BigJim

Have read your post again and I apologise for taking it the wrong way. It's just that I find it very distasteful that so many posters have been questioning the intelligence of Leave voters.

But why the complication happened is not relevant to the discussion. My point was that the union transformed itself into a bureaucratic monster that the original voters could never have imagined in their worst nightmare.

Federalism a red herring? So say you, but you also don't doubt some want(ed) it?? Damn right they do(did). Well of course it ain't happening now, the whole project will fall apart. But to assert that it hadn't been heading in that direction is a bit naive. It's very sharp of you to have ascertained my stance, I wasn't sure I had made it clear, oh and and thank you for pointing out my ignorance on the topic. Edit. I almost forgot. "A representative democracy should do the job they're elected to do." I think you mean a representative government. Yes, and one of its attributions is to call a referendum on matters of constitutional importance where the electorate has clearly demonstrated its desire for change.

More complicated now than then, but that's part of the reason why many of those that voted in originally have voted out now: the system was never supposed to get so inflated and complicated. The referendum was stupid only if you think it was valid to remain in an increasingly federalist union against the wish of the people which was increasingly clear from democratic election results (partly prompting the revolting Tories). Cameron's hand was forced by the workings of our democratic political system. You can lament the outcome, as you clearly do, but you can't argue against the process without sounding like a bit of a fascist (not helped actually by making out you're more intelligent than the plebs).

Here we go again: The Leave vote was mainly xenophobic thickos who don't understand the bigger picture. The Remainers clearly thought the issue through like the thoroughly decent, intelligent, cosmopolitan chaps they are. Apologies cyrusr, it's not just you. But I think you can all do a bit better than that.

I believe the Leave argument was that it keeps labour rates low, and that the other side propounded that it foments economic growth in the poorer countries. I may be wrong and I'm not saying I agree with either camp.

Do you mean, should it be put to the vote, or should you abstain/be barred if you haven't understood the issues to somebody's (whose?) satisfaction? If it is a fundamental constitutional issue it must be put to the vote, as it was when we joined in the first place. If the people had the right to decide then, they had the right to decide now. I agree with you that such a system is full of imperfections, it's the worst system there is, apart from all the others, as somebody once said.

It is essential to big business. German industries built their power on hiring cheap immigrant labour and laying them off again when it suited them.

But Leave/Remain was not really about understanding something, something measurable and with a scientific basis like your example. It was much more to do with gut feeling. How people felt they are being treated, how they feel they want to be governed. There are no right or wrong answers. "At its heart, Leave was fuelled by a festering sense of betrayal among legions of working class voters in places that have long felt overlooked by what they perceive as a political and media elite in cosmopolitan London." http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/liveblogs/2016-06-24/#5848624949da48ad06f93fcf903d4c77 Nothing to do with plonkers being unable to understand things like what you can.

Would those be values of the EU comissioners, or those of the Spanish, Greek and Italian working classes?

With respect, it's really nothing like the hypothetical scenario you proposed. Leave or remain was a fundamental constitutional matter. It may have had very complicated issues. And many of them were unanswerable by anybody, never mind "a lot of people". Nobody really knows how things will pan out now, nobody really knows how they would have panned out if we had voted the other way. Not really much different from a general election in that sense.

"Areas with high numbers of degree-educated people tended to vote Remain " I see. So London, Scotland and half of N Ireland is where all the brains are?

I think you may be wrong. It doesn’t show that 71% of those who voted Leave believe that the internet is a force for ill, though the slide is designed to suggest that. What it actually shows is that 71% of those believe that the internet is a force for ill (it doesn’t say how many believe that), voted Leave. Maybe only 100 of those interviewed said they believe the internet is a force for ill, we just don’t know. It only tells us 71% of them voted Leave. Pretty useless survey.

Don't think the poll tells us very much. I can just hear people saying things like, Look, 71% of he to$$ers who voted Leave believe that the internet is a force for ill. Except that the results don't show that at all.

I haven't lived in the UK for many years so couldn't vote.... Have to say, all the older expats I know would have voted Leave. I would probably have been in the same **** moron geriatric camp. But of course it is easy to take that view if you don't have to live with the consequences. In that sense, I can understand the fears of young people. What I can't understand is their arrogance. I actually saw (not here) someone saying people shouldn't have been allowed to vote (i.e. they're not intelligent enough). That is exactly the view of the political elite who have run Europe for their own ends for a good number of years now (and whose time has probably come to an end). And it appears to be the view of a fair few on here.

Had a quick look at him on utube (slow day). Looks powerful and useful. Probably aiming a bit higher than us?

Have to admit sharing some worries at the composition of the board, but after seeing the photo I am a little more at ease: we might be needing replacements for some of those three sooner than suspected.

Not sure, I may have stirred it a little, if so I apologize. Can I just suggest now that, as the character in Snowy's avatar might have said, these issues don't amount to a hill of beans to the vast majority on here. Perhaps the argument should be moved to another thread?

One of several possible reasons, if anyone cares to examine Mr Hitchin's business exploits somewhere in this: https://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/governments-bank-corporate-sector-fraudulently-create-deficits-and-then-impose-austerity-measures/ To agree with the poster above, why on earth would the Dr get involved with such shady characters?

Is that right though? I would have thought that "Occupation" would be his usual occupation, not (necessarily) his role at Recon. The Doctor gives his as a "Business Executive".

No idea how good/bad GK coach he was (though Brad's recent performances haven't been much of a recommendation) but it always used to irritate me a bit that he always seemed to be at the forefront in the dugout, getting agitated, issuing instructions and generally in Tim's ear, instead of KMac or Wilkins or whoever was the assistant at the time. I'm sure he wasn't talking to the goalkeeper.

Some of you accountants out there may take umbrage at this, but isn't this issue comparable to "tax avoidance" vs. "tax evasion"? One a little frowned upon by some but within the rules, the other legally and morally wrong. Massive sponsorship by an associate business may not be prohibited by the letter of the rules, but is clearly contrary to the spirit. At least, it is while everybody else is doing it. When we join in though, it's obviously OK...isn't it?

Nice to see someone taking a stand against corruption. Just out of interest SC, would you object to "probably legal but devious" means to circumvent FFP restrictions, such as the sort of massive sponsorship we have seen elsewhere? Or would you prefer us to stay out of the obscene spending brigade - and so probably out of the world's top 3

Since the only way to stop him is to kick big lumps out of him, I doubt he'd complete half a season.

Just to be clear, it wouldn't be a big loss whoever left? All the players fit your condition I think.