ChatterBank0 min ago
Ok This Is Just Getting Stupid Now
http://
Still not interested in calling for a rerun but... can we all just agree that anyone who votes for something in future had bloody well better believe in what they are voting for?!
Still not interested in calling for a rerun but... can we all just agree that anyone who votes for something in future had bloody well better believe in what they are voting for?!
Answers
I think you’re being a little unkind, Svejk. Most people who voted knew exactly what they were voting for. It is true that nobody knows for sure what the future holds whether in or out of the EU. But most voters know the general direction the EU is heading and what effect staying or leaving would have on the UK. They can also see for themselves the results of those...
22:24 Tue 28th Jun 2016
@jim
Some of the change-of-minds are already harping on about the "false advertising" (cf that thread where people had tricked themselves into believing all of the dividend was going to be spent on the NHS). Scales have fallen from their eyes and they suddenly see truths which they were blind to for… 6 weeks??!!! (don't expect me to understand).
Welsh parliament was discussing today how they expect every penny they got in EU grants to be matched by Westminster. The £350m, via some sophistry, was rebadged as "the total amount which the EU has control over [the granting of]".
Farage must have realised that, in order not to get lynched by howling hordes of subsidised Scottish/Welsh/N.I. farmers and everyone other grant-assisted niche group in the country, these payments need to be continued (in the, as we now realise, knobbled post-Brexit economic environment), leaving us with the number we first started with: - £146m/wk (the former net contribution). Which is a tiny, sub 1%, drip in the UK's budget bucket.
So, all we need to do is find some crumbling infrastructure to restore. Instead of it being in one of the enlargement countries, it can be in some far flung corner of these isles, which is no better developed than those places are.
Some of the change-of-minds are already harping on about the "false advertising" (cf that thread where people had tricked themselves into believing all of the dividend was going to be spent on the NHS). Scales have fallen from their eyes and they suddenly see truths which they were blind to for… 6 weeks??!!! (don't expect me to understand).
Welsh parliament was discussing today how they expect every penny they got in EU grants to be matched by Westminster. The £350m, via some sophistry, was rebadged as "the total amount which the EU has control over [the granting of]".
Farage must have realised that, in order not to get lynched by howling hordes of subsidised Scottish/Welsh/N.I. farmers and everyone other grant-assisted niche group in the country, these payments need to be continued (in the, as we now realise, knobbled post-Brexit economic environment), leaving us with the number we first started with: - £146m/wk (the former net contribution). Which is a tiny, sub 1%, drip in the UK's budget bucket.
So, all we need to do is find some crumbling infrastructure to restore. Instead of it being in one of the enlargement countries, it can be in some far flung corner of these isles, which is no better developed than those places are.
Hypo: If you are unhappy with the state of your roads you should complain to your local and district councils. As a cyclist, when I lived in the Cotswolds, I informed them of potholes and they were grateful for the information and usually filled them asp.
Re the cost of EU contributions;
'The actual payment is different from year to year, but last year’s was £250 million a week. The size of the payment varies from year to year.
The figure for 2014 was marginally lower than in 2013, at £14.4 billion, while the projection for 2015 is that it will be £12.9 billion.
This is £248 million per week, or £35 million per day, not £55 million a day as is sometimes claimed.'
Whatever the actual figure is, it's a great deal of money saved, and quibbling over figures is only a smokescreen being issued by the malcontents.
There is no denying the fact, that large savings will be made by leaving.
Re the cost of EU contributions;
'The actual payment is different from year to year, but last year’s was £250 million a week. The size of the payment varies from year to year.
The figure for 2014 was marginally lower than in 2013, at £14.4 billion, while the projection for 2015 is that it will be £12.9 billion.
This is £248 million per week, or £35 million per day, not £55 million a day as is sometimes claimed.'
Whatever the actual figure is, it's a great deal of money saved, and quibbling over figures is only a smokescreen being issued by the malcontents.
There is no denying the fact, that large savings will be made by leaving.
It's only a saving if a) we actually do get it back, and b) all other things remain equal. If leaving the EU brought along with it a 1% contraction in the economy then those £14 billion savings would be wiped out.
But then that's just going back over arguments that should have been properly resolved before last Thursday. Apparently, they were not, or some people weren't paying enough attention.
But then that's just going back over arguments that should have been properly resolved before last Thursday. Apparently, they were not, or some people weren't paying enough attention.
