Milkshake Lightweight?

[1959_60]

I have yet to see one conclusive good reason for leaving the EU.

CONTROLLING IMMIGRATION - Farage makes a big play on this. In reality we have it in our power (as other European countries already do) to control immigration from other EU countries. But we choose not to.
And also in reality, the vast majority of immigrants come from outside the EU - leaving the EU will do bugger all about this.
Personally, I am with BT - I favour practically open borders worldwide.

TAKING BACK CONTROL - What does this actually mean? Watching our Parliament in action is embarrassing. The EU actually does stuff - and it is for the benefit of us all. People complain about EU laws, but which ones do you actually object to? I remember before we joined the common market the amount of sub standards, and in some cases, outright dangerous, stuff that we imported. If you saw a sticker saying "Made in China" or "Made in Singapore" you just knew that it would be tat. Foreign food from Argentina (for example) was a health hazard - remember the polio epidemic in Blackburn in around 1970?
EU legislation ensures that our imports are of a decent standard and safe. Do you want to ignore these regulations and start importing cheap tat again? Many Arthur Daley's would love it.

ECONOMICS AND TRADE - I think the overwhelming majority accept that our current trading deal with the EU, and by extension, with many other nations, will be severely hit by leaving the EU and our nation will be poorer.
Many think this is a price worth paying. But every facet of our country is dependent on the strength of our economy. If we have less brass to spend then services such as the NHS, education, defence etc etc must inevitably suffer.

SECURITY - We would lose out on every aspect. Joint working between the various security forces, cross-border collaboration etc. And the fact that we are working in partnership with our European allies and not in competition with them makes the threat of tension between nations a hell of a lot less likely. Just imagine the rhetoric if someone like Nigel was ever our PM. Not good.
Not only that, but many people are willing to risk the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland to obtain a result that will make themselves and their families worse off. Sorry, I find it bizarre.

FREEDOM - It is terrific that we are able to visit, live in and work in other countries with minimal fuss. The younger generation in particular celebrate this. I see no advantage of pulling up the drawbridge, shutting our door and denying this right to many people who wish to experience different cultures.
Why are so many people intent on being insular and taking this away from people who enjoy it (mainly the younger generations)?

We have been arguing the toss for years now but I have not been convinced by any points made by the Brexiteers.

[army88]

The clerical Muslim Abu who we paid thousands to support him and his family , and then couldn’t send him back for fear he’d be killed at home is a start.
European law said ( against his human rights ) you can’t do that so we funded him for two more years to radicalise more terrorist in our country.
Just one that sprung to mind when we clearly wanted him out and they decided he could stay.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I have yet to see one conclusive good reason for leaving the EU.

CONTROLLING IMMIGRATION - Farage makes a big play on this. In reality we have it in our power (as other European countries already do) to control immigration from other EU countries. But we choose not to.
And also in reality, the vast majority of immigrants come from outside the EU - leaving the EU will do bugger all about this.
Personally, I am with BT - I favour practically open borders worldwide.

TAKING BACK CONTROL - What does this actually mean? Watching our Parliament in action is embarrassing. The EU actually does stuff - and it is for the benefit of us all. People complain about EU laws, but which ones do you actually object to? I remember before we joined the common market the amount of sub standards, and in some cases, outright dangerous, stuff that we imported. If you saw a sticker saying "Made in China" or "Made in Singapore" you just knew that it would be tat. Foreign food from Argentina (for example) was a health hazard - remember the polio epidemic in Blackburn in around 1970?
EU legislation ensures that our imports are of a decent standard and safe. Do you want to ignore these regulations and start importing cheap tat again? Many Arthur Daley's would love it.

ECONOMICS AND TRADE - I think the overwhelming majority accept that our current trading deal with the EU, and by extension, with many other nations, will be severely hit by leaving the EU and our nation will be poorer.
Many think this is a price worth paying. But every facet of our country is dependent on the strength of our economy. If we have less brass to spend then services such as the NHS, education, defence etc etc must inevitably suffer.

SECURITY - We would lose out on every aspect. Joint working between the various security forces, cross-border collaboration etc. And the fact that we are working in partnership with our European allies and not in competition with them makes the threat of tension between nations a hell of a lot less likely. Just imagine the rhetoric if someone like Nigel was ever our PM. Not good.
Not only that, but many people are willing to risk the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland to obtain a result that will make themselves and their families worse off. Sorry, I find it bizarre.

