BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

verylonglegs

Coopster the 1st wrote:

finchy wrote:

The Leave campaign had set up a stall in our local market this morning. They had some brilliantly persuasive artwork to back up their case - a Spitfire and a Lancaster.

So vote leave because WORLD WAR 2!
Vote leave because GERMANY!
Vote leave because NAZIS!
Vote leave because HIIIITLEEEERRRRRR!

Is this what you think when you see either of these planes at an airshow?

What is wrong with displaying items that you can identify with Britishness or patriotism? Is displaying the Union Jack out of order? Are we going to be stopped from signing 'God Save the Queen'?

How often do leaders of political parties praise Britishness and imply patriotism during GE campaigns?

Patriotism is something to be proud of, not to be dismissed. Implying that patriotism is a negative in this debate is as wrong as implying all those who vote leave are racists.

Seeing them at an airshow is an entirely different context, can you not make that distinction? Spitfires sound bloody amazing but their relevance in an EU vote? Come on. It's not a GE and the war is long since over. Maybe you'd like a few longbows from Agincourt on display too?

narbs

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Patriotism is something to be proud of...

Why?

cycleclinic

In answer to mr goo and this highlights the diiferent way in and leave voters see the world. I'd like to be governed by a goverment that implements policies that i voted for. Since that has never happened i dont mind the eu at least they have put in place policies i agree with even though i have never voted for them. The problem might be our democracy not the eu.

finchy

verylonglegs wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

finchy wrote:

The Leave campaign had set up a stall in our local market this morning. They had some brilliantly persuasive artwork to back up their case - a Spitfire and a Lancaster.

So vote leave because WORLD WAR 2!
Vote leave because GERMANY!
Vote leave because NAZIS!
Vote leave because HIIIITLEEEERRRRRR!

Is this what you think when you see either of these planes at an airshow?

What is wrong with displaying items that you can identify with Britishness or patriotism? Is displaying the Union Jack out of order? Are we going to be stopped from signing 'God Save the Queen'?

How often do leaders of political parties praise Britishness and imply patriotism during GE campaigns?

Patriotism is something to be proud of, not to be dismissed. Implying that patriotism is a negative in this debate is as wrong as implying all those who vote leave are racists.

Seeing them at an airshow is an entirely different context, can you not make that distinction? Spitfires sound bloody amazing but their relevance in an EU vote? Come on. It's not a GE and the war is long since over. Maybe you'd like a few longbows from Agincourt on display too?

Thanks, you've saved me most of the effort. I'll just add that I disapprove of any political movement trying to co-opt symbols of WW2. If veterans want to campaign for leave or remain, they are free to do so as individuals, but there will be a diversity of opinion amongst the combatants, and given the sacrifices they made, I feel it a bit tasteless to try and claim to be representing their views or their fight when individuals may disagree with you.

finchy

Bo Duke wrote:

Interesting comments, as you don't need to be in the EU to have a social conscience nor commitment to sustainability - seems odd to even suggest that the UK's membership of the EU would have any impact on soil conservation, if we're commited to that we would pass suitable legislation, we don't need the EU to 'direct us'.

When the EU banned the neonicotinoids which were decimating bee population, the British government tried to prevent this ban by presenting a very, very flawed scientific study to the EU.

Before he became too ridiculous, Owen Paterson spent 2 years as Secretary of State for the Environment. The man refused to even listen to the government's chief scientific adviser on the science of climate change.

A survey of Tory MPs found that only a tiny minority (I think it was 12 of 77 surveyed) accepted that the current global warming trend is caused by human activity.

These are just a few of the reasons for me having absolutely zero confidence in our government to look after the environment and am quite happy that the EU issues certain directives.

pblakeney

narbs wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Patriotism is something to be proud of...

Why?

Some are proud of their Country.
Obviously some others aren't.

gaffer_slow

Scoundrels.

veronese68

finchy wrote:

These are just a few of the reasons for me having absolutely zero confidence in our government to look after the environment and am quite happy that the EU issues certain directives.

Quite agree, but also many other things. Working hours for a start. I don't trust our government to do the tight thing on many issues and the EU is almost a safety net for us.

