Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
EU AKBAR!
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (March Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce the Lolmeister General of Broken Brexitl!
Edit:
This whole media trawl reminded me of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/mar/29/brexit-voters-can-be-yours-for-25-each
It really does boil down to the very basics, doesn't it?
Last edited:
I'm certain that datalol fellow is in an EU or government funded institution because he refuses to engage with anyone else on any level apart from condescension.
People keep saying things have been "debunked" without linking credible or at least multiple independent sources. Talk about smoke and mirrors. Too many organisations with vested interests are proclaiming Valhalla or doomed status these days!
Yawn. Enjoy your quivering abandon and EU erection. I'm donating to fullfact to help form my final stance rather than take any notice of this twaddle!
People keep saying things have been "debunked" without linking credible or at least multiple independent sources. Talk about smoke and mirrors. Too many organisations with vested interests are proclaiming Valhalla or doomed status these days!
Yawn. Enjoy your quivering abandon and EU erection. I'm donating to fullfact to help form my final stance rather than take any notice of this twaddle!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Nope, that I'm not. But I fully agree with donating to FullFact, and did so myself. They are 40% of the way to their goal, and I hope they get there before the officially designated campaigns are in full swing.
In an ideal situation, this referendum will come down the weight applied to each pro and con by every voter. It's a very personal thing so negative campaigning and derision will only further entrench someone's position IMO.
As an employee of a non-british EU based institution I'm acutely aware of some of the risks of leaving. What's interesting is the proportion of colleagues who are currently leaning towards "leave", despite the apparent risk to their jobs. I'm one of them.
Must say on my puerile subconscious level, I'm inclined to to against anything the government and Goldman Sachs want. It's just a coincidence that this currently aligns with my more reasoned stance.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
The thing about negative campaigning and the perceived material well-being is quite interesting. The former appears to have worked in the Scottish referendum and the last GE; the latter produces large enough swings in favour of in or out based on perception of one's return, but it still doesn't quite capture the views of the ~32% hardcore out/~30% hardcore in, which remain fairly stable (as groups not absolute percentages) in polling.
From my perch, I wonder whether the overall economic situation, the transition from jobs for life and our transformation into a services-led economy had more to contribute to the baseline negative mood than anything up there, in the ether of political institutions. But as you say, passions run high, and exploring our stances openly, in full context and with the material that is already out there will run on for several pages per post; I doubt there's appetite for that here, and summarising too much just causes fights.
However, as per your earlier question, I believe the reason people do end up back in these poll threads is because the discussion in real life, or that from politicians, isn't really cathartic enough? I know several people on either side of the argument for whom even the last live debate was just a prod to their existing stance, and left them cold overall. I'm personally fairly task-oriented, and not very argumentative in RL, hard as it is to believe.
Caporegime
What makes you think that "ability of local services to expand" is a fixed number against which you can measure immigration?
The ability to expand is a function of investment*. Whether investment is sufficient to match immigration seems like it is a matter of policy rather than levels of immigration. Therefore, whilst immigration imposes political difficulties, I'm not sure it imposes any service limitations excepting where policy is at fault.
* - Although, one would presume, there is a maximum value that is dependent on resource limits or flow limits I don't think that comes into play with realistic immigration limits. Feel free to argue.
Caporegime
This would be nice. Unfortunately, defining pros and cons is very difficult and the majority of voters (including everyone in this thread) are operating on limited information and knowledge.
I think that people who have made their mind up have their position entrenched by either positive or negative campaigning whilst the people who are still to make up their mind could be swung by either.
I have to say it depresses me to be on the same side as Cameron and the CBI but then I remind myself that I'm against Murdoch, Galloway, Griffin, Farage and BoJo and I don't feel so bad.
You have a dispositional rhetoric and vocabulary of an EU shill.
Who do work for? What do you do?
Caporegime
You have a dispositional rhetoric and vocabulary of an EU shill.
And the conspiracy theorists are ready to rock!
Soldato
No that's just itchy, if you're quoting sources other than the mail\sun\express or actual factual sources you may aswell just declare yourself a witch at the same time.
Still on the fence BTW.