FREEDOM - It is terrific that we are able to visit, live in and work in other countries with minimal fuss. The younger generation in particular celebrate this. I see no advantage of pulling up the drawbridge, shutting our door and denying this right to many people who wish to experience different cultures.
Why are so many people intent on being insular and taking this away from people who enjoy it (mainly the younger generations)?

We have been arguing the toss for years now but I have not been convinced by any points made by the Brexiteers.

Your EU orientated jingoism is nearly as nauseating as BoJo & Farage's Make Britain Great again bullshi-t!

[map]

"Made in China" or "Made in Singapore" - you just knew that it would be tat."
I think that you are mistaken. Do a little research on where, for example, your electrical goods, T.V., computer, mobile phone, etc. are made or where the components are made.
I wonder how many British companies produce / manufacture similar goods and export them around the world ?

[sinkov]

I have yet to see one conclusive good reason for leaving the EU.

CONTROLLING IMMIGRATION - Farage makes a big play on this. In reality we have it in our power (as other European countries already do) to control immigration from other EU countries. But we choose not to.
And also in reality, the vast majority of immigrants come from outside the EU - leaving the EU will do bugger all about this.
Personally, I am with BT - I favour practically open borders worldwide.

TAKING BACK CONTROL - What does this actually mean? Watching our Parliament in action is embarrassing. The EU actually does stuff - and it is for the benefit of us all. People complain about EU laws, but which ones do you actually object to? I remember before we joined the common market the amount of sub standards, and in some cases, outright dangerous, stuff that we imported. If you saw a sticker saying "Made in China" or "Made in Singapore" you just knew that it would be tat. Foreign food from Argentina (for example) was a health hazard - remember the polio epidemic in Blackburn in around 1970?
EU legislation ensures that our imports are of a decent standard and safe. Do you want to ignore these regulations and start importing cheap tat again? Many Arthur Daley's would love it.

ECONOMICS AND TRADE - I think the overwhelming majority accept that our current trading deal with the EU, and by extension, with many other nations, will be severely hit by leaving the EU and our nation will be poorer.
Many think this is a price worth paying. But every facet of our country is dependent on the strength of our economy. If we have less brass to spend then services such as the NHS, education, defence etc etc must inevitably suffer.

SECURITY - We would lose out on every aspect. Joint working between the various security forces, cross-border collaboration etc. And the fact that we are working in partnership with our European allies and not in competition with them makes the threat of tension between nations a hell of a lot less likely. Just imagine the rhetoric if someone like Nigel was ever our PM. Not good.
Not only that, but many people are willing to risk the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland to obtain a result that will make themselves and their families worse off. Sorry, I find it bizarre.

FREEDOM - It is terrific that we are able to visit, live in and work in other countries with minimal fuss. The younger generation in particular celebrate this. I see no advantage of pulling up the drawbridge, shutting our door and denying this right to many people who wish to experience different cultures.
Why are so many people intent on being insular and taking this away from people who enjoy it (mainly the younger generations)?

We have been arguing the toss for years now but I have not been convinced by any points made by the Brexiteers.

It's all very interesting 59, I could take issue with you on most of the above, but it's all academic now, we had a referendum three years ago and voted to leave the EU, so what's the point ?

I'm much more interested in your views on democracy, especially the over-arching principal, that in any democratic country the losers of a freely held democratic vote accept the result. And even more important, once that principal has been ditched, what are the prospects for that country continuing to exist as a fully functioning democracy ? And when you come to the only logical conclusion, that democracy cannot survive in such circumstances, what do you envisage replacing it ?

[1959_60]

It's all very interesting 59, I could take issue with you on most of the above, but it's all academic now, we had a referendum three years ago and voted to leave the EU, so what's the point ?

I'm much more interested in your views on democracy, especially the over-arching principal, that in any democratic country the losers of a freely held democratic vote accept the result. And even more important, once that principal has been ditched, what are the prospects for that country continuing to exist as a fully functioning democracy ? And when you come to the only logical conclusion, that democracy cannot survive in such circumstances, what do you envisage replacing it ?

I'll come at it from a different angle Sinkov.

There is an upcoming referendum on whether to continue with our education system or rip it up an replace it.

I start a new group and enlist several charismatic celebrities (Boris, Nigel etc) with the intent of replacing our education system (I'll not tell you who funds us!)

During our campaign we promise much better outcomes for our pupils/students by funding new establishments that would be funded by big businesses who would provide the curriculum so that the pupils/students would be educated to be useful in the real world.

