Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
- Status
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
That's Faisal Islam for you, he was the same with the PM.
Annoying, rude and obnoxious. Let them speak for christ sake.
He did that with me in the last thread, said one thing, disagreed with it then made a comment proving the point
A federal Europe would never work there is too much difference between nations and equally a past. When there is past animosity I don't think there can ever be absolution
None of them so far have even been Syrian. But I see where you are going with this and again, how does us being either in or out of the EU have any bearing on that?
There is nothing legal or appropriate about what they are doing so our status within the EU makes no difference.
Though I guess perhaps if we leave we could see Romanians on boats instead of Ryanair?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,636
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 20,826
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Could someone post a link to the 2 TV debates I missed last night ? I can't seem to find them through google
Could someone post a link to the 2 TV debates I missed last night ? I can't seem to find them through google
Do you mean these?
Cameron:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BFSJRH1q-A
Gove:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8D8AoC-5i8
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 20,826
- Location
- North Yorkshire
I'm not missing the point because I made it, you replied and I expanded on it. Euroscepticism is a valid position but it's not equivalent to the Brexit position. The EU, in its current form, has issues but they are not severe enough to warrant Brexit. When the Federation is formed or Turkey joins or whatever, Brexit can be placed on the table and it will possibly have more weight. It has not much weight now, which why it's supported by very few important figures.
Each one of them have reasons, some good ones others not so much. But they are all wrong, which would not be the first time in history, would it?
Have you ever watched closely between Boulton and Faisal? Before the General Election? Boulton despises Faisal. Boulton used to be out in the field a lot while Faisal carries out what Boulton used to do. Though I cannot stand Adam Boulton as he is a right *****!
Any time in the past if Boulton was out in the field with Faisal he treated Faisal like an apprentice, what have you got to report today as if he is trying to trip up Faisal. From all this that is the impression I'm getting why Faisal is going on like this. Trying to prove himself but it comes across bad and so unprofessional.
You're trying to change the subject again. You said the financial crisis had led to people supporting brexit, which like a lot of your posts is complete nonsense. I posted a definition of Euroscepticism affirming the key cause is the EU itself, which you (again) ignored.
It's also pretty funny/ironic how you completely dismiss the will of the people (this poll, the rise of Euroscepticism and nationalism) and keep going on about how "experts" know better than us and we should just blindly follow them. Don't like democracy much eh? Maybe you should move to North Korea where your belovered "experts" are completely in charge with the people powerless and ignored.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Watched both live; both were media performances -- nothing substantial or special. Cameron's brief was not to lose big -- being both a Tory and a PM who would be blamed and attacked for things both to do with the EU and not -- and he didn't.
And on his part, Gove was likely told not to get caught up in the details -- he knew he hasn't got the same level of research and evidence to stand on and it showed; and the interviewer largely helped him in that. Such rhetorical exchanges that are fun but simply waste time, happen in Westminster and in politico-media encounters on telly often enough.
Dave's good at the playing-for-time jig too, but he didn't take the bait in this instance.
In summary, bits that stood out for me:
Cameron: How would you reduce immigration? He'll continue his 'attack' on (pull factors) social security and welfare. Which very much gives the game away for the other side as well, as it's a very consistent Thatcherite line of thought, alongside May's take on human rights and the like.
Gove: Insisted on key Leave figures, which are being crowded out in the debate by In figures anyway (e.g. 350mil-a-day fee vs 4,300 loss per household); attacked the interviewer not the issues; focused on promises which he has not proved can be funded nor he would have the power to actually implement/offer (the Leave line of 'no change of government/we are not the alternative government' makes this point rather salient).
I suspect it'll go on like this until the final bell rings. Though Dave's got one more major intervention in the wings yet, should he choose to go for it. It is risky, however, but could largely end the speculation as to what exit deal we would be going for. That is: it is the position of this government, given a Leave vote, we will be staying in the EEA, and you'll have to knife me to get anything else.
This cuts off both the immigration rants and rip-roaring new trade empire fantasies some on the other side are indulging the public with, but also calls the power struggle bluff and splits the Tories until it is done. Hence why it's risky. Furthermore, the undecided masses might just think 'Well, all right then!' and take the Leave option, not caring much about the EU or the emotional appeals to sovereignty; thus delivering a rather Pyrrhic out.
Atm, Dave feels there's no need for it, as it would damage not only the Leave case but the Tory party, potentially permanently, and he can let his erstwhile colleagues just hang themselves anyway.
We'll see. If there's a late swing, watch the headlines -- there'll be a lot of Sturm und Drang then.
