EU vote?

[MSS]

Originally Posted by wraymond

.....With the EU, they refuse to change their intended direction whatever constituent members say. It's even worse than an elected dictatorship, it is, effectively, communism. That's why the USA wants us in, they don't understand the European Left.

Usually, it's only the UK and a few fringe countries that are always trying to change things. So the (large) majority get their way, which I believed was democracy!

On your other point, it looks as if you would agrue that Communism achieved through democracy is worse than a dictatorship, which is an interesting outllok on life.

I feel that some of the ideas about democracy, rights etc. here are a bit mixed up.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by topman

Agree it's quite tricky, it's a three legged stool. We could of course remove them, but that could cause problems that we won't forsee.

Communism, that's a bit strong.

Of course it is! Note the small 'c', 'effectively' and the reference to USA in the following sentence.

Originally Posted by mss

Usually, it's only the UK and a few fringe countries that are always trying to change things. So the (large) majority get their way, which I believed was democracy!

On your other point, it looks as if you would agrue that Communism achieved through democracy is worse than a dictatorship, which is an interesting outllok on life.

I feel that some of the ideas about democracy, rights etc. here are a bit mixed up.

Given the (large) majority being who they are and at least one of them being almost entirely dependent on EU largesse for their agriculture whilst also failing to comply with whatever EU laws they choose to ignore, and the other telling them what to do, it's hardly democracy! The stated aims of ever-closer political union and maintaining the current political make-up run against every thing we stand for. The definition of democracy doesn't change with the wind. The EU is about to change again with the influx of yet more dependent States eager to take subsidies at the expense of others in the full knowledge they enter already impoverished. They badly need help but offer nothing in return except obedience as a way out of their decline.

You misquote me. I believe I said effective communism (with a small 'c'), and elective dictatorship. These qualifiers have long been established as reference points in mitigation of hard-line absolutes.

Most definitions of democracy do not include, and even specifically exclude, tiers of legislature and government holding absolute and unaccountable sway over the elected representatives. That system of government ended with Oliver Cromwell.

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

I give up. We don't send £350 million a week to the EU. Please read the link.


If you ask to borrow £20, I agree to lend you £10 and then you only return £5, my exposure to you is £5. In these circumstances it would be wrong to claim you've cost me £20, when in fact you've cost me £5.

I'm afraid to say that's a false and misleading diversion! I'm reluctant to go into why because it would take us away from the point! However, your analogy assumes that the borrower has no liability to pay in full, ever, and the funds going to the EU are borrowing. They are not.

Again: The membership costs, the rebate, and the discounts are the only factors. The rebate is effectively for this purpose added to the discounts and they are subtracted from the membership costs, leaving a balance to be paid to the EU, this being the net membership costs.

We then receive grants to fund EU inspired projects over which we have absolutely no control and including contributions to pay for compliance with EU regulations. The projects may well be contrary to what we want to do in our country and will invariably follow EU directives.
Can't put it plainer than that.

[bobthebuilder]

Originally Posted by wraymond

I'm afraid to say that's a false and misleading diversion! I'm reluctant to go into why because it would take us away from the point! However, your analogy assumes that the borrower has no liability to pay in full, ever, and the funds going to the EU are borrowing. They are not.

Again: The membership costs, the rebate, and the discounts are the only factors. The rebate is effectively for this purpose added to the discounts and they are subtracted from the membership costs, leaving a balance to be paid to the EU, this being the net membership costs.

We then receive grants to fund EU inspired projects over which we have absolutely no control and including contributions to pay for compliance with EU regulations. The projects may well be contrary to what we want to do in our country and will invariably follow EU directives.
Can't put it plainer than that.

I really don't know where you get your understanding from.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...uk-350m-a-week

[KWIL]

If you rely on what The Guardian chooses to tell you, even if there is a truth in the reference you are quoting, I would not accept any of your arguments to stay.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

I really don't know where you get your understanding from.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...uk-350m-a-week

To an extent that explains your standpoint. I trust you get 'facts' from alternative sources?

