That is truly appalling. Both campaigns have been utter dogshit.
4 Likes
which is why I think the cuntometer would be a big help tomost voters - but Kingpap says this is not allowed as we must not be influenced by which cunts are on which side… this is vexing and perlexing… now I am confused
Not my point at all.
This is a huge vote, which deserves more consideration than which cunts have lined up on which side.
I’ll say this quite seriously. If you’re as confused as GA or others appear to be on the issue, don’t vote.
“I don’t know” is often the best answer to give, particularly if that happens to be the case.
3 Likes
Hear hear.
I don’t know is probably the right answer as well. There are considerable pros and cons on both sides.
I am often castigated for being a ‘floating voter’ , my answer is that as soon as you say ‘I know’ you stop asking questions and only by asking question do you hope to arrive at anything resembling the truth.
I am conflicted. Whilst I utterly believe in democracy as a basis for governing I am frustrated by how little time and effort some people put into their opinions. I agonise over the pros and cons and my vote is negated by somone who didn’t understand the question.
I still stand by my assertion that this is too complex an issue to be put out to referendum, both sides are being far too devisive in their campaining. I have been shocked by people I know and how strongly and unwaveringly they will vote on the issue.
Yes, at the moment, I will vote Remain. The more I read the more I realise how much my profession at least needs the fluidity and support of the EU. As, I believe does the NHS as a whole. To look at even that one aspect has taken a huge ammount of effort and consideration.
This whole referendum has me very concerned to be honest
2 Likes
Ok, accuse me of being fanciful and talking about political certainty, then call the EU a dictatorship.
Probably best just to leave this, it isn’t going to go anywhere. Well, no where productive at least.
1 Like
Originally posted by @KRG
Ok, accuse me of being fanciful and talking about political certainty, then call the EU a dictatorship.
Perhaps you have a more accurate description.
What else would you call a body that holds sway over 500 million, directs policy for them and yet cannot be removed by them?
Probably best just to leave this, it isn’t going to go anywhere. Well, no where productive at least.
That’s probably why you should not vote, although I accept there’s no power on Earth that’ll stop you from putting a defiant cross in that Remain box.
If you’ve honestly got that much of a problem with me referring to the EU as a dictatorship, then I’d genuinely put you in the “don’t know” camp.
Yeah, that’s still bollocks, isn’t it?
3 Main EU Institutions:
Parliament - Elected representatives.
Council - Ministers & Heads of States of member states.
Commission - Representative per country, chosen by elected officials.
The commisioners are regularly questioned by MEPs, and they can be sacked.
For the Council to pass anything, they need a qualified majority. There are exceptions to this too, where in fact a unanimous decision is required. An example of this would be admitting new members, such as Turkey.
That sounds like a really crap Dictatorship. So no, I’m not in the “don’t know” camp.
1 Like
EU Parliament - a yay or nay shop for the decisions the unelected EU Commission makes. Paid very well to do a nothing job. Most don’t know who their MEP is. That’s fine. There is literally no way an MEP can actually represent the concerns of a citizen, apart from saying yes or no to EU Commission legislation.
**EU Council ** - heads of states, etc. You’ll argue it’s democratic, but again, it really isn’t from the perspective of the average citizen. This, along with the commission.
**EU Commission ** - Well renumerated bolthole for failed politicians. Elected by MPs in their own country. Cannot be removed by the public. Cannot be voted out.
You’ve forgotten some elements too.
**ECB ** - the organisation that made Greece’s life so difficult and recommends that technocratic governments replace democracies if they stop serving the financial system.
**IMF ** - the last part of the troika. Instrumental in exacerbating the situation in Ukraine, particularly when it tied its loan amounts to the amount of territory the illegal Ukraine government held in the oil-rich resource of Donetsk.
You’re right. It is a crap dictatorship. When it decides to pull in the same direction though, it can feel like a pretty brutal one. Ask any of the destitute Greek parents that put their kids into bankrupt state care because they thought it would be better for them.
I want no part of it.
Genuine open question Pap - what do you see as the most significant positives from staying in the union ?
Originally posted by @pap
I want no part of it.
As is your right.
I disagree, which is equally my right. But I am informed enough to make up my own mind.
I’ve never once said it is perfect, far from it - but it’s the better of two shitty options.
The reasons being:
The rights it has enshrined for people - and also helped people acquire through entry.
Freedom of movement - sorry haters, I like it. I want to keep it.
I strongly believe we are better off Economically
There are plenty of social programmes that rely on EU funding, having had theirs cut by the Govt. I strongly believe that a lot of the bigger problems facing us at the minute can be more effectively tackled as a group, not turning our backs on each other.
