Brexit - Leave or Remain poll

There's a rollo in there too...........subliminal abuse?

Lord Biro wrote:

I think I know a thing or two about both sides of the coin.

I never doubted it for one minute.

That was funny Les
Set up an enquiry.

while I'm at it. Here's something else to mull over.
Everyone is moaning about the headline net contribution to the EU, and I've covered that on the last page.
But it isn't just about that. Take the city of London. It makes vast astronomical sums out of European financial services. If you're looking at pan European flows of dosh, you can't just take the EU contribution on it's own. It's a very similar issue to the global tax thing with the likes of Google, Apple etc etc trading in this country as some sort of ghost. London globalised long before Google and is "nicking" trade, and ultimately income, from Frankfurt, Paris, anywhere, when that service can quite easily be supplied by the locals. A bit like multi nationals building student accommodation blocks in Exeter/Plymouth, and taking the money back to London, rather than letting the dosh swill around the locale like it mostly has done until now. Swings and roundabouts. If you want to be at the top table, as we keep on hearing, you have to pay top dollarr, and wear a tie. Oh, and get your hair cut, like Boris and Trumpet. I reckon those lions will be shorn like overweight middle aged  Rud Hullit before long. How the once mighty cover their locks when there's cake on offer.

Lord Biro wrote:

Well, I've got something to add here. Just what is wrong in being a net contributor to the EU ? And it can help stop millions chasing around the planet looking for a decent living. Cornwall, for example, will have easily been a net recipient over the period.
Wherever peace and the odd note of harmony exist, there is always redistribution of monies to counteract the worst results of unbridled law of the jungle. That's how it works. Sometimes flood up, sometimes trickle down. Very rarely, flood down, like after a war to stop the returning troops from roasting the ruling squatters.
If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in civilised peaceable society. The UK is supposedly the 5th largest planetary economy after Mars and can afford to spread a bit around. It's called balance, and is something that has gone awry of late in Middle Earth, with yet another possible war if we're not careful.
Get real.

I don't know the actual figures involved but Cornwall is a great example to use, why not carry on giving Cornwall the same amount as they got from Europe (not as much as when we got the objective 1 and I trousered enough of that to know it was a lot) and a bit more, or use some of the piece of money that goes to pay the huge salaries of the meps and their lifetime pensions for being in office for a couple of years? You see it's the extra beuaracracy that I really, really despise, it's costly, mismanaged and undemocratic. Do you really believe that some suit in Brussels is better placed to make decisions about Cornwall than a native? I would'nt dream of telling the good people of Belgium how and where to spend their money it's seems a very odd concept to endorse although I've always been an independant person.
The biggest hole in your argument is that we get more less than we put in.

Lord Biro wrote:

That was funny Les
Set up an enquiry.

while I'm at it. Here's something else to mull over.
Everyone is moaning about the headline net contribution to the EU, and I've covered that on the last page.
But it isn't just about that. Take the city of London. It makes vast astronomical sums out of European financial services. If you're looking at pan European flows of dosh, you can't just take the EU contribution on it's own. It's a very similar issue to the global tax thing with the likes of Google, Apple etc etc trading in this country as some sort of ghost. London globalised long before Google and is "nicking" trade, and ultimately income, from Frankfurt, Paris, anywhere, when that service can quite easily be supplied by the locals. A bit like multi nationals building student accommodation blocks in Exeter/Plymouth, and taking the money back to London, rather than letting the dosh swill around the locale like it mostly has done until now. Swings and roundabouts. If you want to be at the top table, as we keep on hearing, you have to pay top dollarr, and wear a tie. Oh, and get your hair cut, like Boris and Trumpet. I reckon those lions will be shorn like overweight middle aged  Rud Hullit before long. How the once mighty cover their locks when there's cake on offer.

