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

[Andy_Faber]

I repeat...I do think your account of life in Neiderau is a sad one and personally I deplore people imposing their intolerances and prejudices on others, but I do think your interpretation is peculiarly 'one eyed' on this occasion - for you - and is far from being a fair reflection on the 'impact of Muslims' upon society.

Thanks for at least a considered response, unlike others I got. I wasn't just offering examples and anecdotes to add to the mix.

[Andy_Faber]

that should be 'was' not 'wasn't'

[swaledale]

problem with this debate arguement viewpoint is just this the vote has happened. and swale only listens to what he wants to puts his spin on it and belittles anyone who dares disagree with his views theres democracy for you,

Not strictly true the only poster on here i belittle is Tricky and he took the adversarial approach when early on i the thread he told me to get of this board. That was followed by endless rants about Syrians, Eastern european criminals and a various other clearly xenophobic and frankly showed what a unpleasant character he is.

Anyone else I have merely rebutted with an alternative view and some facts to back that view up, i fully appreciate that so entrenched are the views that hardly anyone who takes one view is even listening to the other, more so in my experience on here and elsewhere by those who voted leave.

Not that I'm judging anyone on here, except Tricky who has reveled his true colours and is not a person I'd want to mix with, as for the rest well its different points of view argued strongly and thats all.

Sure I argue strongly and will challenge misconceptions, falsehoods and extreme prejudice, I get it back in spades and dont complain but it seems others aren't so happy to have views challenged.


I will comment on tricky's stupid point about visa's, how the **** do you identify a potential criminal or terrorist who has no record and on whom there is no intelligence??? Given that the UK still has border controls, still checks peoples details, leaving the EU will not change that situation one iota, yet he trots it out time after time, along with other irrelevancies as a reason to leave...thats not an opinion its a FACT, a proven one as anyone who has waited for hours to get back in the UK will know.. when someone gets things like that wrong plus the others how can he be credible?

[swaledale]

Read what I said Swale, not what you would like to think I said - I did not dispute the facts, I merely observed that those facts neither support an argument for a stronger economy not a cheaper cost of living. They merely point to the value of migrant labour which I have never disputed. As noted later however, you dont have to be in the EU to recruit migrant labour, from EU countries or elsewhere

Im not a fan of centralised government spending preferring to leave the money in the hands of the wage earner to spend at his or her discretion. Im a "rugged individualist" I believe the technical term is.

You didn't answer that one though I notice!

The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) shows the overall contribution to our economy from exports to the EU was £187 billion last year, and that it could rise by almost half again to £277 billion a year by 2030.

he CBI estimates that the net benefit of EU membership is worth 4-5% of GDP to the UK, or £62bn-£78bn per year.

he EU is a springboard for trade with the rest of the world through its global clout: it accounted for 23% of the global economy in 2012 in dollar terms. Through 30 trade deals negotiated by the EU, including the Single Market itself, British firms have full access to a $24 trillion market. The recent deal with Canada and on-going discussions with Japan and the US could double this to $47 trillion - the UK would struggle to achieve the same quality of trade deals independently.

Professor Nick Crafts, a leading economic historian, says that past EU membership has increased UK productivity – and so GDP – by about 10%.


Does that answer your query?

[roger_ramjet]

Yes but Germany just lost a penalty shootout in a football match which renders it all irrelevant 😎

At least you put some facts up, rightly or wrongly. I imagine others showing a contrary view could be found but I cant be arsed.

[Ram59]

The freedom of movement also allows convicted British rapists, *****philes and other non desirables to freely integrate into unknowing eu communities. This is also wrong and a failure of the current systems.

At the moment there is some sort of system that lets the powers to be know about certain people amongst us. But does this extend to other countries when these people move around?

BTW anag, have I just suggested that all British people are associated with being rapists and such like?

[swaledale]

Yes but Germany just lost a penalty shootout in a football match which renders it all irrelevant ��

At least you put some facts up, rightly or wrongly. I imagine others showing a contrary view could be found but I cant be arsed.

of course they can and one has to be careful in interpretation, anyway we didn't lose today, always a bonus!

[swaledale]

The freedom of movement also allows convicted British rapists, *****philes and other non desirables to freely integrate into unknowing eu communities. This is also wrong and a failure of the current systems.

At the moment there is some sort of system that lets the powers to be know about certain people amongst us. But does this extend to other countries when these people move around?

BTW anag, have I just suggested that all British people are associated with being rapists and such like?

No you didn't and as checks are carried out before people leave the Uk, then convicted criminals can't just leave, but then its unlikely that criminals or terrorists with a record would use their won identities anyway. I agree that no border checks is a risk, though whether it amounts to hordes of criminals (convicted or potential) swarming around europe is open to question.

[AngryRam]

Flippin' 'eck...seems even seven weeks on the dust has hardly 'settled'.

Angry...you don't half get agitated and...well...angry when you're challenged and not getting your own way. Don't want to fall out with you at all but for someone who initially told me to 'keep my political ****e off a football forum' and that you found politics 'boring' you've had an awful lot to say.


Some of your comments about Swale too are unfounded. He may be passionate but, imo, he has put forward logical and well reasoned arguments and if the debate has become rather repetitive it is only because, after so many posts, the argument has come full circle. Once you start repeatedly going down the 'I despair...I really do' line and questioning the intelligence of others simply because they disagree with you, I think it's often a sign that you yourself may have run out of things to say.

.

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.

[AngryRam]

There you go again, where have I said the vote should be 'taken away from senior citizens because they might die soon'? Don't even bother looking because I haven't. My point was that, when the last EU vote was 41 years ago it seems odd to me that we don't consider allowing 17 year olds to vote when they obviously have a bigger stake in the future than many of the eighty and ninety year olds who may well be suffering from age related 'incapacitation'.

To be more specific...there are plenty of seventeen year olds in full time employment, full time education/training or allowed to fight for their country who, on the evidence of past experience, may now not have a chance to vote on the subject of EU membership until they are 58. In comparison I know of elderly people in care, many of whom are suffering short term memory loss or even Alzheimer's, who were fully entitled to vote.

Without being remotely disrespectful to the elderly I'd love you to tell me how that makes sense.

Now this is a good example of you not reading what is posted.
Post 934 - Your quote.
''people in their eighties and nineties are coonsidered to have a divine right to vote, even though some may not know what day it is let alone what they're voting for and yet seventeen year olds''

Now read my post 938 again.
Where did I accuse you of anything, in fact I agreed with you, to a degree, on the 17 year olds, I mearly pointed out that there had to be a starting point. Your comments on older people (above), where made I assume to provoke a discussion? Yes? So I entered into a conversation on the subject.. I mearly stated that they had earned the right to have a say and that to take away the right was dangerous ground. I stand by that comment..

This is my frustration with you guys... You simply are not reading what we reply.