Pross

Mr Goo wrote:

.......
Note to Surrey Comm.
Totally agree about the tidal power research. Hopefully the scheme in Cardiff Bay goes ahead and spurs on new technologies.

The proposed tidal lagoon is in Swansea Bay not Cardiff Bay

Bo Duke

finchy wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Interesting comments, as you don't need to be in the EU to have a social conscience nor commitment to sustainability - seems odd to even suggest that the UK's membership of the EU would have any impact on soil conservation, if we're commited to that we would pass suitable legislation, we don't need the EU to 'direct us'.

When the EU banned the neonicotinoids which were decimating bee population, the British government tried to prevent this ban by presenting a very, very flawed scientific study to the EU.

Before he became too ridiculous, Owen Paterson spent 2 years as Secretary of State for the Environment. The man refused to even listen to the government's chief scientific adviser on the science of climate change.

A survey of Tory MPs found that only a tiny minority (I think it was 12 of 77 surveyed) accepted that the current global warming trend is caused by human activity.

These are just a few of the reasons for me having absolutely zero confidence in our government to look after the environment and am quite happy that the EU issues certain directives.

I agree there are inconsistent views and attitudes that beggar belief however government's attitudes to MP paedophilia and BBC scandles as well as expenses abuses etc.. etc.. etc.. is not unique to the last 5 years nor membership period of the EU so stop deluding yourself that your any better protected as an EU member. What we need is to get more involved in the running of our country, not less.

We need ACCOUNTABILITY which the EU commission doesn't feel as it never takes the opinion nor feels the need the obtain the approval of voters to enact something. At the same time the UK government has become an increasingly regional government without real power so why should they feel accountable? If the UK leaves, the spotlight would be turned back on them and very quickly leadership would have to be of a far higher standard.

Do not be afraid of the dark, our forefathers weren't for the last 2,000 years so I really do wonder why the remainers are so sh*t scared of actually taking responsibility for our nation. I guess we've become a nation of middle managers used to being told what to do rather like the republics of the former Soviet Union awaiting telexes from Moscow telling them what to do next.

surrey_commuter

Bo Duke wrote:

finchy wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Interesting comments, as you don't need to be in the EU to have a social conscience nor commitment to sustainability - seems odd to even suggest that the UK's membership of the EU would have any impact on soil conservation, if we're commited to that we would pass suitable legislation, we don't need the EU to 'direct us'.

When the EU banned the neonicotinoids which were decimating bee population, the British government tried to prevent this ban by presenting a very, very flawed scientific study to the EU.

Before he became too ridiculous, Owen Paterson spent 2 years as Secretary of State for the Environment. The man refused to even listen to the government's chief scientific adviser on the science of climate change.

A survey of Tory MPs found that only a tiny minority (I think it was 12 of 77 surveyed) accepted that the current global warming trend is caused by human activity.

These are just a few of the reasons for me having absolutely zero confidence in our government to look after the environment and am quite happy that the EU issues certain directives.

I agree there are inconsistent views and attitudes that beggar belief however government's attitudes to MP paedophilia and BBC scandles as well as expenses abuses etc.. etc.. etc.. is not unique to the last 5 years nor membership period of the EU so stop deluding yourself that your any better protected as an EU member. What we need is to get more involved in the running of our country, not less.

We need ACCOUNTABILITY which the EU commission doesn't feel as it never takes the opinion nor feels the need the obtain the approval of voters to enact something. At the same time the UK government has become an increasingly regional government without real power so why should they feel accountable? If the UK leaves, the spotlight would be turned back on them and very quickly leadership would have to be of a far higher standard.

Do not be afraid of the dark, our forefathers weren't for the last 2,000 years so I really do wonder why the remainers are so sh*t scared of actually taking responsibility for our nation. I guess we've become a nation of middle managers used to being told what to do rather like the republics of the former Soviet Union awaiting telexes from Moscow telling them what to do next.

Very quick run though the last 2,000 years. First 400 we were ruled by the Romans, then we went monumentally backwards until we were invaded by the French. Depending on how you see the monarchy we are now run by Germans.