Too true Biro although I think you have inadvertently (or advertently if you meant to) but the real reason that both the main parties back remain is that their paymasters (the banks) had all that handed to them in the seventies by Wilson in return for the French and Spanish having our fishing. Out of Europe and there would be a proper discussion about our fishing waters and the banks may have to give some ground back. Believe or not this isn't about a better standard of living for the likes of us.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Well, I've got something to add here. Just what is wrong in being a net contributor to the EU ? And it can help stop millions chasing around the planet looking for a decent living. Cornwall, for example, will have easily been a net recipient over the period.
Wherever peace and the odd note of harmony exist, there is always redistribution of monies to counteract the worst results of unbridled law of the jungle. That's how it works. Sometimes flood up, sometimes trickle down. Very rarely, flood down, like after a war to stop the returning troops from roasting the ruling squatters.
If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in civilised peaceable society. The UK is supposedly the 5th largest planetary economy after Mars and can afford to spread a bit around. It's called balance, and is something that has gone awry of late in Middle Earth, with yet another possible war if we're not careful.
Get real.

I don't know the actual figures involved but Cornwall is a great example to use, why not carry on giving Cornwall the same amount as they got from Europe (not as much as when we got the objective 1 and I trousered enough of that to know it was a lot) and a bit more, or use some of the piece of money that goes to pay the huge salaries of the meps and their lifetime pensions for being in office for a couple of years? You see it's the extra beuaracracy that I really, really despise, it's costly, mismanaged and undemocratic. Do you really believe that some suit in Brussels is better placed to make decisions about Cornwall than a native? I would'nt dream of telling the good people of Belgium how and where to spend their money it's seems a very odd concept to endorse although I've always been an independant person.
The biggest hole in your argument is that we get more less than we put in.

So if we put in less than we took out we should stay in, I take it?

(please note the "if")

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Well, I've got something to add here. Just what is wrong in being a net contributor to the EU ? And it can help stop millions chasing around the planet looking for a decent living. Cornwall, for example, will have easily been a net recipient over the period.
Wherever peace and the odd note of harmony exist, there is always redistribution of monies to counteract the worst results of unbridled law of the jungle. That's how it works. Sometimes flood up, sometimes trickle down. Very rarely, flood down, like after a war to stop the returning troops from roasting the ruling squatters.
If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in civilised peaceable society. The UK is supposedly the 5th largest planetary economy after Mars and can afford to spread a bit around. It's called balance, and is something that has gone awry of late in Middle Earth, with yet another possible war if we're not careful.
Get real.

I don't know the actual figures involved but Cornwall is a great example to use, why not carry on giving Cornwall the same amount as they got from Europe (not as much as when we got the objective 1 and I trousered enough of that to know it was a lot) and a bit more, or use some of the piece of money that goes to pay the huge salaries of the meps and their lifetime pensions for being in office for a couple of years? You see it's the extra beuaracracy that I really, really despise, it's costly, mismanaged and undemocratic. Do you really believe that some suit in Brussels is better placed to make decisions about Cornwall than a native? I would'nt dream of telling the good people of Belgium how and where to spend their money it's seems a very odd concept to endorse although I've always been an independant person.
The biggest hole in your argument is that we get more less than we put in.

So if we put in less than we took out we should stay in, I take it?

(please note the "if")

No that would be crazy as well, devolution is the way forward, I would rather think for myself Franny than farm the job out to someone who doesn't know where I live, let alone how I live and pay them loads more than I've ever earned to make decisions based on their non parallel lives. It cracks me up that people on the whole that moan about politicians in this country seem to think that politicians they don't elect, can't remove, or influence will do a better job than the ones at home we kick out every few years for feckin the country up. The same people are feckin Europe, the USA and the world up, you'd be the first to make the point yet get a chance to actually have a say in removing a layer of self serving beaurocrats and the ultimate quango of all time and you get all protective. If you don't want to think for yourself at least give the folks that do a chance at trying it. We have too much government.

Top post mage, can't disagree with any of that, particularly the bit about Frank getting all protective.

As much as I would personally vote to remain in the EU and agree with the Lord Biro about wealthier countries having an obligation to pay more in than they receive I'm becoming ever more tempted to punt on the leavers winning.

In Dorset all but one of the sitting MP's are voting to leave and on Friday Chris Chope (odious man in my opinion) is sharing a stage with the last UKIP candidate. Christchurch must be one of the most anti-EU towns in the country with 80% voting for either the Tory or UKIP at the last election.

You need to move to Tower Hamlets or similar Dick, barely a Tory/Kipper to be found.

It does seem to be a regional thing remain or leave even in Devon. I personally think the gov with their scare tactics will sneak through. I'm disappointed that the Labour party wouldn't allow individuals to campaign for either, party politics is wank.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Well, I've got something to add here. Just what is wrong in being a net contributor to the EU ? And it can help stop millions chasing around the planet looking for a decent living. Cornwall, for example, will have easily been a net recipient over the period.
Wherever peace and the odd note of harmony exist, there is always redistribution of monies to counteract the worst results of unbridled law of the jungle. That's how it works. Sometimes flood up, sometimes trickle down. Very rarely, flood down, like after a war to stop the returning troops from roasting the ruling squatters.
If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in civilised peaceable society. The UK is supposedly the 5th largest planetary economy after Mars and can afford to spread a bit around. It's called balance, and is something that has gone awry of late in Middle Earth, with yet another possible war if we're not careful.
Get real.

I don't know the actual figures involved but Cornwall is a great example to use, why not carry on giving Cornwall the same amount as they got from Europe (not as much as when we got the objective 1 and I trousered enough of that to know it was a lot) and a bit more, or use some of the piece of money that goes to pay the huge salaries of the meps and their lifetime pensions for being in office for a couple of years? You see it's the extra beuaracracy that I really, really despise, it's costly, mismanaged and undemocratic. Do you really believe that some suit in Brussels is better placed to make decisions about Cornwall than a native? I would'nt dream of telling the good people of Belgium how and where to spend their money it's seems a very odd concept to endorse although I've always been an independant person.
The biggest hole in your argument is that we get more less than we put in.

So if we put in less than we took out we should stay in, I take it?

(please note the "if")

No that would be crazy as well, devolution is the way forward, I would rather think for myself Franny than farm the job out to someone who doesn't know where I live, let alone how I live and pay them loads more than I've ever earned to make decisions based on their non parallel lives. It cracks me up that people on the whole that moan about politicians in this country seem to think that politicians they don't elect, can't remove, or influence will do a better job than the ones at home we kick out every few years for feckin the country up. The same people are feckin Europe, the USA and the world up, you'd be the first to make the point yet get a chance to actually have a say in removing a layer of self serving beaurocrats and the ultimate quango of all time and you get all protective. If you don't want to think for yourself at least give the folks that do a chance at trying it. We have too much government.

There's all sorts of unelected people we can't get rid of that we could probably do better without. We have the House of Lords in this country for a start where peers, still!, exist solely because they inherited the right to be a peer and others are there because they are highly placed in the church. That's bad enough but many of the others are there as a reward for being a party donor - in this country unelected people, rich ones in the main obviously, effectively buy the right to vote the laws through which govern us.

26%. That's the share of the elctorate who voted for our current government. 26%. And they sit in parliament with over 50% of the seats changing as many consituency boundaries as they can to ensure that they are even more over-represented next time!

How's that for a democratic deficit far, far closer to home?

Or how about those who run the vast multinationals or media empires? Who elects them? They open and close whole industries at a whim and flood our media with their self-serving agendas. Who has more influence in this country out of Rupert Murdoch or Jean-Claude Juncker and which is the more readily removeable? Do you even know the name of the CEO for Monsanto, GSK, Walmart, Shell, Samsung or Glencore etc? Do you even know what Glencore does?

It's the multi-nationals rather more than the governments or EU that need to be policed but that's hard, isn't it, because they respect no borders - we see that all the time with the tax dodging. No single country, not even one as magnificent as ours, can combat their squeezes and wheezes. It needs cross-border, pan-national co-operation to control them until we accept that borders are less relevant now (the jet engine and internet in particualr and globalisation in general have seen to that) than they ever have been before and borders/barriers/walls will continue their demise until eventually they are abolished, or at best vestigial, altogether. In fact if the EU did not exist already it would now be necessary to invent it.

As for funding for Cornwall do you really think that Westminster would suddenly bung loads of dosh Cornwall's way? Why, in its current guise, should it? It already is 100% Tory so there's no gain to be made and there's no indication that the government gives a damn about the SW in general or Cornwall in particular. Maybe local people would make better local spending decisions (although that is unproven) but we'd never find out if they were never funded, would we?

Besides the "we pay £X blah blah blah" argument is childishly over-simplistic. If everybody got out exactly what they put in then there'd be no point in any of it. There isn't a financial system anywhere that works on such a basis at either a micro or macro level. And we don't just pay money in and get nothing in return anyway. We keep on being told that "they need us more than we need them" because we import more rom them than they do from us. Just think on that for a moment. They may need those exports but we need the jobs that those imports create. Both sides win and neither to the detriment of the other. (That also applies the other way around - if we export more then we benefit from the jobs created and they benefit from the goods and services.)

