Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And another thing: if I express the opinion that I think Clegg is an idiot/lackey/lickspittle etc etc

I don't need to provide barcharts, piecharts, or articles to back that up!

Or am I wrong?

And that's fair enough. The issue is when you frame it as fact, rather than simply prefacing it with "I think that" or "In my opinion".

this may be a bit off topic, but what exactly would you guys loose if you did leave? You already have differing border laws and money laws. though, to be fair, I'm not 100% on what exactly the EU gives to a country.

 Orlanth wrote:
Just say why.

I said as much and didnt provide a link, but mentioned the AV referendum of May 2011 as public evidence, rather than just claimed such. That is enough.

Saying that (for example) Clegg was a lackey because he (being specific) didnt stand up to the Tories on university fees changes in 2010 is fair comment.

Saying he's Clegg, he's Lib Dem, therefore he is an idiot/lackey/lickspittle isnt fair.

Life isn't fair

In a democracy, expressing the opinion that X is an idiot needs no justification.

I know what you're saying, but even so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brennonjw wrote:
this may be a bit off topic, but what exactly would you guys loose if you did leave? You already have differing border laws and money laws. though, to be fair, I'm not 100% on what exactly the EU gives to a country.

To use an example I used earlier, here's an American comparison.

In my opinion, the EU is a lot like your Federal Government in Washington. It's populated with well meaning people who want to do good things.

Unfortunately, the EU bureaucracy is growing at an increasing rate, and beginning to encroach on areas where it has no business. For example, it has control over the VAT on women's sanitary towels.

Weird I know.

Like most governments, the power it has, the more power it wants. It openly talks of a federal Europe, a united states of Europe. It wants more control over its member nations.

For me, this is bad for democracy.

I see what you mean.

If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.

Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.

 Brennonjw wrote:
I see what you mean.

If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.

Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.

don't really follow the economic arguments, because my main concern has always been with democracy. Even if leaving the EU made Britain worse off economically, I'd still vote to leave, because I believe that democracy beats economy.

IMO, the EU is bad for British democracy, because many of our laws are made by the EU, its institutions encroach on British institutions, but the British people mostly have no say on decisions made by the EU that effect them.

The British people should have the final say on those institutions and officials that rule them, but being in the EU prevents us from having that final say. That's why I'm voting to leave.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
I see what you mean.

If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.

Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.

don't really follow the economic arguments, because my main concern has always been with democracy. Even if leaving the EU made Britain worse off economically, I'd still vote to leave, because I believe that democracy beats economy.

IMO, the EU is bad for British democracy, because many of our laws are made by the EU, its institutions encroach on British institutions, but the British people mostly have no say on decisions made by the EU that effect them.

How about British decisions that affect us? Changes to tax credits for example? Those were just as unaccountable as any decision made by the EU.

The British people should have the final say on those institutions and officials that rule them, but being in the EU prevents us from having that final say. That's why I'm voting to leave.

And I *would* agree with most of those points, but quite frankly I don't trust the current government to remake those laws in a just state.

Look at the Human Rights bill for example. Can you genuinely say that the current government, given all of the cuts and regulations that they have been imposing, would recreate those laws in a way that would actually be fair to the citizens of this country?

Aside from that, at this point our economy is being propped up by the financial markets in London, research, and high value manufacture, and the latter two would take devastating hits if we were to leave. Our economy is already fethed, I do not want to have another ten years of austerity and idealogical cuts brought about by universities and companies being unable to do the research that drives our university system or by manufacturing companies no longer being able to freely transport parts across europe, and so upping sticks and relocating.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Goliath, do you hold everybody else to these high standards or just me?

I do it for people that I think are better than the posts they're making. Your posts in other threads and some in this thread have seemed well thought out, so I was hoping you'd be able to provide some evidence for your claims so that it wouldn't undermine your argument.

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
I see what you mean.

If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.

Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.

don't really follow the economic arguments, because my main concern has always been with democracy. Even if leaving the EU made Britain worse off economically, I'd still vote to leave, because I believe that democracy beats economy.

IMO, the EU is bad for British democracy, because many of our laws are made by the EU, its institutions encroach on British institutions, but the British people mostly have no say on decisions made by the EU that effect them.

How about British decisions that affect us? Changes to tax credits for example? Those were just as unaccountable as any decision made by the EU.

The British people should have the final say on those institutions and officials that rule them, but being in the EU prevents us from having that final say. That's why I'm voting to leave.

And I *would* agree with most of those points, but quite frankly I don't trust the current government to remake those laws in a just state.

Look at the Human Rights bill for example. Can you genuinely say that the current government, given all of the cuts and regulations that they have been imposing, would recreate those laws in a way that would actually be fair to the citizens of this country?

Aside from that, at this point our economy is being propped up by the financial markets in London, research, and high value manufacture, and the latter two would take devastating hits if we were to leave. Our economy is already fethed, I do not want to have another ten years of austerity and idealogical cuts brought about by universities and companies being unable to do the research that drives our university system or by manufacturing companies no longer being able to freely transport parts across europe, and so upping sticks and relocating.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Goliath, do you hold everybody else to these high standards or just me?

I do it for people that I think are better than the posts they're making. Your posts in other threads and some in this thread have seemed well thought out, so I was hoping you'd be able to provide some evidence for your claims so that it wouldn't undermine your argument.

A fair point, Goliath. In my defence, I'm usually multi-tasking when I'm on dakka, so I don't always have the time to post links to articles.

And thanks for the kind words. I usually get chased out of the news and rumours section for my negative views concerning a new GW model, so it makes a change to get some praise once in a while.

 djones520 wrote:
I love seeing the illegal immigrant issue becoming so big in Europe.

I'm not saying that in a sarcastic sense. It's been such a hot issue over here for a while now, glad to see it's not just us that's dealing with it.

Yup, but just as in the States, the paranoia in the UK bears no relation to the facts. It's on the record that the areas of the country most paranoid about immigration are those that have the fewest immigrants.

I grew up in Hull, a town in East Yorkshire where studies showed a significant deviation from the mean in IQ - because, being in a corner of the country, there was less genetic diversity, presumably from centuries of inbreeding. Unsurprisingly, it's one of the more racist places in the country, and voted in a UKIP MEP. Whereas, looking at the bloated, pie-faced population, it's plain that their tired old gene pool is in dire need of refreshment.

I rejoice every time I see a slim, attractive woman there because she's inevitably Polish although, alas, the likelihood of her contributing to genetic diversity with a member of the local population is remote in the extreme.

The UK's economy has benefited from immigration, for one thing we need immigrants to pay our pensions, although you'd never guess that from the stream of venom and xenophobia every time the issue is discussed.

The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.

.

Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.

.

Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.

The government knows people are burned out in their late 60s. Pushing back the retirement age is just about delaying pension payments to save money. They don't care if you don't work past 65, you just have to pay out your own pocket for longer until you reach the state pension age. What this will cause is more poverty and people forced to sell their homes. Two things they don't care about either.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.

.

Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.

The government knows people are burned out in their late 60s. Pushing back the retirement age is just about delaying pension payments to save money. They don't care if you don't work past 65, you just have to pay out your own pocket for longer until you reach the state pension age. What this will cause is more poverty and people forced to sell their homes. Two things they don't care about either.

This is yet another reason for leaving the European Union and/or capping immigration.

We can have a welfare state, or we can have mass immigration. We can't have both.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


Yup, but just as in the States, the paranoia in the UK bears no relation to the facts. It's on the record that the areas of the country most paranoid about immigration are those that have the fewest immigrants.

Could I see a source on that out of interest?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.

.

Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.

The government knows people are burned out in their late 60s. Pushing back the retirement age is just about delaying pension payments to save money. They don't care if you don't work past 65, you just have to pay out your own pocket for longer until you reach the state pension age. What this will cause is more poverty and people forced to sell their homes. Two things they don't care about either.

This is yet another reason for leaving the European Union and/or capping immigration.

We can have a welfare state, or we can have mass immigration. We can't have both.

A) Where do you see mass immigration? Apart from the fact that refugees are not immigrants, I mean. Do you know how many refugees have reached the EU, yet? How many were turned down? How many came to the UK? Did it even touch 2 % ? How much is your government spending on the save the banks/Greece initiative? Do you really think that housing 100k (for example) refugees was an economic issue for Britain?

B) How many of those refugees will go back if the Non-EU-member-UK manages to single-handedly solve the issues in Syria and elsewhere?

C) What makes you believe you can avoid immigration by leaving the EU? In fact, a lot of people argue that without European regulation, Europe will just hand over all "immmigrants" that want to go to the UK. Calais much? Because you live on an island? Do you know how most of these people came to Europe?

C) Your social system being under pressure has two reasons (which are the same reasons why Germany's system is under pressure): You have not been making enough children in the last 30 years, and, the system is too dependent on making "enough" children in one generation. Although I understand that the UK pension system is already very much privatized, something Germany is still facing, even though I am not convinced privatization of financing risks of basic societal tasks is the way to go forward...

As has been rightly said, immigration mitigates that problem. - But only so long until their reproductive behaviour matches the indigenious (which happens pretty quickly, within 1 or 2 generations, depending how good or bad you are at integrating immigrants into your mainstream culture and economy).

Edit: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 treslibras wrote:

C) What makes you believe you can avoid immigration by leaving the EU? In fact, a lot of people argue that without European regulation, Europe will just hand over all "immmigrants" that want to go to the UK. Calais much? Because you live on an island? Do you know how most of these people came to Europe?

The problem with this argument is that the UK, when outside of the EU, would be well within our rights under international law to refuse entry and to ship them all back to France - short of a war breaking out IN France then we have no obligation under international law to do anything but send them back to their last safe point of harbour. So I'm more than happy for the EU to waste it's money putting them all on a ship to the UK, we'll just send the ships back to France.

Being an island helps here, not hinders.

Stranger83 wrote:

 treslibras wrote:

C) What makes you believe you can avoid immigration by leaving the EU? In fact, a lot of people argue that without European regulation, Europe will just hand over all "immmigrants" that want to go to the UK. Calais much? Because you live on an island? Do you know how most of these people came to Europe?

The problem with this argument is that the UK, when outside of the EU, would be well within our rights under international law to refuse entry and to ship them all back to France - short of a war breaking out IN France then we have no obligation under international law to do anything but send them back to their last safe point of harbour. So I'm more than happy for the EU to waste it's money putting them all on a ship to the UK, we'll just send the ships back to France.

Being an island helps here, not hinders.

First, that is not correct. If these people have no papers, France would not be obliged to "take them back". Second, while I agree that the general level of control in France or Belgium is higher than in the home countries of northern African and the Middle-East, and of course the UK could pump millions into controlling its waterways, my motion was a general one: namely, that it is an illusion to think you can hide behind the Channel. And that without the EU it will be harder to deal with refugee waves, not easier - because you will have less influence internationally, not more.

Yeah, that makes no sense.

If the EU is to allow "waves" of migrants through it borders that will be their business. Influence on this is not relevant because it will be the EU area affected. We don't want sway over the southern half of Europe much less anyone they choose to allow to wander through their states willy-nilly.

As to the cost of managing the English channel, that already exists. It is the busiest waterway in the world and well monitored and patrolled by the Navy and Civilian bodies. There is no fear in choosing to leave the EU.

 treslibras wrote:


First, that is not correct. If these people have no papers, France would not be obliged to "take them back". Second, while I agree that the general level of control in France or Belgium is higher than in the home countries of northern African and the Middle-East, and of course the UK could pump millions into controlling its waterways, my motion was a general one: namely, that it is an illusion to think you can hide behind the Channel. And that without the EU it will be harder to deal with refugee waves, not easier - because you will have less influence internationally, not more.

