BigJim

8 minutes ago, MikeMcKenna said:

And so "the Big Lie" is unraveling.

Daniel Hannan, Leave and Tory MEP stated today:

 'Of course there is still going to be immigration. There are still going to be people coming here to work and you will look in vain for anything the Leave campaign said at any point that suggested there would be any kind of border closure or pulling up of the drawbridge.'

Sorry Mike, what problem do you have with Dan's comment?

Wasn't Leave's position that we should limit the free movement of Europeans to the UK, not halt immigration?

10 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

See House of Lords. See the cabinet with Boris Johnson there "just cos" and other useless members.  See FIFA. See the olympics. See the democratic and republican parties nomination process (now that is just a farce). See the local councils. These are all other examples on nonsense monsters that have power to make binding decisions over us or their country/sport and eat up a huge amount of money for no benefit to the country/people/sport.

As has said before by others, at least I have voted for someone to sit in the EU parliament, I haven't for the House of Lords. Whilst the Commons can veto, it takes a lot of effort and negotiations to get through the Lords who are appointed when the sitting government need to shore up their numbers. If we want to sort out bureaucratic monsters maybe look closer to home as well?

No worries. I get why you would get irate at that, like when people say that remain voters are bitter and arrogant intellectuals who think they know best   (Not saying you have said that, but people have been certainly saying it all day and it does gripe me as well!)

Hey, I'm with you about monsters everywhere. House of Lords - yes, but at least it is a venerable institution which does its job as second chamber. Would you rather have a US style elected senate? I don't see many more signs of real democracy at work in their system. FIFA, there's one to make the blood boil in all our veins. I used to get far more worked up about them than any political body. 

I just think the Euro bureaucracy is absurdly top heavy and will just keep growing (well, maybe not now). They churn out mountains of regulations and have to keep doing so to justify their existence. Everything you see around you is probably regulated in some way. And don't ever research the bureaucrats' compensation packages if you want to sleep at night, they are obscene.

21 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Again, you don't understand. I'm getting exceptionally tired of this.

My apologies to any readers that have seen this before.

The EU is made up of thousands of voices. Whole sections of it are made of people that hate it. Significant elements of its organisation are nominated by national governments. And so and so forth. Some of those people undoubtedly want a USE. Some of those people want to burn Brussels to the ground. Some of those people want to develop the EU towards closer but not complete union. Some of those people would rather a return overtly and solely economic union. They all can't agree. Even if the entire commission decides on an EU state (which, as said above, won't happen), the Parliament reviews it and won't agree, because lots of the Parliament is there to be opposed to the organisation. They have the power to remove the Commission also.

That's before you get to the sovereignty nitty gritty. Which wouldn't be broken.

It's a red herring. And always has been.

But you'd know all that, because you're not ignorant, wouldn't you?

I'm also tired of arguing the point, but just to set the record straight, I spoke of federalist aims and tendencies, which are quite undeniable (by anyone except possibly posters on this forum).  

I suggest you reread the history of the European project since its foundation. 

Good night.

34 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

Actually I was saying that it was the swing vote that was the caused by immigration, not the majority of the leave vote.

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. 

29 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

Now this point, whilst I don't agree with, is a valid point and can understand concern. Very much in agreement with @Chindie though on the point of why the complication has happened.

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.

26 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I knew you'd say that.

The thing had to become more complex to develop the single market. You have to introduce legislation to ensure that standards are maintained across borders. Extrapolate that out to everything else. Consider that Britain usually (actually near invariably) agreed with these changes.

Federalism has been done to death. It's a red herring. That you raise it says a lot about your stance and your ignorance of this topic. Suffice to say, it ain't happening even if any EU politicians want it (which I dont doubt some do).

I struggle to see the fascism in believing a representative democracy should do the job they're elected to do.

I also don't think I'm more intelligent than the 'plebs'. More educated than some, certainly, and more informed in this field than many, but not necessarily more intelligent than many.

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.

41 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I mean it shouldn't be put to a vote.

This was a different proposition to the vote in the 70s. A much more complicated one.

The referendum was stupid. But we did it to keep a Tory revolt under control.

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).

3 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

There are people who voted remain that clearly wanted it, having considered the information and felt they wanted out. I have no issues with that, they are entitled to, but the ones that have done it as a "protest vote" or to "get the immigrants out"; those who I am afraid are ignorant of the bigger picture and what seems to be coming through is that there were enough of these voters to swing it. That's the frustration with it.

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.

4 minutes ago, brommy said:

Why is it essential? Why can't each country decide what their current labour requirements are?

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.

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

My example was a bad one. Ignore it. The fundamental question is 'you don't understand something, should you vote on it?'. Gut feel isn't a viable position to run a country, you have to have insight and understanding. If this was about gut feeling why where there campaigns running around 'explaining' (stretching the term to near breaking point) positions?

The referendum was obscenely stupid and lo and behold, ignorance was 'wot won it'.

It isn't a surprise the most vocal leavers are not the most articulate or nuanced of people.

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.

2 minutes ago, brommy said:

Has the EU ever explained exactly why the free movement of labour is so essential to membership of their club?

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.

16 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Ah so you just don't want to comprehend the question then. Cool. Nobody knows who things will turn out so it's fine.

You have to understand something to make a decision on it. You can't go on gut feel. That way lies madness. Unfortunately we're well down that road.

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.

28 minutes ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

However flawed the EU may be, their values are my values. I can no longer confidently say that about the UK.

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

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Say tomorrow we had a referendum on... oh I dunno, a new way to develop energy. And this was a revolutionary new technique and really complicated. It's so complicated that you have to have high level understanding of 3 specific areas of science to have even basic understanding of it. Everyone else understands it in a really basic, pretty much so simple is not true way. But it could be brilliant. Solve many energy problems. Make environmental concerns go away.

But it's controversial. Initially it's accepted it's really expensive. And if would require us to use land and resources we perhaps wouldn't do otherwise. And it was introduced by a foreign company. And there's a rumour it causes cocks to fall off in a 10 mile radius. But that's only true really if it was in the open air, and the while thing is actually done miles deep in 5 miles of lead. And there are other minor concerns that the company and people who like the idea have explained and addressed.

Should you be able to vote on that to say that can or cannot go ahead? Something you don't understand and only have soundbites and rumour and expert comments?

I don't think it's unreasonable to say you shouldn't. Because you can't have an informed position.

The EU is similar. But we went to vote when a lot of people couldn't answer fundamental things about it and what it does and how it affects things.

It's a terrible idea.

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.

38 minutes ago, villakram said:

Very interesting demographics charts here in the FT live blog, unfortunately the full blog posting is behind their paywall.

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/liveblogs/2016-06-24/#5848624949da48ad06f93fcf903d4c77

No passport --> statistically more likely to vote leave

No degree --> statistically more likely to vote to leave

Old person --> statistically more likely to vote to leave

"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?

35 minutes ago, villakram said:

That's pretty much exactly what the exit poll says.

Of course, when somebody who voted leave actually provides a quantitative reason for voting leave, then we'll stop thinking you're tossers because you'll have provided us with some evidence that you're not.

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.

13 hours ago, Jareth said:

Reading fan pal if mine is gutted to hear tshibola could be offski. Called him a midfield beast. One from their academy. 

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. 

9 minutes ago, terrytini said:

What has brought this on ?  

 

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?

1 hour ago, briggsy said:

That's probably why he's failed the test and has been removed as a director

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?

15 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

Commercial Director of Recon Sports...

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".

39 minutes ago, meme said:

Technically not a redundancy, but reports are circulating by the Daily Mail that goalkeeping coach Tony Parks has been released by Di Matteo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3625163/Aston-Villa-release-goalkeeping-coach-Tony-Parks-following-Roberto-Di-Matteo-s-arrival.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

People on Twitter have criticised him for being poorer in quality than most other Premier League GK coaches. Maybe Di Matteo can get a good one in. Besides, Italy are well known for their world-class goalkeeping coaches anyway.

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?