On top of which wealthy countries like us, Germany, France etc paying in more than we take out means less wealthy countries are able to take out more than they put in. With our huge economies we barely notice the cost whereas with their smaller ones the contribution they receive is enormous. This is basic redistribution of wealth and that is good because not only is this good karma but if you want to stem the flow of economic migrants (legal or not) the way to do it is to make things better (econmically, socially, and every other wayally) where ever "there" is and things won't improve on their own, will they? What is so abhorrent about helping those less fortunate than ourselves - isn't there a strong moral imperative for us to do that or something similar?

Haven't got time to read all that now but the first few paras seem to be siding with my too much government argument, I hate the peers as much as you terrible system. As for hardly noticing the difference between what we pay in and take out Osborne is looking for £4bn from the disabled today. Out of Europe and we wouldn't need to do that. My sis has been waiting three weeks for an emergency op to remove a brain tumour due to cuts in social care meaning that 90% of ops in Derriford have been cancelled because of bed blockin. All the nursing homes, Harewood House in Tavvy, numerous others all over UK are shut meaning old people with health problems have nowhere to go but hospital and they are filling beds, but we are so well off we can subsidise the poorer parts of Europe? Have a word with yourself.

The problems you complain about result directly from, at worst, government policy which is deliberately causing them to occur and, at best, government just not preventing them from happening when they could should they so wish. They are cold, hard, rational (in their eyes) decisions with a cost and inconvenience worth paying (it's always someone else who pays though, not them). There is no obligation whatsoever to take £4bn from disabled people (the biggest single financial measure in yesterday's budget by the way); it is a choice not an inevitability.

The wider objective is to underfund and undermine gradually and cause the collapse of all public services so that everything can be sold/privatised whilst deflecting the blame for it all elsewhere - preferably overseas. In fact blaming it all on immigrants and the EU fits the bill perfectly. It would appear to be working a treat.

Let's chuck billions at stunted Eastern European countries in the vain hope that their citizens will no longer want to come over 'ere doesn't appear to have worked so far but let's keep trying, if nothing else it's good karma. Once they have the same standard of living as us we can cast our loving nets further afield, Africa, the middle east, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh.........Come on comrades, we can do this, we are the EU superstate of Great Britain.

I attended a speech from William Hague a couple of months ago and he stated (obviously) that the biggest single issue facing the Western World was the migration of people from Africa and war-torn countries.

The answer is either do you let them in? or do you spend billions in aid and development in their own countries creating an economic environment that means that they wouldn't want to leave?

Simply shutting borders is impossible, you need to remove the demand to leave.

If he's right, and for a Tory he sounded sensible, then chucking billions is what we're going to need to do.

A clarion call no less. Come on ye good men (and women) of this sceptered isle, let us march forth and swing those buckets with pride and zeal.

It's all getting a bit 'pasoti' now.....Britain, the country that keeps on giving

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

26%. That's the share of the elctorate who voted for our current government. 26%. And they sit in parliament with over 50% of the seats changing as many consituency boundaries as they can to ensure that they are even more over-represented next time!

And still the Franny bullsh1t goes on.

Cameron got 11,334,576 votes and won 330 seats, and Franny is all up his arse about democracy.

In 2005 Blair got 9,552,436 votes and won 413 seats, Franny had his knickers off and was waving them in the air at that one.

Cameron got nearly 2 million more votes and 83 less seats, the changes in the boundaries are not a Tory ploy, this is a requirement of the Boundary Commission to ensure that each constituency has a similar number of voters, that's pretty much the fairest way isn't it?

The reduction in the numbers of MPs is long overdue imho, as would be the eradication of that un-elected nest of vipers and child molesters the House of Lords.

Numbnuts like Franny go on about democracy without having any clue what the word really means, his idea of democracy is everybody doing what he says. I 4-1 would be all for PR at the moment, Cameron as PM with Nigey as his deputy in a ConKip coalition works fine for me, but long term I like the constituency system, FPTP has issues but the introduction of some form of recall would make these Juankstains that are supposed to represent us pay more attention to the people.

