coldel Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 Dave has made it clear he`s not standing for re-election as Prime Minister so losing the vote is maybe not such a big deal to him. The conservative party will have been blown apart with all the internal conflict and he won`t have to worry too much about sorting it out. He probably decided to not stand again when he had to accept the referendum was going in the manifesto. And lets be honest it only went in because they were running scared of UKIP and thought it was needed. After the landslide victory at the election i imagine the first question he asked was who got it wrong and decided a referendum had to be offered. Hind-site would have been a wonderful thing for him... His career may have had a different route than the one its going to take. Its a fair point, although who is to say they would have won if they hadn't put the referendum into the manifesto? It certainly may have been enough to push some of those marginal seats into UKIP and Labour hands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 The fact we are having a referendum at all is democracy at work, the result will be democracy at work and whichever party has to deal with the result will be democracy at work. And people are complaining about it? Bring back Stalin, maybe thats the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I was thinking on the way into work this morning (I know, a rarity) about any parallels between what politicians on both sides of the Scotland vote said, and what they're saying now. Sturgeon is an interesting one here. She was firmly on the Out side in the Scotland vote, but is committed to the In side on the EU vote. This can make for some particularly odd reading of her speeches, when you look back at them! For example, here is a link to her final speech before the Scottish referendum itself: http://www.scotrefer...ore-referendum/ Now clearly some arguments she makes for independence do not translate directly to the battle for an In vote for the EU, but look how she constantly says that it's much better to be able to decide your own future than rely on others. This is the opposite of what she's campaigning for now! Now, I actually stand with her in the EU vote, but even so it's this kind of double-standard back-tracking politics that make me dislike the woman so much. She wants everything both ways, and she'll use her diminutive yet passionate speaking talents to convince people. There's very little substance to her, but she's an excellent public speaker who gives off an air of dignity. I cannot fault her for that, but it's things like this that are worth remembering for the future. No real reason behind my post, I just find this kind of analysis of political coercing to be of interest. It would be equally as interesting to see comments from someone like Boris, who campaigned for the UK to stay together but wants us now to leave the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 Somewhat ironically politics and economics very rarely mix well together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 So in summary, doesnt matter which party you vote for or whether you vote to stay in the EU, the powerhouse north is f*******d. Sorry Jet, that just sounds like a rant against politics in general and a lot like the cry of the Scots wanting independence and not Westminster making decisions for them. You're happy to whine on about the loss of control to Brussels and the frankly hilarious "it's not a democracy because I din't vote for the German MEP " gibberish. But at the same time you're not happy for JetSet to make a similar point about the disconnect between the rest of the U.K. with Westminster? You're so desperate to oppose, you'll even oppose yourself Ah Stu, not one of the stay in the EU troop want to acknowledge why we are even having a vote , just shout down anyone who wants to leave and tell them they are wrong, it matters not if you feel my "reasons" or anyone elses are gibberish or valid, there are a lot of us it would seem and i was merely pointing out to Jetset, his post suggests no amount of political leadership from wherever will help the powerhouse of the north, or did i read it wrong? Leave or stay i frankly dont mind, but given a vote............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Is Boris's agenda nothing more than wanting to be the next pm as much as Sturgeon wanting to stand against Salmond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Partially, yes. He has nothing to lose by taking his standpoint in that regard. Sturgeon didn't stand against Salmond though. Salmond had to step down as he lost the referendum and out his career on it, Sturgeon was the Deputy so just stepped up. And oh look! Salmond is now back anyway, creepy little f*cker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I thought as you said Sturgeon stood against the independence vote, Salmond was for, isnt that the same as Boris and Dave now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bockaaarck Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) Col, slightly off topic, so forgive me. Important as this EU in / out decision is. Which I hope people will get involved in, whatever their view.I'd be interested in your thoughts on the particular timing of this vote. And what is, I suspect, a hidden reason for the timing. Particularly in relation to the performance of the Baltic Dry Index (as well as other indicators) over the last few months. But in reality it's performance over the last five years? Do you think that there is possibly a conscious political decision behind the timing. As whatever the vote outcome. The potential impact of the current record low of the BDI indicates a massive economic contraction. Whether we stay within the EU or not? Meaning the in / out vote can be used to hide / be blamed for what is an almost certain indicator of economic collapse? I think there is very careful political manoeuvring, desire to ensure an out vote. The fallout from the eventual collapse of the BDI. Will be used as a 'oh know, look what's happened, it's all because we left the EU, nobody could have predicted this, how did it happen, we'll have to make cuts, increase taxes etc, etc....". When they know full well what the BDI indicates and it inevitability. Thoughts please? Edited March 2, 2016 by Bockaaarck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 I thought as you said Sturgeon stood against the independence vote, Salmond was for, isnt that the same as Boris and Dave now? I didn't even mention Salmond, nor anything about Boris and Dave. My point was about Sturgeon's choice of words now she's on the other side of an in/out referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35712463 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenLandy Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Which is in complete contradiction to what they said a few weeks ago. Friends helping friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flex Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 BMW have emailed all their employees too asking them to vote to stay in or words to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 So with France making threats and Germany "advising" its employees to vote to stay, i am curious to ask, why do they want us to stay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Because it's better for them, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 and i was merely pointing out to Jetset, his post suggests no amount of political leadership from wherever will help the powerhouse of the north, or did i read it wrong? The thing is, how can The North be turned into the powerhouse it once was? What made it into a powerhouse, Coal mining (finished) Steel making (terminal decline), Ship building (a shadow of its former self), Mills (long gone), Railway engineering (went elsewhere), Heavy Industry/Automobiles (Destroyed by Thatcher/Unions). It's very easy for Osbourne to talk about a Northern Powerhouse but somewhat harder to put it into practice. Take for example HSR2, they've been talking about it for years but so far.....zilch. Yeah, they've drawn up plans London to Birmingham which is of course in The Midlands, then when they do that it'll be extended to Manchester/Liverpool (just about in The North and should be ready in 2035), then there's vague plans to extend to Leeds, no mention of The North East or Scotland. That's one of the reasons I'm very cynical about British politicians, they sure like talking, filling in expenses forms, looking after number one but when it comes to tough and often unpopular decisions like extending Heathrow they're more than happy to order yet another enquiry. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Another good article, this time about Norway outside the EU, as a comparison for UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/06/what-if-britain-left-the-eu-and-could-be-more-like-norway/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 There's no point comparing the EU from yester-year with the EU we have today. It's a completely different machine. So basing it on the past on whether we'd be better off or not is pointless. One thing is for certain, some countries benefit from the EU more than others, it's not a level playing field. Sorry to drag Greece into this but, what have they got to offer the union? A whole load of bad economic decisions and quite a few bail-outs. Why were they allowed to join the in the first place? Originally the Eu was for trading, what does Greece have to offer in the forms of trade? Not a lot, not a lot ( to quote Paul Daniels ) IMO, The EU just doesn't work anymore. To many people have been invited to the party and some of them are not bringing any food or wine but they bloody well are drinking and eating it. Tons of red tape/views/rules that just don't work for everyone. Even though I stand by my opinion as stated above, I think i'd still like to stay. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Some more interesting survey stats: https://home.38degrees.org.uk/2016/03/07/the-eu-referendum-survey-results/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bockaaarck Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Interesting stats Adrian, thanks for posting them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Seen this today on Facebook, worth a read and digging for some documents to see what's what: 'Turns out that a lot of people don't realise this... the ECHR is not a court of the EU. It is the highest court of the Council of Europe, formed with the UK as a founding member in the Treaty of London 1949. To cut a long story short, it was what our forefathers fought for. Our forefathers saw the horror of what happens when any group of people is considered to be subhuman, and decided that basic human rights should apply to all humans, regardless of their misdeeds and/or crimes. Clearly they knew full well that we wouldn't always like it, but that's kind of the point of Human Rights. ... and so we have those who complain that the ECHR and their pesky human rights prevented us from deporting Abu Hamza - but actually, they didn't. What the ECHR DID do was to hold us to our legal obligations under law that WE created - they placed a TEMPORARY injunction upon his deportation until they were satisfied that he was not going to be tortured or imprisoned without ANY possibility for release no matter how reformed he could ever possibly become in the future. Once they were satisfied, the injunction was lifted and he was indeed deported. We have the issue of life