David Cameron's speech on Europe

[elmarko]

The EU hold the rights of the entire population of the EU above the well being of the UK population. Cameron hit the nail on the head when he said that the constant pandering on trying to make everything balanced and secular is damaging us all as a whole. There needs to be a clear direction of what the EU is and what it's going to be, it was sold a trading block, a great idea. It became and is becoming a federal government for which we have a declining ability to self govern.

And?.

I still think the EU's care about the entire population of the EU (us included) is greater than this current governments care for the majority of the population of the UK.

What exactly is wrong with trying to make things balanced & secular exactly?.

It wasn't to make sure, the second vote was on a better deal for Ireland after the first one sucked. Hence why there was a MASSIVE swing in turnout and voter choices second time around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...on_Bill,_2008_(Ireland)#Reasons_for_rejection

Hey you, don't go bringing facts into a political debate

 

[EyepodI]

It wasn't to make sure, the second vote was on a better deal for Ireland after the first one sucked. Hence why there was a MASSIVE swing in turnout and voter choices second time around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...on_Bill,_2008_(Ireland)#Reasons_for_rejection

They voted "NO" - NO means NO we don't want it. NO need for a second vote - we said NO....Unless No means Yes to you?

 

[elmarko]

They voted "NO" - NO means NO we don't want it. NO need for a second vote - we said NO....Unless No means Yes to you?

A no vote signals a rejection of the proposed changes.

If the proposal changes, another vote seems logical.



(On a side note, the post above is exactly the reason why we should NOT have a referendum on this)

 

[Theophany]

They voted "NO" - NO means NO we don't want it. NO need for a second vote - we said NO....Unless No means Yes to you?

Are you aware of a process called 'negotiating'?

 

[Muffin`]

And?.

I still think the EU's care about the entire population of the EU (us included) is greater than this current governments care for the majority of the population of the UK.

I'm not quite sure how you think what the UK government does is not in the best interest of the UK and in turn for the UK population. What do you mean by it?

What exactly is wrong with trying to make things balanced & secular exactly?.

Works on paper, but emotive legislation just leaves you in a mess. Recent changes to sex equality on insurance for example.

 

[deuse]

A no vote signals a rejection of the proposed changes.

If the proposal changes, another vote seems logical.



(On a side note, the post above is exactly the reason why we should NOT have a referendum on this)

That's like saying if Labour lost the next election but then came back with better terms\things the UK people should vote again?

 

[platypus]

As has been said; the thought of the general populace having a vote on our future in the EU is terrifying.

 

[Muffin`]

That's like saying if Labour lost the next election but then came back with better terms\things the UK people should vote again?

That's a national election; a recent example would be with the failed referendum on AV. If they had come back with 'What about AV+' - that would be a better comparison. It's something that goes on, it's call negotiation but on a bigger stage. A national election isn't a negotiation it's an election and only needs another vote if we do not get any result whatsoever, which has happened before.

 

[elmarko]

That's like saying if Labour lost the next election but then came back with better terms\things the UK people should vote again?

No it isn't.

I'm not quite sure how you think what the UK government does is not in the best interest of the UK and in turn for the UK population. What do you mean by it?

I said the current UK government - not UK government, with the current one being pretty keen on removing a number of workers rights which are protected by the EU

Do you honestly think the current UK government has the best interests of a majority of the UK population in mind when it enacts changes?.

Works on paper, but emotive legislation just leaves you in a mess. Recent changes to sex equality on insurance for example.

But the changes regarding insurance for drivers were correct (in my view).

It's sexist to make behavioural assumptions based on gender & then go on to actually treat them differently (by charging them differently).

I would not be allowed to use gender in the statistical debt/value/propensity models I work with as a variable due to the discriminative nature of it (the same reason I can't use racial profiling information) - while a correlation may exist, it should not always be used as a predictive measure.

Let me give you an example, foreign people are statistically more likely to go into debt - this is because on average many move away & it's more difficult to get contact information on them - as ethnicity isn't given it's a good predictive measure to use the length & characters used within a name.

Would it be acceptable to charge different premiums based on name?, as it IS a predictive measure for the variable in question? - (even though a number of English people with foreign names would get "caught out") - I don't think it is OK & neither would I be allowed to use the variable (but obviously all variables come up when you create models & you use the ones you can & disregard the ones you can't)

Most of the EU laws make sense when you look at them objectively & see the rational behind them - but emotive news articles tend to focus on singular examples of when they are twisted or abused & ignore the positive sides.

 

[Pixel]

The US government wants us to leave the EU, I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind this latest plan.

 

[Muffin`]

The US government wants us to leave the EU, I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind this latest plan.

No, they want us to stay in...

 

[deuse]

As has been said; the thought of the general populace having a vote on our future in the EU is terrifying.

Why? we already done it once before..

That's a national election; a recent example would be with the failed referendum on AV. If they had come back with 'What about AV+' - that would be a better comparison. It's something that goes on, it's call negotiation but on a bigger stage. A national election isn't a negotiation it's an election and only needs another vote if we do not get any result whatsoever, which has happened before.

It should be ONE vote and that's it. Not keep comong back till they get a yes answer.

 

[The Geezer]

That's a national election; a recent example would be with the failed referendum on AV. If they had come back with 'What about AV+' - that would be a better comparison. It's something that goes on, it's call negotiation but on a bigger stage. A national election isn't a negotiation it's an election and only needs another vote if we do not get any result whatsoever, which has happened before.

This !

It's called cheap politics, Cameron wants another stint at Number 10 to finish what he started - cuts, cuts, cuts and the lack of growth which George keeps giving us.

All he is doing is pandering but not in a Jimmy S way

 

[Theophany]

That's like saying if Labour lost the next election but then came back with better terms\things the UK people should vote again?

This happens. It's called a general election. It happens every 4-5 years. If you're not voted in, come back to the next one with a better offer.

 

[EyepodI]

Are you aware of a process called 'negotiating'?

They had decades to negotiate, that's why we've been paying those MEPs and their hideous expenses to LOL about in Brussels for. The vote was to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, negotiation done - simple yes or no vote required. "No" vote returned.

 

[Muffin`]

It should be ONE vote and that's it. Not keep comong back till they get a yes answer.

That's only a position you can advocate when you're in favor of the 'No' option Shirley?

Negotiation is something that exists everywhere, why should it not be applicable on a national platform?

I don't agree with the Lisbon treaty, but it was a fair process for ROI.

 

[Theophany]

They had decades to negotiate, that's why we've been paying those MEPs and their hideous expenses to LOL about in Brussels for. The vote was to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, negotiation done - simple yes or no vote required. "No" vote returned.

I don't think you really understand the mechanics of politics and democracy, you just have an opinion that you feel everything should fit into. Which is fine, but ultimately wrong.

 

[Firestar_3x]

The US government wants us to leave the EU, I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind this latest plan.

Source?

 

[oulton]

No, they want us to stay in...

Yes apparently they're quite keen to have a puppet in the EU to veto any decisions they may not like.

Blair made a HUGE mistake siding with the US instead of Europe on the Iraq thing, our relationship with Europe could be so much better.

 

[topshot]

I can't think of anything worse than a referendum.

The majority of votes cast will be based on little if any actual research and mostly kneejerk and uninformed opinion often gathered from sections of the press. I find it genuinely scary that the future of our country may be decided in this way.

As opposed to what? Being told what to do by Europe?

The sooner we get a vote on getting out the better.