The Guardian, and I'm not criticising for the sake of it, is infamous for taking the EU side. You will no doubt be familiar with the drubbing and ridicule the, say, Daily Mail gets for taking the views they do? Well, the Guardian is the equivalent and opposite number!
For instance, they quote as Biblical the Full Facts organisation for their 'facts'.

That outfit says: "A membership Fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit...". Really? That statement alone is enough to tell you about the grasp of worldly realism in their sphere! Come on Bob, get out more!!

[Gman2]

Originally Posted by KWIL

If you rely on what The Guardian chooses to tell you, even if there is a truth in the reference you are quoting, I would not accept any of your arguments to stay.

You're right - in future I'll get the "real" facts on the EU from the paragons of unbiased press ie The Daily Mail or The Express...

[bobthebuilder]

Originally Posted by wraymond

To an extent that explains your standpoint. I trust you get 'facts' from alternative sources?

The Guardian, and I'm not criticising for the sake of it, is infamous for taking the EU side. You will no doubt be familiar with the drubbing and ridicule the, say, Daily Mail gets for taking the views they do? Well, the Guardian is the equivalent and opposite number!
For instance, they quote as Biblical the Full Facts organisation for their 'facts'.

That outfit says: "A membership Fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit...". Really? That statement alone is enough to tell you about the grasp of worldly realism in their sphere! Come on Bob, get out more!!

How about the Telegraph? Sufficiently pro 'Out' for you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...he-big-claims/

[Gman2]

Here's another from The Telegraph - easy to understand article on the implications for UK business and the alternative trading models that are on the table:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...british-trade/

Not sure they're advocating the "clean break" scenario tbh.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by bobthebuilder

How about the Telegraph? Sufficiently pro 'Out' for you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...he-big-claims/

Thanks for that. The link you gave had 6 or so questions divided between Remain and Leave with their source giving their opinion on the 'truth' of each. I presume they mean accuracy; I'm not prepared to call anyone a liar.

A couple of questions were impossible to guess at. Otherwise they said 3 of the claims quoted by the Remain side were wrong and 2 on the Out side were wrong. One on the Out side was inconclusive. That's pretty well even steven really. Unless of course they were selecting questions on the basis of what answers they felt they could realistically test.

One of the rebuttals on the Out side I won't accept because I've done my homework and am sure of the answer. That's the infamous £350 million and it all depends on how you view the claim I made earlier about membership fees being included as a cost. So, your source, presumably quoted because it might help the argument, comes out roughly equal on both sides. That's not too bad, a draw!

That leaves the value of the esoteric/emotive around traditions and patriotism. There's no accounting for that other than your own conscience and who would challenge that, it being beyond cold measurement.

Originally Posted by Gman2

Here's another from The Telegraph - easy to understand article on the implications for UK business and the alternative trading models that are on the table:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...british-trade/

Not sure they're advocating the "clean break" scenario tbh.

Thanks. That says something I'd not seen in print before, maybe it's been kept quiet. A frank admission about what happens post-Brexit. During the first two years nothing happens because there will be attempts to renegotiate the terms in order to reverse the result of the vote. What? You can't reverse the result of a referendum! It doesn't actually say that a second referendum will be held. I wonder what they could possibly mean. Do they mean us?

[Gman2]

Originally Posted by wraymond

That leaves the value of the esoteric/emotive around traditions and patriotism. There's no accounting for that other than your own conscience and who would challenge that, it being beyond cold measurement.

So it's exactly down to what I said a few days ago - I reckon for the bulk of voters it's an emotional decision at the end of the day. Unfortunately emotion is not a strong foundation to base an opinion on but it is what it is as they say.

Originally Posted by wraymond

Thanks. That says something I'd not seen in print before, maybe it's been kept quiet. A frank admission about what happens post-Brexit. During the first two years nothing happens because there will be attempts to renegotiate the terms in order to reverse the result of the vote. What? You can't reverse the result of a referendum! It doesn't actually say that a second referendum will be held. I wonder what they could possibly mean. Do they mean us?

Your guess is as good as mine. No wonder the poor British voter is bamboozled on what's being fed to them!