Awol Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Funny how the inward looking ukip supporters are now trying to make the vote a vote on eu membership when it was nothing of the sort. Two things, Drat01. First, please explain in what universe UKIP's policy of being able to make unilateral free trade agreements around the globe is inward looking? Your characterisation of what they propose as inward looking is bewilderingly nonsensical. Second point, obviously this wasn't a vote to call for an EU exit, what we are seeing - finally - is a gradual recognition by politicians on all sides that we have two choices regarding the EU: full integration to a federal superstate through the stated EU aim of "ever closer union", or political independence as the United Kingdom. Clegg is being honest when he says that the carrot dangled by Cameron of repatriation of powers is a lie. it cannot and will not happen because the EU will not allow it. This fact is slowly dawning on our incredibly ignorant politicians and every vote against the EU (binding on the government or not) crystallizes that understanding a little further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I say! What's it coming to when a chap can't even have a quiet stroll with a few media reptiles without some damn oik sounding off. Hanging's too good for 'em. interesting that you wish to make a deal out of this but saw nothing wrong with Prescott 's uppercut , of course in your own words you're not a labour supporter you just don't seem to like Politicians that are Tory Boris really shouldn't have said anything , but the trouble is you just know that people will be sitting at home laughing and saying good old Boris and his legend continues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2012 ...what we are seeing - finally - is a gradual recognition by politicians on all sides that we have two choices regarding the EU: full integration to a federal superstate through the stated EU aim of "ever closer union", or political independence as the United Kingdom... I don't think that's true at all. Not in the slightest. I think that's the kind of view which in particular UKIP and some of the more rabid anti-EU tories like ot put about, but I see it as a obsessive's viewpoint, in many instances. I feel the vast majority of people look at it differently to that. Most people, I feel, are fine with the idea of being in the EU, but have differing views as to the extent to which the balance between national control and decision making and EU control and decision making should take precedence. For example, I guess may people would be absolutely against the EU setting rates of UK tax, or perhaps controlling where, when or if we deploy Armed Forces, but they might be quite content for the EU to have the main say on parental leave, or on workers protection, or Health and Safety. Thise are just eamples, but I don't think most people are seeing it as "political independence or complete integration. Most people are OK ish with it as it is, just having gripes about stuff like budget increases or EuroMP expenses. Things like CAP and Fisheries and the EU budget and fraud are major issues for a high number of people, but these people are not generally "get out" or "plunge in deeper" types. That's where the UKIP and some tories are out of touch completely. The wide majority don't give a damn for their particular viewpoint, which is basically, "let's get out of the EU". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'd say the people in the wrong in that video are the people chanting 'scum' and a load of bleeped expletives at someone whilst he is just going about his job. Much though I deplore the use of the word 'scum', I don't think that anyone in that video is 'in the wrong'. The people who were protesting/heckling him were at liberty to do so and, frankly, so was Boris at liberty to call them lefty tossers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 ... of course in your own words you're not a labour supporter you just don't seem to like Politicians that are Tory I'm not sure that Peter is terribly keen on Labour politicians either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Much though I deplore the use of the word 'scum', I don't think that anyone in that video is 'in the wrong'. The people who were protesting/heckling him were at liberty to do so and, frankly, so was Boris at liberty to call them lefty tossers. True but I'd say the protest(?) group have only succeeded in wining Boris more support so they are in the wrong from that point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) True but I'd say the protest(?) group have only succeeded in wining Boris more support so they are in the wrong from that point of view. They are 'in the wrong' because some people may make a choice based upon what they have seen? Edit: That sounds cock-eyed. Why the question mark after protest? Edited November 1, 2012 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 They are 'in the wrong' because some people may make a choice based upon what they have seen? That's nonsense. Why the question mark after protest? I think you are misunderstanding. I think they have sabotaged their own protest, if you can even call it a protest, it's hard to know what it is they are protesting for exactly. If they had engaged the guy in some sort of debate and shown him up that would have been great but the aimless abuse probably rallied more people to Boris rather than winning people to their way of thinking. I presume that was not their intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I don't think that's true at all. Not in the slightest. I think that's the kind of view which in particular UKIP and some of the more rabid anti-EU tories like ot put about, but I see it as a obsessive's viewpoint, in many instances. You don't think it's true that those are the alternatives, or that more MP's are starting to realise those are the alternatives? You may think it's obsessive to point out as often as possible that this is the reality facing us but when intelligent people clearly don't recognise it then it can't be repeated often enough, imo. Only the British establishment and fourth estate bother to dissemble about the EU's ultimate political destination, our continental cousins are remarkably candid about it. That being the case the only real options open are in or out, there is no "halfway house" as such an option runs entirely contrary to the stated aims of the EU! I feel the vast majority of people look at it differently to that. Most people, I feel, are fine with the idea of being in the EU, but have differing views as to the extent to which the balance between national control and decision making and EU control and decision making should take precedence. For example, I guess may people would be absolutely against the EU setting rates of UK tax, or perhaps controlling where, when or if we deploy Armed Forces, but they might be quite content for the EU to have the main say on parental leave, or on workers protection, or Health and Safety. This is the fundamental point that people are clearly not getting, the very principle of ever closer union intends to eventually preclude a 'pick and mix' approach. For example EU wide harmonisation of VAT is openly stated as being on the Brussels agenda. You seem to think the EU has limited ambitions where in reality the aim is to complete subsume individual national sovereignty. After Lisbon comes into force qualified majority voting comes into force. That means the UK can no longer veto legislation made outside