And on his part, Gove was likely told not to get caught up in the details -- he knew he hasn't got the same level of research and evidence to stand on and it showed; and the interviewer largely helped him in that. Such rhetorical exchanges that are fun but simply waste time, happen in Westminster and in politico-media encounters on telly often enough.
Dave's good at the playing-for-time jig too, but he didn't take the bait in this instance.
In summary, bits that stood out for me:
Cameron: How would you reduce immigration? He'll continue his 'attack' on (pull factors) social security and welfare. Which very much gives the game away for the other side as well, as it's a very consistent Thatcherite line of thought, alongside May's take on human rights and the like.
Gove: Insisted on key Leave figures, which are being crowded out in the debate by In figures anyway (e.g. 350mil-a-day fee vs 4,300 loss per household); attacked the interviewer not the issues; focused on promises which he has not proved can be funded nor he would have the power to actually implement/offer (the Leave line of 'no change of government/we are not the alternative government' makes this point rather salient).
I suspect it'll go on like this until the final bell rings. Though Dave's got one more major intervention in the wings yet, should he choose to go for it. It is risky, however, but could largely end the speculation as to what exit deal we would be going for. That is: it is the position of this government, given a Leave vote, we will be staying in the EEA, and you'll have to knife me to get anything else.
This cuts off both the immigration rants and rip-roaring new trade empire fantasies some on the other side are indulging the public with, but also calls the power struggle bluff and splits the Tories until it is done. Hence why it's risky. Furthermore, the undecided masses might just think 'Well, all right then!' and take the Leave option, not caring much about the EU or the emotional appeals to sovereignty; thus delivering a rather Pyrrhic out.
Atm, Dave feels there's no need for it, as it would damage not only the Leave case but the Tory party, potentially permanently, and he can let his erstwhile colleagues just hang themselves anyway.
We'll see. If there's a late swing, watch the headlines -- there'll be a lot of Sturm und Drang then.
Watched both live; both were media performances -- nothing substantial or special. Cameron's brief was not to lose big -- being both a Tory and a PM who would be blamed and attacked for things both to do with the EU and not -- and he didn't.
And on his part, Gove was likely told not to get caught up in the details -- he knew he hasn't got the same level of research and evidence to stand on and it showed; and the interviewer largely helped him in that. Such rhetorical exchanges that are fun but simply waste time, happen in Westminster and in politico-media encounters on telly often enough.
Dave's good at the playing-for-time jig too, but he didn't take the bait in this instance.
In summary, bits that stood out for me:
Cameron: How would you reduce immigration? He'll continue his 'attack' on (pull factors) social security and welfare. Which very much gives the game away for the other side as well, as it's a very consistent Thatcherite line of thought, alongside May's take on human rights and the like.
Gove: Insisted on key Leave figures, which are being crowded out in the debate by In figures anyway (e.g. 350mil-a-day fee vs 4,300 loss per household); attacked the interviewer not the issues; focused on promises which he has not proved can be funded nor he would have the power to actually implement/offer (the Leave line of 'no change of government/we are not the alternative government' makes this point rather salient).
I suspect it'll go on like this until the final bell rings. Though Dave's got one more major intervention in the wings yet, should he choose to go for it. It is risky, however, but could largely end the speculation as to what exit deal we would be going for. That is: it is the position of this government, given a Leave vote, we will be staying in the EEA, and you'll have to knife me to get anything else.
This cuts off both the immigration rants and rip-roaring new trade empire fantasies some on the other side are indulging the public with, but also calls the power struggle bluff and splits the Tories until it is done. Hence why it's risky. Furthermore, the undecided masses might just think 'Well, all right then!' and take the Leave option, not caring much about the EU or the emotional appeals to sovereignty; thus delivering a rather Pyrrhic out.
Atm, Dave feels there's no need for it, as it would damage not only the Leave case but the Tory party, potentially permanently, and he can let his erstwhile colleagues just hang themselves anyway.
We'll see. If there's a late swing, watch the headlines -- there'll be a lot of Sturm und Drang then.
I'm a fan of the EEA option. For those interested in the immigration issues it does allow a handbrake to be used to control immigration. Frequently used by EEA country Liechtenstein. You also get the freedom to arrange you own trade deals.
But Lichtenstein is also completely open border wise.
I don't see the point in the EEA option. It offers the worst of both worlds for what real benefit? Either EU or fully out.
I said it lead to the rise of Nationalism which manifests itself as support for Brexit in England.
We don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a representative democracy. That's how things work in a representative democracy, you elect people who know better and they make decisions for you. Do you think a direct democracy would be a more suitable system?
Funny you should mention North Korea, they have recently endorsed someone for the US Presidency, a first in their history. He happens to be a fellow Brexiteer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Is nationalism bad, Zethor?
- Status