During our campaign we point out that our current educational establishments were full of foreign teachers who were poisoning the minds of the students. And there was going to be a mass intake of new teachers from Eastern Europe whose intention was to radicalise our students thinking. Suitable posters were produced.

We claim that the change over would be the simplest task in human history.

The money saved to the nation would fund the deficit in NHS funding, bring the armed forces up to speed and knock 50 pence off a pint.

Our campaign demonises existing teachers and their leaders as being too bureaucratic and being unaccountable. They are all letting our children down.

Let's take back control of education and give our kids a start in life that they deserve - not one dictated by unelected mandarins.

Any opposition to our campaign (and many experts prove to be against us) will be labelled "Project Fear" and "experts" will be demonised and ridiculed too. "These "experts" have been in charge and it is them that have let our kids down"

Anyway, after starting the campaign a long way behind we end up winning by 52% to 48%, mainly thanks to barnstorming speeches by Boris and Nigel.

But...before the decision has been enacted a lot of detail comes out. Most of the big companies who are going to fund the new system are actually foreign companies based in Saudi Arabia, Russia and China. Our claim that we were going to be swamped by Eastern European teachers who were going to radicalise our kids is disproven. The economic benefits (remember our red bus promising money for the NHS, armed services and cheaper beer?) are debunked and it is forecast that the new system will actually cost us more than the existing one.

Now, would you still argue that "We voted for change and that is democracy"?

Or would you think it right that, once the facts are out, the people have a confirmatory vote on the issue?

[Supersub6]

I'll come at it from a different angle Sinkov.

There is an upcoming referendum on whether to continue with our education system or rip it up an replace it.

I start a new group and enlist several charismatic celebrities (Boris, Nigel etc) with the intent of replacing our education system (I'll not tell you who funds us!)

During our campaign we promise much better outcomes for our pupils/students by funding new establishments that would be funded by big businesses who would provide the curriculum so that the pupils/students would be educated to be useful in the real world.

During our campaign we point out that our current educational establishments were full of foreign teachers who were poisoning the minds of the students. And there was going to be a mass intake of new teachers from Eastern Europe whose intention was to radicalise our students thinking. Suitable posters were produced.

We claim that the change over would be the simplest task in human history.

The money saved to the nation would fund the deficit in NHS funding, bring the armed forces up to speed and knock 50 pence off a pint.

Our campaign demonises existing teachers and their leaders as being too bureaucratic and being unaccountable. They are all letting our children down.

Let's take back control of education and give our kids a start in life that they deserve - not one dictated by unelected mandarins.

Any opposition to our campaign (and many experts prove to be against us) will be labelled "Project Fear" and "experts" will be demonised and ridiculed too. "These "experts" have been in charge and it is them that have let our kids down"

Anyway, after starting the campaign a long way behind we end up winning by 52% to 48%, mainly thanks to barnstorming speeches by Boris and Nigel.

But...before the decision has been enacted a lot of detail comes out. Most of the big companies who are going to fund the new system are actually foreign companies based in Saudi Arabia, Russia and China. Our claim that we were going to be swamped by Eastern European teachers who were going to radicalise our kids is disproven. The economic benefits (remember our red bus promising money for the NHS, armed services and cheaper beer?) are debunked and it is forecast that the new system will actually cost us more than the existing one.

Now, would you still argue that "We voted for change and that is democracy"?

Or would you think it right that, once the facts are out, the people have a confirmatory vote on the issue?

My answer is that I would just consider that it was politicians talking through their arse once again and making false promises that they can change the world. Nothing much changes but lots of time can be wasted by thinking too deeply about it all when there is absolutely beggar all that you can do about it. How did I survive to be a healthy, stress-free 72 year old? I wonder!

[sinkov]

I'll come at it from a different angle Sinkov.

There is an upcoming referendum on whether to continue with our education system or rip it up an replace it.

I start a new group and enlist several charismatic celebrities (Boris, Nigel etc) with the intent of replacing our education system (I'll not tell you who funds us!)

During our campaign we promise much better outcomes for our pupils/students by funding new establishments that would be funded by big businesses who would provide the curriculum so that the pupils/students would be educated to be useful in the real world.

During our campaign we point out that our current educational establishments were full of foreign teachers who were poisoning the minds of the students. And there was going to be a mass intake of new teachers from Eastern Europe whose intention was to radicalise our students thinking. Suitable posters were produced.

We claim that the change over would be the simplest task in human history.

The money saved to the nation would fund the deficit in NHS funding, bring the armed forces up to speed and knock 50 pence off a pint.