this country by people we don't elect from being imposed here. It destroys the very foundation of our democracy and independence by ensuring we cannot remove those who make our laws if we so chose. If getting very pissed off, frustrated and angry about that is 'obsessive' then fine. I'd say not feeling that we is massively irresponsible. That's where the UKIP and some tories are out of touch completely. The wide majority don't give a damn for their particular viewpoint, which is basically, "let's get out of the EU". Youguv have had those who would vote to leave the EU fairly steady at about 48% for a while, those in favour of remaining runs at about 32%. That doesn't look like like a wide majority against the independence viewpoint to me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I think you are misunderstanding. I think they have sabotaged their own protest, if you can even call it a protest Don't call it a protest if you are unhappy with calling it that. It rather suggests something else when you say 'protestors', protest(?) and if you can call it a protest. ..., it's hard to know what it is they are protesting for exactly. It's quite clear that they are protesting against Boris, a tory, and it doesn't take the greatest of leaps to suppose this extends to all tories and, quite probably, their politics. If they had engaged the guy in some sort of debate and shown him up that would have been great but the aimless abuse probably rallied more people to Boris rather than winning people to their way of thinking. I presume that was not their intention. Engaged him in a debate? It's difficult enough to get Boris to answer a question at Mayor's questions - good luck to anyone trying to do it on the street when he's more interested in the TV camera on him. And I think you overplay the effect of the clip, really. People who detest Boris will still detest him; people who are on his side will still be saying "Good old Boris" and bemoaning his lack of appearances on HIGNFY, and people who are not sold either way will be unlikely to be swayed by the exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Don't call it a protest if you are unhappy with calling it that. It rather suggests something else when you say 'protestors', protest(?) and if you can call it a protest. I'm quite interested in hearing what it suggests if you want to elaborate there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I am with you Londonlax. The protestors come across as gobshites and ultimately rude. That sort of behaviour, along with queue jumping and incorrect useage of there, their and they're is undermining civilisation. We will only tolerare rudeness if its funny. If they'd come up with a witty chant, then they may have got somewhere. All they have done is created sympathy for Boris and given him the opportunity to cement his persona with his response. Now I dont mind this because I rate the guy. But maybe the protesters had something worthwhile to say? We will never know I guess, as they wasted their opportunity by coming across as carrot crunching yokels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'm quite interested in hearing what it suggests if you want to elaborate there? An innate aversion to protest and dissent. ...they wasted their opportunity... What opportunity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 An innate aversion to protest. That wasn't a protest, it was just mindless hatred. I don't think you know me so are in a poor position to judge my innate aversions...you may have jumped the gun with your assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) That wasn't a protest, it was just mindless hatred. So why didn't you call it that from the beginning then? When are people allowed to call what they do a protest and/or when do you deign to call something a protest? When it satisfies all of your precise requirements? When it's a cause with which you feel sympathy? When you agree with the people protesting? I don't think you know me so are in a poor position to judge my innate aversions...you may have jumped the gun with your assumption. I don't think that you know those people so are in a poor position to judge whether their hatred is mindless or not...you may have jumped the gun with your assumption. Edited November 1, 2012 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 So why didn't you call it that from the beginning then? When are people allowed to call what they do a protest and/or when do you deign to call something a protest? When it satisfies all of your precise requirements? When it's a cause with which you feel sympathy? When you agree with the people protesting? When it has some sort of desired outcome it can be called an effective protest. A protest is an attempt to change peoples thinking to your way of thinking. This has failed at that objective, it fell short of being an effective protest and is sadly just mindless hatred and a venting of frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Fair play to him for calling them lefty tossers, they clearly were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 When it has some sort of desired outcome it can be called an effective protest. A protest is an attempt to change peoples thinking to your way of thinking. This has failed at that objective, it fell short of being an effective protest and is sadly just mindless hatred and a venting of frustration. Which is your test? That there is a measure of effectiveness or that it is effective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 interesting that you wish to make a deal out of this but saw nothing wrong with Prescott 's uppercut , of course in your own words you're not a labour supporter you just don't seem to like Politicians that are Tory Boris really shouldn't have said anything , but the trouble is you just know that people will be sitting at home laughing and saying good old Boris and his legend continues Oh, I'm not complaining about Boris calling them names. As Snowy says, he's perfectly entitled. I don't think anyone else will mind him calling them names either. So I don't understand the comparison with Prescott. What I think amusing about it is how easily his event was derailed by a tiny number of people heckling him, how he came across as a posh boy annoyed at the oiks not showing respect, how the stage management fell apart to the extent of him responding in kind when his minders would have wanted him to try to portray a statesmanlike impression. The event was a writeoff, with the candidate he was there to endorse standing limply by, completely sidelined by the disruption. And I suppose future events will be placed safely away from members of the public, in case it happens again - which it will. It was a bit like Hunt (or was it Lansley) visiting a hospital and getting harangued by someone. That became the news event, and the planned positive publicity turned to something they would rather forget. I should think most people who aren't tory supporters will come away with a slightly worse, not better impression of Johnson, and no impression at all of his pal the candidate. I would expect the protesters are happier with the event than Johnson is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 1, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2012 ...whilst he is just going about his job. It shows a lack of basic common decency from the 'protesters'. He's not going about his "job". His job is Mayor of London, he was in Bristol, campaigning. Campaigning is not "part of his job" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts