RugbyRebels

Good reasons, just not any you'd care to actually suggest. Great. We'll leave it there then.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Good reasons, just not any you'd care to actually suggest. Great. We'll leave it there then.

If you need me to spell out the flaws in the EU (diggers gave a few of his own) then it probably is best to leave it.

Keir Starmer was very good at the despatch box. I saw it live and he's an impressive guy.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Good reasons, just not any you'd care to actually suggest. Great. We'll leave it there then.

If you need me to spell out the flaws in the EU (diggers gave a few of his own) then it probably is best to leave it.

Without doubt there are flaws, but one doesn't just look at reasons to stay or leave but rather both and then take a view of what to do on balance.

So yes there are things about the EU that make me nuts, things that by themselves might lead one to walk away, but on balance it's not even close to make me want to leave. This feels like the kid down the park playing a game of football, feels they're losing, and so takes their ball to serve the others right and goes home to cry to mum and dad - that's maybe understandable as a reaction in a 7-8 year old, it's not good enough as an adult.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm also really not sure about there being highly intelligent people who voted to leave. I'd go with there are some highly educated people who voted to leave, but that's a different thing.

Leavers for me break down as thick, scum and racist, or some combination thereof.

This.

Eta, actually one might carve out space for the deluded, separate to the thick, as they might not be completely subsumed in that category.

It's a fair point. I'm actually a little disappointed as I can quite enjoy noting people to be lying, thick, deluded or some combination of, and yet I overlooked it here, heh ho

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm also really not sure about there being highly intelligent people who voted to leave. I'd go with there are some highly educated people who voted to leave, but that's a different thing.

Leavers for me break down as thick, scum and racist, or some combination thereof.

This.

Eta, actually one might carve out space for the deluded, separate to the thick, as they might not be completely subsumed in that category.

It's a fair point. I'm actually a little disappointed as I can quite enjoy noting people to be lying, thick, deluded or some combination of, and yet I overlooked it here, heh ho

The deluded are crucial. Getting the isolated communities of farm workers to vote for their own suicide is an important tool of the gentry.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Good reasons, just not any you'd care to actually suggest. Great. We'll leave it there then.

If you need me to spell out the flaws in the EU (diggers gave a few of his own) then it probably is best to leave it.

Without doubt there are flaws, but one doesn't just look at reasons to stay or leave but rather both and then take a view of what to do on balance.

I've stated that myself. My issue was with there being no intelligent arguments as to why you'd vote leave. Whether that argument out weighs arguments to leave will be down to your views and requirements. What I don't agree with is stating the other side is thick and/or ignorant as they disagree with you. There will be thick and ignorant people of both sides - more on leave I'd say - but to paint all with the same brush is plain wrong.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
This.

Eta, actually one might carve out space for the deluded, separate to the thick, as they might not be completely subsumed in that category.

It's a fair point. I'm actually a little disappointed as I can quite enjoy noting people to be lying, thick, deluded or some combination of, and yet I overlooked it here, heh ho

The deluded are crucial. Getting the isolated communities of farm workers to vote for their own suicide is an important tool of the gentry.

Jaysus. I didn't realise you are an authority on agriculture, seemingly from the feudal system.

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's a fair point. I'm actually a little disappointed as I can quite enjoy noting people to be lying, thick, deluded or some combination of, and yet I overlooked it here, heh ho

The deluded are crucial. Getting the isolated communities of farm workers to vote for their own suicide is an important tool of the gentry.

Jaysus. I didn't realise you are an authority on agriculture, seemingly from the feudal system.

Don't get defensive, no one's pointing the finger at you.
The Countryside would be a lovely place if it wasn't for the crooked landowners.

We're constantly told the country is overpopulated,....but that wouldn't be such a problem if the average Stately Home didn't require 20,000 hectares.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:
The deluded are crucial. Getting the isolated communities of farm workers to vote for their own suicide is an important tool of the gentry.