I think one of the biggest problems with being in the EU was the definition of free movement within the EU. I have no problem with that for people who move and work legally from member states but why do people from outside the EU get that right as well when they are contributing nothing and incurring massive bills and infrastructure problems by their exodus.
Reckon you're spot-on there jourdain2 about the age thing. I was a mum of two by the age of 24 and didn't expect the whole world to revolve around me and my wishes. I am getting heartily fed up with all this now, it's done and the country has to accept it and get on with life, lord knows we've been through a lot worse than this and still survived.
jourdain, I'm not sure this debate should be reduced to the voting age. While I can see where you're coming from, a good deal of the people making this sort of admission appear to be well beyond any reasonable lower age limit, be it 16, 18, 23, 30... clearly some people don't take the responsibility of voting seriously enough regardless of age. Lifting the voting limit then disenfranchises people based on an unfounded assumption. Maybe it's true in general, but there are at least some youngsters who are more politically engaged and informed at 18 than some who've had a whole lifetime of experience but didn't really pay attention to politics.
In some senses NJ, when he asks, "...what has changed in the short time since Friday?" is correct to do so. There were two days of market turmoil, and four days of political chaos, but for a vote determining the future of our country for decades, four days shouldn't register.
If it carries on then for sure there may come a point where it is no longer feasible to pursue the direction chosen on Thursday. I'd suggest two months, since the final "no turning back" triggering of Article 50 isn't going to happen until September at the earliest anyway. No harm in reassessing at that point, although the decision would have to be framed as "is there sufficient reason not to go ahead with this?"
In some senses NJ, when he asks, "...what has changed in the short time since Friday?" is correct to do so. There were two days of market turmoil, and four days of political chaos, but for a vote determining the future of our country for decades, four days shouldn't register.
If it carries on then for sure there may come a point where it is no longer feasible to pursue the direction chosen on Thursday. I'd suggest two months, since the final "no turning back" triggering of Article 50 isn't going to happen until September at the earliest anyway. No harm in reassessing at that point, although the decision would have to be framed as "is there sufficient reason not to go ahead with this?"
The bigger concern is not raising the voting age, for which there may be an argument, but we all have to be trusted with responsibility at some age; it is the continual suggestion that whatever it is it should be made lower still.
I think we have had demonstrated to us that 18 is pushing one's luck as far as the average individual is concerned; even contemplating yet alone suggesting 17 or 16, is beyond the Pale. And if we went there surely the same arguments would be used to justify 14/15, then 12/13, then 10/11 ...
I understand the human brain doesn't really get fully matured until sometime in their twenties. Considering folk not to be adult before then would cause problems, but an 18 limit is quite low enough for deciding on voting the direction the country should presently go.
I think we have had demonstrated to us that 18 is pushing one's luck as far as the average individual is concerned; even contemplating yet alone suggesting 17 or 16, is beyond the Pale. And if we went there surely the same arguments would be used to justify 14/15, then 12/13, then 10/11 ...
I understand the human brain doesn't really get fully matured until sometime in their twenties. Considering folk not to be adult before then would cause problems, but an 18 limit is quite low enough for deciding on voting the direction the country should presently go.
We've asked for a divorce and the respondent seems quite relieved to see the back of us, which has quite hurt us as we thought we were rather better thought of.
The paperwork is lodged with the Solicitors and now we have to finalise who gets the bedroom furniture, split the CD collection and put the house on the market.
Of course, we may decide that actually we'd rather stay in this marriage despite all the ups and downs......better the devil you know and all that.
But from the looks of it our soon-to-be-former spouse is quite happy to let us go and, indeed, would rather that we went now and cut all ties than hung about making doe-eyes and bringing up all the 'good times'....and making late night drunken 'phonecalls mumbling, "I miss you...can I come back?".
The paperwork is lodged with the Solicitors and now we have to finalise who gets the bedroom furniture, split the CD collection and put the house on the market.
Of course, we may decide that actually we'd rather stay in this marriage despite all the ups and downs......better the devil you know and all that.
But from the looks of it our soon-to-be-former spouse is quite happy to let us go and, indeed, would rather that we went now and cut all ties than hung about making doe-eyes and bringing up all the 'good times'....and making late night drunken 'phonecalls mumbling, "I miss you...can I come back?".
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|