Les Miserable wrote:

You need to move to Tower Hamlets or similar Dick, barely a Tory/Kipper to be found.

Nah. I'm thinking Dickie only likes them brown faced people when he doesn't have to live next door to them.

I shouldn't grace that comment with a reply but I can't help myself. I have charming Indian next door neighbours currently thank you. Very nice people who don't seem to spend their time in some permanent angry rage directed against anyone that is different or not as fortunate as them.

Mind you, they're Bournemouth season ticket holders so the whole world is a rose garden at the moment.

Dick Trickle wrote:

I attended a speech from William Hague a couple of months ago and he stated (obviously) that the biggest single issue facing the Western World was the migration of people from Africa and war-torn countries.

The answer is either do you let them in? or do you spend billions in aid and development in their own countries creating an economic environment that means that they wouldn't want to leave?

Simply shutting borders is impossible, you need to remove the demand to leave.

If he's right, and for a Tory he sounded sensible, then chucking billions is what we're going to need to do.

I'd agree with most of that barring the borders issue. I would happily transfer the war budget to an aid budget to try and repair some of the damage we've done with bullshit wars at the behest of our great mates the septics. I just don't see why we need to pay someone in Europe to do it for us.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The problems you complain about result directly from, at worst, government policy which is deliberately causing them to occur and, at best, government just not preventing them from happening when they could should they so wish. They are cold, hard, rational (in their eyes) decisions with a cost and inconvenience worth paying (it's always someone else who pays though, not them). There is no obligation whatsoever to take £4bn from disabled people (the biggest single financial measure in yesterday's budget by the way); it is a choice not an inevitability.

The wider objective is to underfund and undermine gradually and cause the collapse of all public services so that everything can be sold/privatised whilst deflecting the blame for it all elsewhere - preferably overseas. In fact blaming it all on immigrants and the EU fits the bill perfectly. It would appear to be working a treat.

Whoa there old boy where the fook did I blame the migrants for the problems with the health service? I specifically said the bed blocking was down to cuts to social care by our government. Not the eastern Europeans, not the Africans, nobody but our government. It's you that keeps steering it towards the race issue and it's frankly getting boring now. I did say that the extra £10bn that we'd save (I frankly don't believe you're £3bn figure from what I can gather its thirty years out of date) would be ours to spend on the health service. Personally I'd raise some tax from income to pay for it but the wizard of OZ has just cut the higher tax rate threshold and cut the rate of CGT. They are also going to give 20% top ups to young peoples isas which yet again will mainly benefit the children of wealthy parents who will max out their isas for their kids. We are singing off the same hymn sheet on the whole with our gov and how unfair and shit it is for the ordinary person. What I can't get is your acceptance of the top heavy and costly unelected euro lot.

Here's a breakdown of running the European parliament, the commons and lords, interesting,

Cost of European Parliament soars to £1.332 billion per year, £838 million more than Westminster (MEPs cost £1.79 million each)

The appallingly high running cost of the European Parliament has been exposed in a written reply to a question put to the Government by independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

The Government was asked for comparative costs between the European Parliament and Westminster.  In his response (8.01.12), Lord Sassoon, Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, confirmed the 2011-12 cost of the European Parliament at £1.332 billion compared with £494 million for Westminster, including both the House of Commons and the Lords.

Lord Stoddart also asked for costs per member to be included in the figures.  In 2011-12, MEPs cost a colossal £1.79 million each compared with just £0.59 million per member of the House of Commons.  Peers cost a mere £0.13 million.

Lord Stoddart, commenting on the Government’s reply said:  “These are eye watering figures that make Westminster look like very good value for money.  The European Parliament costs £838 million per annum more than the combined cost of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  The Government is constantly on the look-out for ways to save money to reduce the deficit.   It should take a serious look at its contribution to the cost of running the European Parliament!  This is an institution that does not hold proper debates and whose members cannot even introduce a Private Members Bill.  It merely acts as a rubber stamp for the unelected European Commission’s legislative proposals.  The number of MEPs has risen from 736 to 754, since these figures were produced, so even these huge figures fall short of the real cost!”

Source the better off out campaign (or closet racists as they are becoming known).

Meanwhile we, taxpayers, stand to lose 20bn!!! on RBS, the bankers certainly know how to take the piss.