Jaysus. I didn't realise you are an authority on agriculture, seemingly from the feudal system.

Don't get defensive, no one's pointing the finger at you.
The Countryside would be a lovely place if it wasn't for the crooked landowners.

We're constantly told the country is overpopulated,....but that wouldn't be such a problem if the average Stately Home didn't require 20,000 hectares.

I wasn't being defensive, I was being aggressive
It wouldn't be overpopulated if we didn't believe the lie that it's over populated.

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Jaysus. I didn't realise you are an authority on agriculture, seemingly from the feudal system.

Don't get defensive, no one's pointing the finger at you.
The Countryside would be a lovely place if it wasn't for the crooked landowners.

We're constantly told the country is overpopulated,....but that wouldn't be such a problem if the average Stately Home didn't require 20,000 hectares.

I wasn't being defensive, I was being aggressive
It wouldn't be overpopulated if we didn't believe the lie that it's over populated.

Believing a lie is easy.E-mail has made it ever simpler.
Tim Berners-Lee must be having a huge dichotomous tragedy of faith.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If you need me to spell out the flaws in the EU (diggers gave a few of his own) then it probably is best to leave it.

Without doubt there are flaws, but one doesn't just look at reasons to stay or leave but rather both and then take a view of what to do on balance.

I've stated that myself. My issue was with there being no intelligent arguments as to why you'd vote leave. Whether that argument out weighs arguments to leave will be down to your views and requirements. What I don't agree with is stating the other side is thick and/or ignorant as they disagree with you. There will be thick and ignorant people of both sides - more on leave I'd say - but to paint all with the same brush is plain wrong.

I think its quite reasonable to look at the flaws the EU has and consider that its an organisation which desperately needs reform and has members whose long term interests on its future don't coincide with the majority of people in this country. However, if that is an incentive to leave the organisation, which I can understand, it needs to be counter balanced with the potential risks of departure, which are basically economic in nature. I don't like the EU and I cant see it reforming any time soon, but I did consider the economic risks to be too great to consider leaving, hence why I voted to remain.

That said, if some people have very little financially, I can see why they thought 'fuck it, lets stick the establishment and vote out'. In their perception, they had little to lose. Sadly, the remain campaign seemed to focus too much on the risks (which is always dangerous as predictions don't always come true) and not enough on the positives that the EU provides, i.e. free trade.

I do get the feeling that if the political elite had taken the rumblings against immigration more seriously a decade ago, and actually done something to improve integration in the area affected rather than label all complainers racist, this would never have happened.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Without doubt there are flaws, but one doesn't just look at reasons to stay or leave but rather both and then take a view of what to do on balance.

I've stated that myself. My issue was with there being no intelligent arguments as to why you'd vote leave. Whether that argument out weighs arguments to leave will be down to your views and requirements. What I don't agree with is stating the other side is thick and/or ignorant as they disagree with you. There will be thick and ignorant people of both sides - more on leave I'd say - but to paint all with the same brush is plain wrong.

I think its quite reasonable to look at the flaws the EU has and consider that its an organisation which desperately needs reform and has members whose long term interests on its future don't coincide with the majority of people in this country. However, if that is an incentive to leave the organisation, which I can understand, it needs to be counter balanced with the potential risks of departure, which are basically economic in nature. I don't like the EU and I cant see it reforming any time soon, but I did consider the economic risks to be too great to consider leaving, hence why I voted to remain.

That said, if some people have very little financially, I can see why they thought 'fuck it, lets stick the establishment and vote out'. In their perception, they had little to lose. Sadly, the remain campaign seemed to focus too much on the risks (which is always dangerous as predictions don't always come true) and not enough on the positives that the EU provides, i.e. free trade.

I do get the feeling that if the political elite had taken the rumblings against immigration more seriously a decade ago, and actually done something to improve integration in the area affected rather than label all complainers racist, this would never have happened.