I suggest you read up on International law, if France puts all these people on a boat and sends them on to us they are fully obliged to take them back under international law.

Now maybe you're saying they will ignore the law, and this may well be true - the EU ignores international law all the time, but just because France would choose to ignore the law doesn't mean that the UK would need to take these people in, it'd still be up to France to provide for them.

Now I'm still undecided on a vast number of EU issues, but this one seems cut a dry to me - France can wave through as many as they want, but it isn't our problem to deal with them if they do.

As I and others have said previously...if the French government tries shenanigans like this, then the UK should begin blacklisting all transport companies (ferries, trains, airlines etc) who collude with them.

 treslibras wrote:


First, that is not correct. If these people have no papers, France would not be obliged to "take them back".

And we're under no obligation to 'take them'? If France chooses to illegally dispatch them, we can illegally return them. Stick them all on boats and then send them over? Alright, we'll stick a new pilot on the boat and sail them back.

Not to mention that we can just deny berthing rights and never let them off the boat to begin with.

But this is a silly topic anyway, because it's not going to happen.

The German Daily Show's take on the Brexit negotiations.

My favourite is the line about piss soaked carpets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)

 Da Boss wrote:



The German Daily Show's take on the Brexit negotiations.

My favourite is the line about piss soaked carpets.

Not going to lie, I find myself smiling wryly at the first half thinking, 'It's a bit disingenuous, but comedy, eh wot'. Then the second half descended into mild racism and insults and the smile faded and the single eyebrow went up.

If that's anywhere close to the German perspective, I wouldn't be entirely surprised (I expect the average German to be as well educated on all this as the average Brit; not very), but it certainly doesn't endear me towards voting 'stay', quite the opposite.

Awww c'mon, where's that famous UK sense of humour? No worse than any stereotyping of the Germans on UK comedy shows. I thought it was pretty funny

Also, I don't think they were trying particularly hard to endear you towards staying - the tone I get from it is exasperation. Though perhaps we're both projecting there.

I will give you though: I thought the bit about british women was a bit below the belt and unfunny. I dunno where that's coming from to be honest!

 Da Boss wrote:
The German Daily Show's take on the Brexit negotiations.

My favourite is the line about piss soaked carpets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)

I really want to see what he says about Americans. Jokes on the British are all well and good but the US is the perpetual well of comedy gold waiting to be mined.

The bit about Brexit cat food was funny. The rest? Not so much. All lazy stereotyping. I mean...nothing about David Cameron fething a pig?

And the jibes about not having our Empire any more, and the remarks about World War 2 were a bit rich. Germany fought two bloody World Wars trying to build its own Empire, then finally succeeded through diplomacy and economics.

Wait, was Germany in World War 2?

 Da Boss wrote:
Wait, was Germany in World War 2?

They were on the runners up team.

 Da Boss wrote:
Awww c'mon, where's that famous UK sense of humour? No worse than any stereotyping of the Germans on UK comedy shows. I thought it was pretty funny

Also, I don't think they were trying particularly hard to endear you towards staying - the tone I get from it is exasperation. Though perhaps we're both projecting there.

I will give you though: I thought the bit about british women was a bit below the belt and unfunny. I dunno where that's coming from to be honest!

It's certainly easier to find something funny, when you aren't the target.

However, in context it's just a light entertainment show meant for German consumption, and it was meant to be humorous to that audience, and judging by the reaction it worked as intended.

However, by showing this, you've given the DM brigade another reason to get their knickers in a twist. Which isn't an altogether terrible thing if I'm honest. They don't half enjoy getting their blood pressure up over Europe, and foreigners in general.

 Da Boss wrote:

(Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)

Well, Jeremy Clarkson also said that Britain should remain in the EU

I'm pretty sure that revelation may have given some Daily Mail readers a brain aneurysm