And finally, Peace. That was the original intention of a Union between European state. Before the EU, yes, but the point is there hasn’t been a major war between member states. And, no _ I am not _ saying Leave will spark a war between us and the Germans or similar. But I’m not going to dismiss this part of it.
Well, a final smaller point - is it is much better for my industry. But that is minor, in comparison.
So no, I’m not “I don’t know” - I know fully what and why I am voting Remain. You are of course welcome to disagree with this, that’s fair enough.
Staying in?
I don’t see many. I know that many will point to EU funding achieving great things. I’m sitting in a city that benefited from that cash hugely, but that isn’t an argument for the EU. It was always our money to begin with, so while I appreciate what the EU did for Liverpool, I also know that this country could have provided for it had the political will been there.
I’ve often said that blocs are useful for security. You could argue that the chance of nationalist wars is reduced under the EU, although you’d meet the usual counter-points about NATO being the true keeper of the peace in Europe. I don’t think this bloc will provide security. If anything, this bloc is helping to make the world a more volatile place. Expansion has enabled the US to put its forces right on the Russian border, and has aided a fascist government into power in a neighbouring (and applicant) country.
I was pro-EU. Like many people, I looked past the democratic deficit because as a whole, the organisation seemed to be benign, particularly from my position in Objective One-funded Liverpool. Greece was the tipping point for me. The refugee crisis was also a factor, but not in the “I’m scared that foreigners are flooding here” sense, more in the sense that it highlights the EU’s essential hypocrisy and unworkability.
We accept refugees for a very simple reason. We hope against it, but we know that one day, if the wrong things happen to us, we might have to rely on other countries taking our people in. It’s humanitarian, but there’s an element of self-serving about it. Overall, the EU has been big on helping refugees, which is a good thing. The attitudes of individual countries has been disgusting, illustrating plainly that there is no European demos. And while the organisation looks to do everything it can for people from outside the EU, it did as little as possible for its own if they happened to live in countries like Greece or Spain.
I accept that membership confers benefits, but I do not believe that the EU is the sole legitimate provider of those benefits.
3 Likes
One thing I do like about the EU is immigration.
Southampton has been much improved since we’ve had foreign girls move in.
This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
I wonder pap if you felt I would be voting ‘Leave’, you would be suggesting dont vote? - previously, you have also challenged my tongue- in- cheek comment that those without the knowledge should not be offeredd the vote/should not vote and stated that ignorance in decision making is par tof the democratice process… Have you now changed your mind?
For the record I am actually not confused. I can’t possibly (as no one can) dig in to every issue or assess the pros and cons of all that EU does and influences - like most I willl make my judgement on what I consider to be the most important isscues AND my own values and principles. The issues are the main inflenencing fatcors, but my comments on personalities involved do impact on the principles… and they have not been ignored when forming my opinion…
If it pleases you, who will no doubt agree that there are some pretty hideous and unsavoury cunts on both sides so the influence of personalities somewhat cancel each other out anyway…
So what is it about leaving the EU that would make us stop being an “open and inclusive” society (your retweet KRG 
).
Surely we wouldn’t want to stop people coming over here if they’ve got the skills we need on offer? Surely a points system, such as we have for the rest of the world, can’t be that bad can it? I mean it works for Australia and New Zealand.
And refugees, we’d still accept refugees, we did in 1977 (??) from the Vietnamese Boat Crisis didn’t we?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again just because you want to leave the EU doesn’t make you a closet racist and insulist 
4 Likes
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
I wonder pap if you felt I would be voting ‘Leave’, you would be suggesting dont vote?
If you were voting leave, you’d have said so.
Suggesting that people don’t vote if they’re not confident on the issues, a position you’ve maintained throughout, is fine. If I was really that arsed, I’d be suggesting that people vote Leave. I’m not. I’m saying that if you’re in doubt, leave it out.
- previously, you have also challenged my tongue- in- cheek comment that those without the knowledge should not be offeredd the vote/should not vote and stated that ignorance in decision making is par tof the democratice process… Have you now changed your mind?
Big difference between actively disenfranchising someone and people electing not to use their franchise.
You don’t have to vote on everything.
For the record I am actually not confused. I can’t possibly (as no one can) dig in to every issue or assess the pros and cons of all that EU does and influences - like most I willl make my judgement on what I consider to be the most important isscues AND my own values and principles. The issues are the main inflenencing fatcors, but my comments on personalities involved do impact on the principles… and they have not been ignored when forming my opinion…
If it pleases you, who will no doubt agree that there are some pretty hideous and unsavoury cunts on both sides so the influence of personalities somewhat cancel each other out anyway…
You’ve done a good impression of someone being confused, then 
My point stands. If in doubt, leave it out, and let those that are more committed decide it for you.