Those people who had/have nothing were given two choices. One bunch telling them things are going to be the same as they are now. Another saying things are going to be different, don't really know how or what will be different but it will be different to what you have now. Doesn't take a genius to work out how they would vote.

Nicola nailed it...

Donny osmond wrote:Nicola nailed it...

Ah, the one core necessity of being a top politician. Being able to entirely change your beliefs when it suits and without an outward hint of self doubt .

This looks serious . . .

Lego will stop advertising its products in the Daily Mail, following a public campaign calling on big companies to drop adverts from newspapers accused of promoting “hatred, discrimination and demonisation”, the company has announced.

The Danish firm, which has previously run free giveaways in the newspaper, responded to social media campaigners Stop Funding Hate by tweeting: “We have finished the agreement with the Daily Mail and are not planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper."

Stop Funding Hate urges advertisers to rethink their ‘support’ for rightwing newspapers over what it sees as misleading headlines about child refugees, and the recent ruling by High Court judges that Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 is triggered.

Lego is the first big company to agree to the campaigners’ demands.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 13361.html

rowan wrote:This looks serious . . .

Lego will stop advertising its products in the Daily Mail, following a public campaign calling on big companies to drop adverts from newspapers accused of promoting “hatred, discrimination and demonisation”, the company has announced.

The Danish firm, which has previously run free giveaways in the newspaper, responded to social media campaigners Stop Funding Hate by tweeting: “We have finished the agreement with the Daily Mail and are not planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper."

Stop Funding Hate urges advertisers to rethink their ‘support’ for rightwing newspapers over what it sees as misleading headlines about child refugees, and the recent ruling by High Court judges that Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 is triggered.

Lego is the first big company to agree to the campaigners’ demands.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 13361.html

It may look serious but it almost certainly isn't. Look at the wording. Lego doesn't say that they have terminated the agreement early. The advertising campaign may simply have come to an end. Similarly they don't say that they are boycotting the Daily Mail, simply that they don't have plans.

Everything's for the best in the best of all possible worlds - https://www.ft.com/content/f489beb2-a83 ... 899e8bd9d1

Digby wrote:Everything's for the best in the best of all possible worlds - https://www.ft.com/content/f489beb2-a83 ... 899e8bd9d1

pay wall.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:Everything's for the best in the best of all possible worlds - https://www.ft.com/content/f489beb2-a83 ... 899e8bd9d1

pay wall.

Essentially with the fall in sterling it'll cost the UK more to pay its EU contributions, though with the fall in sterling the UK economy will also be less valued and thus contributions required of the UK will fall. Also leaves other EU nations needing to dig into their pockets to cover lower than expected UK receipts, and that's not that useful is say one wanted to negotiate with them in a happy mood with the UK

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:Everything's for the best in the best of all possible worlds - https://www.ft.com/content/f489beb2-a83 ... 899e8bd9d1

pay wall.

Essentially with the fall in sterling it'll cost the UK more to pay its EU contributions, though with the fall in sterling the UK economy will also be less valued and thus contributions required of the UK will fall. Also leaves other EU nations needing to dig into their pockets to cover lower than expected UK receipts, and that's not that useful is say one wanted to negotiate with them in a happy mood with the UK

It probably wasnt useful for the UK's contribution to go up just before the referendum because our economy was outperforming the EU's. If the EU get annoyed about their own rules then, well, blah.

Not really very significant in itself, but it will no doubt ruffle some feathers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 18706.html

Surely virtually everyone knows it was only advisory.

Mellsblue wrote:Surely virtually everyone knows it was only advisory.

You would have thought so, but apparently not.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm also really not sure about there being highly intelligent people who voted to leave. I'd go with there are some highly educated people who voted to leave, but that's a different thing.

Leavers for me break down as thick, scum and racist, or some combination thereof.

This.

Eta, actually one might carve out space for the deluded, separate to the thick, as they might not be completely subsumed in that category.

Check you 2 belters out.