If we lived in a vacuum I would agree with you but we don't, to prosper our economy needs foreign trade.

Lookyhere

Bo Duke wrote:

finchy wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Interesting comments, as you don't need to be in the EU to have a social conscience nor commitment to sustainability - seems odd to even suggest that the UK's membership of the EU would have any impact on soil conservation, if we're commited to that we would pass suitable legislation, we don't need the EU to 'direct us'.

When the EU banned the neonicotinoids which were decimating bee population, the British government tried to prevent this ban by presenting a very, very flawed scientific study to the EU.

Before he became too ridiculous, Owen Paterson spent 2 years as Secretary of State for the Environment. The man refused to even listen to the government's chief scientific adviser on the science of climate change.

A survey of Tory MPs found that only a tiny minority (I think it was 12 of 77 surveyed) accepted that the current global warming trend is caused by human activity.

These are just a few of the reasons for me having absolutely zero confidence in our government to look after the environment and am quite happy that the EU issues certain directives.

I agree there are inconsistent views and attitudes that beggar belief however government's attitudes to MP paedophilia and BBC scandles as well as expenses abuses etc.. etc.. etc.. is not unique to the last 5 years nor membership period of the EU so stop deluding yourself that your any better protected as an EU member. What we need is to get more involved in the running of our country, not less.

We need ACCOUNTABILITY which the EU commission doesn't feel as it never takes the opinion nor feels the need the obtain the approval of voters to enact something. At the same time the UK government has become an increasingly regional government without real power so why should they feel accountable? If the UK leaves, the spotlight would be turned back on them and very quickly leadership would have to be of a far higher standard.

Do not be afraid of the dark, our forefathers weren't for the last 2,000 years so I really do wonder why the remainers are so sh*t scared of actually taking responsibility for our nation. I guess we've become a nation of middle managers used to being told what to do rather like the republics of the former Soviet Union awaiting telexes from Moscow telling them what to do next.

just dont see why you think we ve become a regional EU government?

our Gov can do pretty much what ever it likes, taxes, spending, benefits, we ve had 8 years of austerity, we can go to war, we can build trident mk2, we can veto loads of EU rules and changes

If the population are nt interested in politics and chose not to vote or engage to the levels found in most of europe, then how is that the EUs fault? and more importantly why would that change if we vote out?

The usa has terrible levels of voting and isnt in any form of political union.

like almost everything i hear of the OUT campaign, it is based on hope and assumption.

briantrumpet

Apologies if this has been posted before, but if you haven't seen it, here's something from one of those pesky experts who actually seem to know what they are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y - it's a bit of a long watch (24 minutes), but given the gravity of the decision ahead of us, I think that makes it worth the effort.

rolf_f

Bo Duke wrote:

We need ACCOUNTABILITY which the EU commission doesn't feel as it never takes the opinion nor feels the need the obtain the approval of voters to enact something.

Accountability (in the sense that normal MPs are accountable) is the last thing we need from the EU. The relative lack of accountability is one of the best things about the EU. It shouldn't need to be but it is.

joenobody

Bo Duke wrote:

We need ACCOUNTABILITY which the EU commission doesn't feel as it never takes the opinion nor feels the need the obtain the approval of voters to enact something. At the same time the UK government has become an increasingly regional government without real power so why should they feel accountable? If the UK leaves, the spotlight would be turned back on them and very quickly leadership would have to be of a far higher standard.

If I remember the post earlier in this discussion that explained the makeup of the EU elements the Commission is populated by member state's heads of state - arguably representing the opinion of their people. Enacting (or at least approving) what the commission proposes is down to the parliament, and we do vote for our MEPs, so also arguably they're representative of our views, and are accountable in so far as we can always vote someone else in when the chance arises. As has been pointed out many times already, the UK government has more power than many Outers seem to give them credit for, with the EU often being made the scapegoat for decisions (or lack of them) that were wholly with remit of our own government.

kingstongraham

We now get to have a say in what the rest of Europe does. Isn't that more power?

coopster_the_1st

KingstonGraham wrote:

We now get to have a say in what the rest of Europe does. Isn't that more power?

That's the crux of the matter.

- A 1 in 28 say over what Europe does and then Europe represents that view in the world.

- Our own say represented in the world as the worlds 5th largest economy


As our view is diluted down to 1 in 28, isn't that less power?

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

We now get to have a say in what the rest of Europe does. Isn't that more power?

That's the crux of the matter.

- A 1 in 28 say over what Europe does and then Europe represents that view in the world.

- Our own say represented in the world as the worlds 5th largest economy


As our view is diluted down to 1 in 28, isn't that less power?

Ah, that will be why no world leaders have come to London in the last few years.

Managing to become the worlds 5th largest economy while in the EU would perhaps point to it not having the effect you think?

prhymeate

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders which represents the UK automotive industry, employing 800,000 people and contributing £15.5 billion to the economy, has come out in support of remain. There was an interesting discussion with it's chief executive Mike Hawes on the BBC World Business Report this morning. An alternative view was given by John Longworth of the Vote Leave's business council. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03y4hlt

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

We now get to have a say in what the rest of Europe does. Isn't that more power?

That's the crux of the matter.

- A 1 in 28 say over what Europe does and then Europe represents that view in the world.

- Our own say represented in the world as the worlds 5th largest economy


As our view is diluted down to 1 in 28, isn't that less power?

Ah, that will be why no world leaders have come to London in the last few years.

Managing to become the worlds 5th largest economy while in the EU would perhaps point to it not having the effect you think?

I place virtually no importance on our "say in the world". I would happily scrap Trident and the new aircraft carriers - can somebody explain why these things are so important

pblakeney

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

We now get to have a say in what the rest of Europe does. Isn't that more power?

That's the crux of the matter.

- A 1 in 28 say over what Europe does and then Europe represents that view in the world.

- Our own say represented in the world as the worlds 5th largest economy


As our view is diluted down to 1 in 28, isn't that less power?

Ah, that will be why no world leaders have come to London in the last few years.

Managing to become the worlds 5th largest economy while in the EU would perhaps point to it not having the effect you think?

I place virtually no importance on our "say in the world". I would happily scrap Trident and the new aircraft carriers - can somebody explain why these things are so important

I found this book helped - at least with aircraft carriers and why naval power is still so important to world influence and economic strength. "Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need to Know About Global Politics - Tim Marshall"

Trident I'm a bit dubious about. And aircraft carriers without the military strength to back them up.

bendertherobot

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

You hate Branson that much?

pblakeney

bendertherobot wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

You hate Branson that much?

I hate some slightly less than the others.

coopster_the_1st

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

If anyone is making their decision, either way, because of who is on one side or the other, that has to be the poorer reason for voting?

It's a huge negative for democracy and individuals taking responsibility for themselves

pblakeney

Coopster the 1st wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

If anyone is making their decision, either way, because of who is on one side or the other, that has to be the poorer reason for voting?

It's a huge negative for democracy and individuals taking responsibility for themselves

No. Look at who is on what side, and for what reason.
I don't particularly like any of them but one side has slightly more despicable reasoning than the other.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

If anyone is making their decision, either way, because of who is on one side or the other, that has to be the poorer reason for voting?

It's a huge negative for democracy and individuals taking responsibility for themselves

and that is how I feel about this whole process

ddraver

To those who question the accountability of the EU, can you name your MEP?

I can't (I can't even name my MP, Dutch or English though i think in England it's a she and she's conservative...). When so many of us don't take any interest in voting for the EU parliament can we really complain so much about it?

In the Uk election we have No Vote, no say (see Mr 666 in the Corbyn thread). I'm not sure why that doesnt apply to the EU as well.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

If anyone is making their decision, either way, because of who is on one side or the other, that has to be the poorer reason for voting?

It's a huge negative for democracy and individuals taking responsibility for themselves

and that is how I feel about this whole process

By denying the electorate in making a decision you are effectively endorsing a dictatorship

And you prefer this option because you may be better off because you have been told this by experts. This is from experts whose prediction has been hugely wrong in the past.

ddraver

Coop that is absolutely not, in any way what he is saying...