I don’t really see how you can say Brexit is about being open and inclusive. The entire point of it runs counter to that. It is about closing off from a collective organisation, and closing our borders.
Yeah, when I look at the people who spearhead the brexit argument, and those likely to be in government should it happen - I don’t see us continuing to be open and inclusive.
I’ve said before, I find the idea of points based systems abhorrent. Tying somebodies potential quality of life to which bit of rock they happened to be born on is disgusting. We are no more entitled to a certain quality of life than someone through this sheer luck of birth.
I firmly believe in knocking down as many barriers as possible, not putting more up. I fail to see how Brexit is anything but insulist.
1 Like
Originally posted by @KRG
I don’t really see how you can say Brexit is about being open and inclusive. The entire point of it runs counter to that. It is about closing off from a collective organisation,
An organisation is not good because it is collective.
Freemasonry is a collective. Satanism is a collective. Being a collective isn’t justification on its own merits. One has to question the nature of the collective before deciding whether one wants to be a part of it.
and closing our borders.
We’re not in Schengen. We already have border controls. The only difference is that we’re not going to be waving EU citizens through as quickly as we did before.
Yeah, when I look at the people who spearhead the brexit argument, and those likely to be in government should it happen - I don’t see us continuing to be open and inclusive.
Congratulations. You’ve just distilled a 40 year old permanent question into one based on transient political personalities, the very thing that the referendum is there to overrule.
I’ve said before, I find the idea of points based systems abhorrent. Tying somebodies potential quality of life to which bit of rock they happened to be born on is disgusting. We are no more entitled to a certain quality of life than someone through this sheer luck of birth.
That’s unfortunately the world. It will not be solved by the EU. It probably won’t even be solved by a single global government. If anything, the EU makes it harder for those in developing countries that are outside the Union by imposing barriers on those outside.
I firmly believe in knocking down as many barriers as possible, not putting more up. I fail to see how Brexit is anything but insulist.
Great, then how’s about we knock down some of those barriers that are preventing trade?
I dont think KRG was suggesting this. And I doubt many who vote Leave are closet racists… but there is a point to make that the EU HAS enabled freedom of movement and employment - which some see as a good thing… for a variety of reasons:
-
There are no ‘hurdles or quotas’- which means people who migrate to work will succeed based on their ability and graft - not on whether they are ‘selected’ as good enough to pass the quota test - IMHO, I find the concept of assessing people as to whether they will fit our need rather difficult to justify - yes its practical, but it ‘comodifies’ human beings and that does not sit very comfortably with me.
-
The freedom of movement is not restricted to areas where we need people - It means that we see migrants that bring different skills and new working practices - rather than see this as a threat to ‘our’ jobs, there is actually plenty of evidence that suggests this helps develop and improve our own standards in those industries… which in turn makes that industry more competitive within the broader markets - it creates a need to be better, more efficient etc
-
Businesses do have less red tape in moving and recuiting personnel - I work for a global company and we encourage movement between EU states, recruite Doctors and PhDs from all over EU … we woudld like to include more US or NZ or AUS folks but its much more challenging…
-
Whilst we CAN be open and inclusive and not be part of the EU, the symbolism of closed borders does not support the vision. Afterall, just because we leave the EU, does not mean we have to suddenly have a NZ or AUS system - we could if we wanted continue as we are now… as exists within the EU… but we wont… and that raises the question as to why? Because, there is a lot of BS about migration and scaremongering that comes with it…
-
Refugees - well recent Tory policy on Syrian orphaned kids suggest that we dont exactly have a greta track record here. Its should NEVER be about doing our share, but about doing what is needed and necessary… that is a principle that we seem to be struggling with (and EU does not have good record here either so not sure its relevent). I would like to see us as nation lead by example and be much stroinger in humanitarian issues…but as said nowt to do with EU.
So whilst we CAN ‘continue’ to be an open and inclusive society on Exit, this could only be achived if those in Government offer real alternatives to the likely policy the Right wingers in the country are likely to offer… and the right wingers are likely to be the dominent political force in the country for some time…
Eurgh, Bob asked my opinion. I gave it. I really don’t get what you are trying to achieve pap.
It’s pretty apparent we aren’t going to agree or change each others minds.
Is it really that hard to accept that someone can come to a different conclusion to you?
1 Like