Our campaign demonises existing teachers and their leaders as being too bureaucratic and being unaccountable. They are all letting our children down.

Let's take back control of education and give our kids a start in life that they deserve - not one dictated by unelected mandarins.

Any opposition to our campaign (and many experts prove to be against us) will be labelled "Project Fear" and "experts" will be demonised and ridiculed too. "These "experts" have been in charge and it is them that have let our kids down"

Anyway, after starting the campaign a long way behind we end up winning by 52% to 48%, mainly thanks to barnstorming speeches by Boris and Nigel.

But...before the decision has been enacted a lot of detail comes out. Most of the big companies who are going to fund the new system are actually foreign companies based in Saudi Arabia, Russia and China. Our claim that we were going to be swamped by Eastern European teachers who were going to radicalise our kids is disproven. The economic benefits (remember our red bus promising money for the NHS, armed services and cheaper beer?) are debunked and it is forecast that the new system will actually cost us more than the existing one.

Now, would you still argue that "We voted for change and that is democracy"?

Or would you think it right that, once the facts are out, the people have a confirmatory vote on the issue?

I notice you haven't answered my question 59, do you have any idea what replaces our democracy when it's been destroyed, or are you LibDems just going to play silly buggers with the political stability of our country ? You can't just pick and choose which votes you accept and which you don't you know, even Farage recognises this. Deny just one vote and that's the whole system flushed down the toilet, seriously 59, you want to be careful what you wish for, there are some nasty, dangerous people out there, just looking for their chance.

[1959_60]

I notice you haven't answered my question 59, do you have any idea what replaces our democracy when it's been destroyed, or are you LibDems just going to play silly buggers with the political stability of our country ? You can't just pick and choose which votes you accept and which you don't you know, even Farage recognises this. Deny just one vote and that's the whole system flushed down the toilet, seriously 59, you want to be careful what you wish for, there are some nasty, dangerous people out there, just looking for their chance.

And I notice that you haven't answered the question that I posed in the scenario I posted Sinkov!

A confirmatory referendum IS democracy. The people decide the outcome based on having the actual facts to work with.

The Good Friday Agreement is a good example. Are you arguing that that was undemocratic?

What would be undemocratic is enacting something that wasn't promised.

Therefore revoking article 50 without asking the people would be undemocratic.

And a no deal solution would be undemocratic - Farage, Boris, Davis etc were promising us a better deal than we currently have and it would be a very easy deal to broker with the EU.

And David Davis said (and I agree) "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy"

[army88]

I'll come at it from a different angle Sinkov.

There is an upcoming referendum on whether to continue with our education system or rip it up an replace it.

I start a new group and enlist several charismatic celebrities (Boris, Nigel etc) with the intent of replacing our education system (I'll not tell you who funds us!)

During our campaign we promise much better outcomes for our pupils/students by funding new establishments that would be funded by big businesses who would provide the curriculum so that the pupils/students would be educated to be useful in the real world.

During our campaign we point out that our current educational establishments were full of foreign teachers who were poisoning the minds of the students. And there was going to be a mass intake of new teachers from Eastern Europe whose intention was to radicalise our students thinking. Suitable posters were produced.

We claim that the change over would be the simplest task in human history.

The money saved to the nation would fund the deficit in NHS funding, bring the armed forces up to speed and knock 50 pence off a pint.

Our campaign demonises existing teachers and their leaders as being too bureaucratic and being unaccountable. They are all letting our children down.

Let's take back control of education and give our kids a start in life that they deserve - not one dictated by unelected mandarins.

Any opposition to our campaign (and many experts prove to be against us) will be labelled "Project Fear" and "experts" will be demonised and ridiculed too. "These "experts" have been in charge and it is them that have let our kids down"

Anyway, after starting the campaign a long way behind we end up winning by 52% to 48%, mainly thanks to barnstorming speeches by Boris and Nigel.

But...before the decision has been enacted a lot of detail comes out. Most of the big companies who are going to fund the new system are actually foreign companies based in Saudi Arabia, Russia and China. Our claim that we were going to be swamped by Eastern European teachers who were going to radicalise our kids is disproven. The economic benefits (remember our red bus promising money for the NHS, armed services and cheaper beer?) are debunked and it is forecast that the new system will actually cost us more than the existing one.

Now, would you still argue that "We voted for change and that is democracy"?

Or would you think it right that, once the facts are out, the people have a confirmatory vote on the issue?

Now I get it 59-60

With analogy like that you should have been a politician.
There is nothing to say that a few white lies were not told on every side is there?