I'm convinced you're working for the EU, or at least somehow on the EU gravy train. Maybe you're after one of those highly paid minister roles thousands of miles away near Australia.
So in answer to my question "do you have anything other than official EU sources", your answer is presumably no. And as for your point "if there are no official sources it's made up", that really is laughable! What about the (before mentioned) MP's expenses scandal? You wouldn't have believed all the press reports before anything official came out? Never believe anything until it's officially recognised? Yeah, makes a lot of sense....
Haven't we done the materiality point to death? I even, for the sake of argument, gave you the benefit of the doubt on that point before, even despite still not agreeing with you. Copying and pasting a bunch of audit rules or EU budget improvement recommendations just isn't convincing.
So referencing an official source makes that official source right, and the Telegraph, Guardian, Independent etc all wrong? Nah. Infact referencing the official sources just adds to the balanced nature of the article, no? As they're looking at both sides of the argument, considering the truth (that the EU is too big, too bloated, and too wasteful) but also the official side of the story. Your argument really doesn't make sense.
You really do work for the EU!!
Well I guess that makes two of us. I did laugh first though, check the thread.
One interesting point that (i think) has now convinced a mate of mine to leave is looking at Greece and Iceland.
Two nations both heavily hit by the 2007 financial crises, one in the EU, one not in the EU. Incidentally Iceland last year withdrew their application to join, see here. Since the crises Iceland has enjoyed GDP growth and increasing levels of employment, Greece has gone from bad to worse. See below for unemployment rates. Why the difference? I'd suggest a big reason is that Iceland was free to adjust its economic, monetary and fiscal policies whereas Greece could not. Iceland also allowed its own currency (krona) to devalue post the crises, helping export industries and tourism. Greece, being tied to the Euro, didn't have this option either.
Of course Greece should have been allowed to leave the EU/Euro, so it could make the adjustments needed to correct its ailing economy. That nearly happened (remember all the Grexit media coverage), but of course the vision of the EU project leaders to create their superstate and preserve the Euro got in the way of any national interest. The result, Greece has crippling debts, a shrinking economy, 25%+ unemployent and a generation looks lost. Sounds a lot like Spain, which coincidentally is also in the EU/Euro.
Funny how you have the above, and then countries like Norway and Switzerland, two of the strongest economies in Europe (the geography, not the political union). Both of these are in EFTA (as is Iceland) but not the EU.
Soldato
It is a terrifying prospect being tied to countries that are failing like Greece. They have the potential to drag the EU down and the money that is pumped into them comes from the other member states. It is just a waste as we will never see that money again. When Greece has another problem and the EU begins to panic again we will have to bail them out. This gets worse when the amounts grow and more countries are affected. There is nothing stopping the EU pouring money into this black hole.
Soldato
Please tell me you dont actually think the main reason why Greece unemployment was hit so much harder was because they were in the eu?
Cant tell if your post is due to April fools or you genuinely think that Iceland can be directly compared to Greece post crash with a simple unemployment graph, to determine how much the EU is 'holding Greece back'.
Iceland defaulted on its debts. That's how they solved their economic crisis.
Soldato
Greece weren't allowed to do the same. Instead they got loaned more money they won't ever pay back. The loans just pay the interest.
So your solution to financial problems is debt default? It worked for Iceland because it is yhe size of a small city. It does not work for proper countries. Greece, by the way, defaulted on its debt in recent history. Pick up a book or check wikipedia to find out how well that went.
Greece defaulting on its debts effectively counts as the eurozone defaulting on its debts. Greece understands that defaulting would get it kicked out of the eurozone and has therefore chosen to do everything in its powers to avoid defaulting.
Iceland saw defaulting as its preferred option, Greece sees defaulting as its last option.
Soldato
Greece aren't showing even remote signs of recovery. Their recent default wasn't a full proper default. It was just a haircut. Very much not going to save them in the long run.
That is good for Germany but bad for Greece. Lots of loans were given to countries that weren't going to pay them back. Greece weren't even supposed to be in the EU. The books were fiddled for them to enter. They were non compliant against the Maastrict treaty but a but of corrupt fiddling got them past that.
Last edited:
- Status