effects of leaving it. I suppose I agree with the earlier comment (can't recall who wrote it - sorry) regarding the change between 1914 and 1939, when the major powers within Europe were sending millions of men into War with each other, and 2014 when the EU is at peace within itself and relatively harmonious.
I'm reminded of Andrew Marr's programme on Angela Merkel, in which he explained that Merkel is a huge proponent of the EU as she sees it as a mechanism to prevent the kind of division she experienced in her earlier life in the former GDR. She's obviously a highly intelligent woman (she was a physical chemist, and that's a weighty specialism), and, as such, I don't feel inclined to argue.
Another argument against the assertion that democracies always make the right decisions and that anyone shouting a warning is necessarily selfish is the lesson of the 1930s when most of Parliament was cutting back on the armed forces (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose), and Churchill was warning them regarding Hitler and the folly of leaving the nation defenceless against Adolf's tyrrany. Was Churchill wrong? Should we have disarmed? It would have saved many British lives (unless Hitler had decided to invade anyway, in which case many British people would have gone to the gas chambers) but the consequences for the rest of Europe would have been grave.
Jeltz said:
Given you're reporting that it was Mandelson who said it, I'm prepared to agree that, in this case it probably was him wanting the public to follow his wishes.
I would, however, ask a partly rhetorical question - if we are saying that there's no such thing as a bad decision in a democracy (which comprises millions of individuals), then, by extension, we must also say that one of those individuals ought not be dissuaded from making a decision, as any such dissuasion must be selfish not altruistic as there's no such thing as a dangerously wrong decision!:icon_rolleyes: Would you agree with that, or do you consider that if you saw someone wandering distractedly towards a cliff edge you might shout a warning?
I'm well aware that I'm pushing the logic of your argument to its limits, but reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate philosophical tool, according to Dan Dennett, so I feel justified in using it. I'm also not comparing leaving the EU to wandering off the edge of a cliff, as I don't claim to have much, if any, insight into the effects of leaving it. I suppose I agree with the earlier comment (can't recall who wrote it - sorry) regarding the change between 1914 and 1939, when the major powers within Europe were sending millions of men into War with each other, and 2014 when the EU is at peace within itself and relatively harmonious.
I'm reminded of Andrew Marr's programme on Angela Merkel, in which he explained that Merkel is a huge proponent of the EU as she sees it as a mechanism to prevent the kind of division she experienced in her earlier life in the former GDR. She's obviously a highly intelligent woman (she was a physical chemist, and that's a weighty specialism), and, as such, I don't feel inclined to argue.
Another argument against the assertion that democracies always make the right decisions and that anyone shouting a warning is necessarily selfish is the lesson of the 1930s when most of Parliament was cutting back on the armed forces (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose), and Churchill was warning them regarding Hitler and the folly of leaving the nation defenceless against Adolf's tyrrany. Was Churchill wrong? Should we have disarmed? It would have saved many British lives (unless Hitler had decided to invade anyway, in which case many British people would have gone to the gas chambers) but the consequences for the rest of Europe would have been grave.
