OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[roger_ramjet]

1975 I voted out (for me) and was defeated; 2016 I voted in (for my kids) and was defeated. Can I have another chance to try and be on the winning side please - even if its a referendum on kicking the sweaties out of the Union.

[swaledale]

Firstly, this aint me being angry.. I'm nowhere near angry.

My frustration with you two is not your view on the EU, I respect your right to that and your pints of view. My frustration comes when you two don't read the replies properly an when someone answers one of your points you simply seem to ignore it.. Hence the debate is going nowhere.

Well as we canter towards 1000 posts, i did try to bring the debate down to more simple points and post what in my opinion were positive points about EU membership and asked you to post what you thought were the benefits of leaving, which you didn't and still haven't. So you point about ignoring answers to posts cuts both ways!

I get frustrated having to cut down again and again the same old chestnuts which are many of the reasons given for leaving the Eu many of which have nothing to do with being in the EU, for example the issue with Syrian Refugees, this talk about Muslims etc etc.

I have repeatedly answered a number of points and in particular the debate about whether voting leave is a leap in the dark or voting remain is somehow a conservative decision.

[ramAnag]

1975 I voted out (for me) and was defeated; 2016 I voted in (for my kids) and was defeated. Can I have another chance to try and be on the winning side please - even if its a referendum on kicking the sweaties out of the Union.

With that record please don't ever predict a Derby win. Interesting that you voted 'in' (for your kids)...ie for the longer term future.

'Wibble' and 'sweaties' ?

[roger_ramjet]

Sweaties = persons of a Scottish origin: sweaty socks - jocks (more rhyming slang for you)

Wibble - see Viz, quoth Roger Irrelevant

And yes my vote was in the balance until the night before - my son wanted to vote remain but was not in the country and hadnt sorted postal vote (bloody students) so that made my mind up. My objection is and always will be on grounds of the creation of a non transparent federal nightmare of Kafkaesque proportions, but this does not seem to concern that generation in the way it does mine.

Plus I accept I'm in the dead generation and the vote isnt about my future: a nursing home in the south of France has its appeals! 😁

[roger_ramjet]

but now it looks like Skegness

[macstheman]

I like Skeggy!! Save a place for me(that's wot I do mainly now!!)

[AngryRam]

As I was saying...'you don't half get agitated and...well... angry when challenged.
I rest my case...stick to football Angry...you make more sense. X

P.S. Except about Keogh.

I get agitated when people can't read what is in black and white in front of them. You and swaley are really struggling with that. I see again he has posted AGAIN (FFS),asking for the same information he has been given on numerous occasions by numerous posters. I am not going to answer it again, you just have to learn how to read.
You have now got so fragile and looking for critism that is simply not there. EG the old people and 17 years old question. Even when I agree with you, you don't get it. You have become paranoid beyond belief and are imagining things. Seriously, you need help fella.
If I posted the word 'Green' you would see some double meaning in it.. You are even trying to score some sad points on 30 or 40 years.. NOBODY GIVE A **** IF IT WAS 30 or 40 YEARS. The point was made, it was a long time ago. Ohhh look at me I can pick Angry up on 10 years. Fill yer boots..
It has got to the stage where the debate has now become bollx. I have better things to do than keep posting the same old things in reply to the same old questions. At least when Baalocks ebtered the fray, he took on board and read posts. You and Swaley are in a bubble.
Enough said..

[ramAnag]

Lol...me paranoid! Angry, is it me that's thrown a strop and buggered off, made the same daft and unfounded point about Swale and I not reading what you and Tricky post for the last two days or made angry assumptions about my apparent 'conservatism'.
I, probably we, don't agree with you...doesn't mean we don't read what you write. We've given our reasons for remaining in Europe...we might be right...we may be wrong but we've given our reasons. Swale has asked you for yours time after time and, apart from the usual stuff about federalisation and some rubbish about 'Rule Britannia', you've been generally unforthcoming.
Just list them.
As for the 'elderly people' argument...how did you agree with me? Maybe you don't like change, but I think that there's a serious point to be made about seventeen year olds being allowed to vote, especially in a referendum which was completely concerned with issues of the longer term future. I also think we should have concerns about the appropriateness of the very elderly - specifically those suffering some form of memory loss - being entitled to vote. In a vote as close as the one in June when older people - me apart apparently - were more likely to vote 'leave' than the younger voters that could have been crucial.
In response you referred to something about senior citizens not being allowed to vote because they were closer to death being dangerous ground. Of course you're right...it is...but that isn't what I said. As regards the seventeen year olds, you said I'd probably find some ten year olds too...why? Who suggested that? How are ten year olds relevant?
If you're going to debate the point, fine...if you're just going to make sly digs in an attempt to undermine what I think is a reasonable and relevant point then I'll challenge you.
Thought that's what forums were all about...debate and knowing when to concede or stand your ground.

[roger_ramjet]

13 year olds voting? Why not, if they are old enough to bleed, they are old enough to...

Oh sorry that will get me thrown out by Ram59 if I were Slovenian

[macstheman]

The trouble with 17 year olds voting, and I can only judge by my era, all we were interested in was totty, topping up the ale pot (under age in pubs of course), motor bikes and the Rams. Now based on my kids when they were 17 little has changed. Even now my youngest (22) has only ever got an ear piece stuck in and his mobile welded to his paw. Mention of politics produces some strange 'what crap are you going on about' look!!

[ramAnag]

Much the same as 27 or 30+ year olds then mac. Does that make them so much less well informed than middle aged 'Sun' readers or dementia sufferers though?
Frankly I'm just astonished that this thread has got such a response when the majority are so disinterested in politics.

[roger_ramjet]

Were all just here to infuriate Swale

[swaledale]

Were all just here to infuriate Swale

Too long in the tooth to be infuriated, frustrated sometimes maybe with the obscurification that follows reasonable questions and bored with the lengthy rants Tricky as he works himself up into an indignant rage because us Plebs don't understand the implications of the manipulations of the political elites!

[macstheman]

restrict voting to 25 to 65, assuming that those under are still looking for their brain whilst those over will, like me, have long lost it!!

[swaledale]

I get agitated when people can't read what is in black and white in front of them. You and swaley are really struggling with that. I see again he has posted AGAIN (FFS),asking for the same information he has been given on numerous occasions by numerous posters. I am not going to answer it again, you just have to learn how to read.
You have now got so fragile and looking for critism that is simply not there. EG the old people and 17 years old question. Even when I agree with you, you don't get it. You have become paranoid beyond belief and are imagining things. Seriously, you need help fella.
If I posted the word 'Green' you would see some double meaning in it.. You are even trying to score some sad points on 30 or 40 years.. NOBODY GIVE A **** IF IT WAS 30 or 40 YEARS. The point was made, it was a long time ago. Ohhh look at me I can pick Angry up on 10 years. Fill yer boots..
It has got to the stage where the debate has now become bollx. I have better things to do than keep posting the same old things in reply to the same old questions. At least when Baalocks ebtered the fray, he took on board and read posts. You and Swaley are in a bubble.
Enough said..

Thats the point, it hasn't despite your claims been given either by you or any other posters, lots things about the negative effect of the EU on the UK but no clear cut benefits that leaving the EU will bring!

Come on it must be simple enough to list them seeing as presumably thats why you voted leave rather than on the basis of some vague assumptions?