imprisonment, for example, with the killer of April Jones. The ECHR wouldn't let us give the killer a full life tariff without the possibility of release - so we explained that under extraordinary circumstances the Home Secretary could release such a prisoner, and the ECHR was OK with that. Again - that's the thing with having a basic standard for human rights applicable to every human regardless of crime or misdeed - it applies simply by virtue of their being human, and can prove to be a little awkward at times... but it's a hell of a lot better than allowing ANYbody to be treated as sub-human no matter how distasteful we find them - because that's the same kind of thinking that allows societies to end up moving from finding a scapegoat to gassing jewish people or the disabled. Our forefathers, who fought the second world war and who were so disturbed by what they saw and learned, knew this. So, before you vote to leave the EU on the basis of "those pesky do-gooding human rights", please consider where those human rights come from, why they exist, why they were created... by us... and the fact that they have absolutely naff all to do with leaving the EU. We are still subject to the ECHR - the law of which WE created for a better and more civilised world - whether we leave the EU or stay in it.' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 I did mention a fair few posts back that the ECHR was something the UK instigated, again not something Europe imposed on us. I read Sky News today (wish I hadnt) and they had a map of votes for Brexit vs not. They frame it as if its a poll, when it fact it was done with social stereotyping. Astonishing really that they pretty much framed it as this. You only had to read the comments below from many people that you realise so many people (well Sky News readers anyway) know almost nothing about what they are so vehemently voting for. That they want change to immigration, ECHR etc so are voting out, without spending even a few minutes to even understand if voting out would actually achieve this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 You only had to read the comments below from many people that you realise so many people (well Sky News readers anyway) know almost nothing about what they are so vehemently voting for. That they want change to immigration, ECHR etc so are voting out, without spending even a few minutes to even understand if voting out would actually achieve this. What a surprise! It's everywhere, all the forums I visit, social media, meets etc... Would be nice to have proper debates and awareness campaigns before voting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 You only had to read the comments below from many people that you realise so many people (well Sky News readers anyway) know almost nothing about what they are so vehemently voting for. That they want change to immigration, ECHR etc so are voting out, without spending even a few minutes to even understand if voting out would actually achieve this. What a surprise! It's everywhere, all the forums I visit, social media, meets etc... Would be nice to have proper debates and awareness campaigns before voting... Unfortunately it will go down the same route as Scotlands vote, the Leave campaign telling everyone that they will all be so much better off out and throwing big numbers about. The Stay campaign putting down the claims then being classed as Project Fear, and the tit for tat that follows. 'Project Fear' does wind me up though, I can understand politicians for the Leave campaign using that language but I am hearing everyday people using it too. You may as well call the Leave campaign Project Head in the Clouds under the same pretenses - both are childish and stupid ways of looking at what is a huge decision. What is missing is Project Lets Work Out What The Realistic Options Are To Leave And Then Compare Them To Our Current Economic Performance And Make A Risk Assessment And Try And Make An Informed Vote Accordingly - although understand its not quite as catchy as the other two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) Talking about reforming, I liked this part from a long post on another forum: "break down the size of the UK government and demand accountability and fiscal responsibility while genuinely improving our education system. The average standard of education is not good, we're breeding too many useless people, pushed through 'uni' to keep unemployment numbers low, with the result being that many of the hard working immigrants that we have here really put our own workers to shame. There are so many hard working immigrants here looking for those opportunities against a backdrop of homegrown loafers. I have nothing against anyone who wants to work, unfortunately they are not the only ones getting through, and we desperately need to correct the number of our own not working. It will take a generation to correct things and decent successive governments but one has to hope. Further integration is a failed experiment, people, cultures communities, they are different and should be celebrated for that regardless of how inconvenient that makes it for governments or what powers they loose in the process. We are already blindly handing over and accepting too much encroahchment on civil liberties, just the begining of what current let alone future technology will afford them. Banning of cash, spying on your phones, movements, associates etc all under the guise of anti terrorism. Enough. Freedom! Isn't that what our ancestors fought for, and what every battle has ultimately been about, yet politically we just sit back and accept things that we don't understand or have a grasp of slowly being eroded away" Edited March 15, 2016 by Adrian@TORQEN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts