Brexit - Leave or Remain poll

Not at all. It looks like I've touched a raw nerve if you ask me.

Interesting to see the old heads all in agreement that I'm talking rot. They would say that, wouldn't they!

The establishment always closes ranks when it needs to. And to be "establishment" you need to be established which is exactly what they all (I am guessing here) are: own their house, pile of money, nice little pensiion etc. Probably got a nice little ISA or something. Maybe a few shares or a second home? I don't know. All very middle aged, middle class and comfortable for sure.

"I've earned what I've got" and all that. Of course they have. By virtue of exploiting chances they are denying those unfortunate enough to be born a few decades later.

It's very predictable.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. It looks like I've touched a raw nerve if you ask me.

Interesting to see the old heads all in agreement that I'm talking rot. They would say that, wouldn't they!

The establishment always closes ranks when it needs to. And to be "establishment" you need to be established which is exactly what they all (I am guessing here) are: own their house, pile of money, nice little pensiion etc. Probably got a nice little ISA or something. Maybe a few shares or a second home? I don't know. All very middle aged, middle class and comfortable for sure.

"I've earned what I've got" and all that. Of course they have. By virtue of exploiting chances they are denying those unfortunate enough to be born a few decades later.

It's very predictable.

So Rickler,Charlie and myself are anti EU because we're exploitative establishment figures? Sure you haven't been on the sauce? What really touched a nerve in your "shut the feck up" reply to Pete was the arrogance in assuming that you know best for future generations-do you really? How? It would be very interesting to go back in time,say 20 years,and find out how many people who are now anti EU held no such views at the time and have gradually lost faith in the organisation over a period of time.How can you possibly know that the same scenario wouldn't happen again among the current younger generation that you purport to speak for?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. It looks like I've touched a raw nerve if you ask me.

Interesting to see the old heads all in agreement that I'm talking rot. They would say that, wouldn't they!

The establishment always closes ranks when it needs to. And to be "establishment" you need to be established which is exactly what they all (I am guessing here) are: own their house, pile of money, nice little pensiion etc. Probably got a nice little ISA or something. Maybe a few shares or a second home? I don't know. All very middle aged, middle class and comfortable for sure.

"I've earned what I've got" and all that. Of course they have. By virtue of exploiting chances they are denying those unfortunate enough to be born a few decades later.

It's very predictable.

So, what are you saying? We should vote to stay in for the future generations?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. It looks like I've touched a raw nerve if you ask me.

Interesting to see the old heads all in agreement that I'm talking rot. They would say that, wouldn't they!

The establishment always closes ranks when it needs to. And to be "establishment" you need to be established which is exactly what they all (I am guessing here) are: own their house, pile of money, nice little pensiion etc. Probably got a nice little ISA or something. Maybe a few shares or a second home? I don't know. All very middle aged, middle class and comfortable for sure.

"I've earned what I've got" and all that. Of course they have. By virtue of exploiting chances they are denying those unfortunate enough to be born a few decades later.

It's very predictable.

Not half as predictable as your assumptions/guesses Francis. I think Czar touched a raw nerve when he mentioned the Bristol Cream.

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. It looks like I've touched a raw nerve if you ask me.

Interesting to see the old heads all in agreement that I'm talking rot. They would say that, wouldn't they!

The establishment always closes ranks when it needs to. And to be "establishment" you need to be established which is exactly what they all (I am guessing here) are: own their house, pile of money, nice little pensiion etc. Probably got a nice little ISA or something. Maybe a few shares or a second home? I don't know. All very middle aged, middle class and comfortable for sure.

"I've earned what I've got" and all that. Of course they have. By virtue of exploiting chances they are denying those unfortunate enough to be born a few decades later.

It's very predictable.

So Rickler,Charlie and myself are anti EU because we're exploitative establishment figures? Sure you haven't been on the sauce? What really touched a nerve in your "shut the feck up" reply to Pete was the arrogance in assuming that you know best for future generations-do you really? How? It would be very interesting to go back in time,say 20 years,and find out how many people who are now anti EU held no such views at the time and have gradually lost faith in the organisation over a period of time.How can you possibly know that the same scenario wouldn't happen again among the current younger generation that you purport to speak for?

How can you know it will?

Predictions are always dodgy. Whoever makes them.

I don't know any better than anybody else does whether or not leaving EU will be a good or a bad thing. One thing is certain and that is the rational, even-handed study into what it really will mean is yet to be published and we've been gnawing at this bone for decades now. Why is that?

Opinions are shaped in subtle ways and we have a hugely eurosceptic media. You aren't going to see a cold, dispassionate analysis in any of the papers are you? They all start from a standpoint where they are either pro or anti and they all work from there. Even if there was (is?) one it would only get consideration if it matched the pre-established stance.

You only need to look at any of the pictures from any of the political gatherings and they are mostly old, mostly white, mostly middle class, mostly male in composition. Brexit, especially, floats the boat of the golf club intelligentsia like almost nothing else does.

The whole debate, from the start aeons ago, has been framed by the Conservative party as it desperately tries to hang together and not fall apart. The only reason Cameron has called for a referendum is because he has been forced into it by his party. The only reason we have endured the sham of treaty negotiation, or whatever it was that happened in Brussels, was so that he could come back and proclaim a triumph which, he desperately hopes, will save his own neck and put the matter to bed.

But it won't.

In many ways referenda are a very good idea: an explicit question getting an explicit reply and result. What's not to like?

Except in this instance people will be ignorant of the import of their choice either way and those who make it won't have to live with the consequences for very long.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You only need to look at any of the pictures from any of the political gatherings and they are mostly old, mostly white, mostly middle class, mostly male in composition

And it's their fault that nobody else can be bothered to attend ?

Horses for courses Francis. How many old, white, middle class, males would you expect to find at a gangsta rap event ?

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. It looks like I've touched a raw nerve if you ask me.

Interesting to see the old heads all in agreement that I'm talking rot. They would say that, wouldn't they!

The establishment always closes ranks when it needs to. And to be "establishment" you need to be established which is exactly what they all (I am guessing here) are: own their house, pile of money, nice little pensiion etc. Probably got a nice little ISA or something. Maybe a few shares or a second home? I don't know. All very middle aged, middle class and comfortable for sure.

"I've earned what I've got" and all that. Of course they have. By virtue of exploiting chances they are denying those unfortunate enough to be born a few decades later.

It's very predictable.

So, what are you saying? We should vote to stay in for the future generations?

No, he's saying it's my fault.

But he's wrong. As usual.

AstiSpumante wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You only need to look at any of the pictures from any of the political gatherings and they are mostly old, mostly white, mostly middle class, mostly male in composition

And it's their fault that nobody else can be bothered to attend ?

Horses for courses Francis. How many old, white, middle class, males would you expect to find at a gangsta rap event ?

They don't attend because they largely reject that sort of politics. They reject that sort of politics because they don't see issues in a party political way and if they do all they see is parties that have shafted them. So they don't engage and they don't vote. Not that it matters much if they did because the demographic balance is against them.

We're back to the baby boomers again. They are a bulge going through a system. They were a majority years ago and they have been a majority ever since. As a voting bloc they are almost unassailable.

Go to an environmental protest and young people are far more represented. As they would be at an equality/diversity event.

Young people are engaged with politics but in a completely different way.

Someone once said this,

If you're not a socialist at 20 years old then you've got no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30 then you've got no brain.

It's an old one but there is some truth in it.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

You only need to look at any of the pictures from any of the political gatherings and they are mostly old, mostly white, mostly middle class, mostly male in composition

And it's their fault that nobody else can be bothered to attend ?

Horses for courses Francis. How many old, white, middle class, males would you expect to find at a gangsta rap event ?

They don't attend because they largely reject that sort of politics. They reject that sort of politics because they don't see issues in a party political way and if they do all they see is parties that have shafted them. So they don't engage and they don't vote. Not that it matters much if they did because the demographic balance is against them.

We're back to the baby boomers again. They are a bulge going through a system. They were a majority years ago and they have been a majority ever since. As a voting bloc they are almost unassailable.

Go to an environmental protest and young people are far more represented. As they would be at an equality/diversity event.

Young people are engaged with politics but in a completely different way.

As I said, horses for courses, people engage with what interests them.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

pepsipete wrote:

Finally made up my mind, OUT,  if you are a Westcountryman keep the French and Spanish fishermen out of our waters. Can also have a sensible milk marketing policy.

That is good PP, now are you prepared to get out there and campaign?

Cant I am disabled.

Please don't take any of what I am about to say personally it doesn't refer to yourself particularly but to your generation.

And it is about time you shut the feck up.

This country's demographic profile has seen the baby boomers, in particular, and the generations that came before, slightly less so, grab every advantage for themselves. They have enjoyed free education, a free NHS, free higher education, higher education grants, a reliable retirement age, tax relief on their mortgages and access to a host of benefits over the last 60 years or so and now they enjoy a state pension paid at a level that we'll probably never see bettered.

All the way along they have voted for themselves and that which benefits them and they have delivered unto the nation a succession of governments, of either hue, which have drifted ever further to the right as they have sought to maintain and improve the advantages they have always enjoyed. What matters is them and them alone.

Well that's not true. What matters the most are the generations yet to come; the generations who will do the work, create the wealth and pay the taxes that will support you in your dotage but how many of the advantages taken as read by yourselves will they enjoy?

There's a retirement age that stretches away to infinity for starters. No tax relief on their mortgages but that doesn't matter because you haven't built enough housing for them ever to be able to afford a mortgage and crippling debts due to student loans and education fees make that unlikely before they even begin. We have an NHS that is being sold out from under our feet and nobody seems to be realising that it is happening or, perhaps more accurately, they are fully aware but another 1p on out income tax to pay for it? feck right off. That's what you can do.

And none of that, the nitty gritty stuff (health, housing, education, retirement) that defines what it really means to be a citizen of this realm has been dictated to us by EU, EC, EEC, ECHR or any of the rest of it. It has been gleefully voted for by the baby boomers who have done very nicely and now want to pull the ladder up behind them.

And it is these very same people who will be least effected by leaving the EU partly because they have a nice little nest egg to protect them, a decent pension and somewhere nice to live that are going to vote Out in their droves, completely against the wishes of the younger generations coming along behind them many of whom will NEVER have a vote on this at all (and you'd've had two, remember - you always get the most of everything in every way!).

If you are over the age of, say, 55 (it'll take at least 10 years before we actually leave even if we vote that way) then your race has been run. Do the decent thing and don't vote at all because leaving the EU is dependent upon your votes. Nobody else wants it. And you'll all be dead soon and you'll never have to face the consequences like today's teenagers will and they've been shafted enough as it is. They are now your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Don't forget that and stop feckin 'em over. You've done more than enough already. You've done very nicely for yourselves. Now please stop. Let someone else have a go.

I've had to force myself away from Pepsipete's word game after reading such twaddle

Being from the generation before the baby boomers (like Pete) I suggest that being born as WW2 started and being brought up during a world war with my parents living in endless furnished room accomodation and moving from school to school during that period.....plus the rationing and the lack of money that we of that generation went through.....plus having to do national service (1960/62 at 24 shillings a week) that you Drakey boy have no idea of how those before you struggled on so the likes of you could have the soft life that you have inherited because of those that went before.

Anything we have inherited since is well deserved and has been paid for by living through the 1940's and 50's and seen our parents suffer to provide for us during that period.

I'm for voting no in June....as I said before in this thread.......lets get out before 75 million Turkish moslems arrive to undermine any wealth that the EU might have.....they are a poor country and will suck the life out of the EU.

zyph wrote:

lets get out before 75 million Turkish moslems arrive to undermine any wealth that the EU might have.....they are a poor country and will suck the life out of the EU.

Are you for real?

Give me strength!!

MVL...

What would be your guess as to how many refugee's will enter the EEC in the next ten years?

I don't supose he has much more idea than I do - and I haven't the foggiest.

The way I look at it is very different. I don't think we could take X refugees but (X+1) would too many. I look at it as "what would I hope for were I to be that unlucky?"

Bearing in mind that Refugee Me would be fleeing from horrors li'l ol' me can't even begin to imagine I think that Refugee Me would take pretty much anything that is on offer. What I would not expect is to be treated like vermin and ignored and just left to die somewhere. It wouldn't much matter to Refugee Me if I was the first to arrive or the millionth. It wouldn't make any difference if I was X in the line or (X+1) to how I hoped to be treated because I would have no notion of how many had managed to get through before.

And Europe (including UK) could cope with many, many more than it has so far. The key would be to disperse people throughout so that one place is not over-whelmed.

The bigger idea would see to Refugee Me being settled somewhere on a global scale. I have no idea where. Maybe I should be allowed to express a preference? Maybe I should be able to choose from what is on offer?

Cameron is talking of taking 20,000 refugees, I think. No more. This is a pitfully pathetic response. Even placing one family in each of our towns and cities would equate to many more - and we could easily cope with that.

I just thank God, not that I am a believer, that all of this is happening to them and not me. Offering a little assistance doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. It seems very much like a compassionate, dare I say Christian?, response. Common decency. No more than that.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't supose he has much more idea than I do - and I haven't the foggiest.

The way I look at it is very different. I don't think we could take X refugees but (X+1) would too many. I look at it as "what would I hope for were I to be that unlucky?"

Bearing in mind that Refugee Me would be fleeing from horrors li'l ol' me can't even begin to imagine I think that Refugee Me would take pretty much anything that is on offer. What I would not expect is to be treated like vermin and ignored and just left to die somewhere. It wouldn't much matter to Refugee Me if I was the first to arrive or the millionth. It wouldn't make any difference if I was X in the line or (X+1) to how I hoped to be treated because I would have no notion of how many had managed to get through before.

And Europe (including UK) could cope with many, many more than it has so far. The key would be to disperse people throughout so that one place is not over-whelmed.

The bigger idea would see to Refugee Me being settled somewhere on a global scale. I have no idea where. Maybe I should be allowed to express a preference? Maybe I should be able to choose from what is on offer?

Cameron is talking of taking 20,000 refugees, I think. No more. This is a pitfully pathetic response. Even placing one family in each of our towns and cities would equate to many more - and we could easily cope with that.

I just thank God, not that I am a believer, that all of this is happening to them and not me. Offering a little assistance doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. It seems very much like a compassionate, dare I say Christian?, response. Common decency. No more than that.

Which is why I didn't ask you.

Here's a simple question:

You are in a boat. It is out on the oggin somewhere. Unexpectedly you see somebody, somebody whose background or reasons for being there you are completely unaware of, struggling in the water. Do you pull them into your boat or just leave them to drown?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't supose he has much more idea than I do - and I haven't the foggiest.

The way I look at it is very different. I don't think we could take X refugees but (X+1) would too many. I look at it as "what would I hope for were I to be that unlucky?"

Bearing in mind that Refugee Me would be fleeing from horrors li'l ol' me can't even begin to imagine I think that Refugee Me would take pretty much anything that is on offer. What I would not expect is to be treated like vermin and ignored and just left to die somewhere. It wouldn't much matter to Refugee Me if I was the first to arrive or the millionth. It wouldn't make any difference if I was X in the line or (X+1) to how I hoped to be treated because I would have no notion of how many had managed to get through before.

And Europe (including UK) could cope with many, many more than it has so far. The key would be to disperse people throughout so that one place is not over-whelmed.

The bigger idea would see to Refugee Me being settled somewhere on a global scale. I have no idea where. Maybe I should be allowed to express a preference? Maybe I should be able to choose from what is on offer?

Cameron is talking of taking 20,000 refugees, I think. No more. This is a pitfully pathetic response. Even placing one family in each of our towns and cities would equate to many more - and we could easily cope with that.

I just thank God, not that I am a believer, that all of this is happening to them and not me. Offering a little assistance doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. It seems very much like a compassionate, dare I say Christian?, response. Common decency. No more than that.

Eh, 20,000 Syrian refugees. You're conveniently forgetting about all the other nationalities. And then there's the unfettered Eastern European influx. Wake up Frank.

No. You wake up.

10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old.  The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time and the number will have nearly doubled to around 19 million by 2050.

Within this total, the number of very old people grows even faster.  There are currently three million people aged more than 80 years and this is projected to almost double by 2030 and reach eight million by 2050.  While one-in-six of the UK population is currently aged 65 and over, by 2050 one in-four will be.

In 2008 there were 3.2 people of working age for every person of pensionable age. This ratio is projected to fall to 2.8 by 2033.

These are either facts or government projections. We need more young people and we are not breeding them fast enough ourselves.

We need immigrants now (the NHS would have collapsed long ago without them) and we'll need them more in the future.

This is true not just here but in most mature European societies - why do you think Frau Merkel has done what she has?

Stick your head in the sand all you like - this is a necessity for the future well-being of both our country and Europe - unless we exterminate quite a few million baby boomers.

What if there were hundreds of thousands of them in the oggin?

What if there was millions of boats?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

No. You wake up.

10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old.  The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time and the number will have nearly doubled to around 19 million by 2050.

Within this total, the number of very old people grows even faster.  There are currently three million people aged more than 80 years and this is projected to almost double by 2030 and reach eight million by 2050.  While one-in-six of the UK population is currently aged 65 and over, by 2050 one in-four will be.

In 2008 there were 3.2 people of working age for every person of pensionable age. This ratio is projected to fall to 2.8 by 2033.

These are either facts or government projections. We need more young people and we are not breeding them fast enough ourselves.

We need immigrants now (the NHS would have collapsed long ago without them) and we'll need them more in the future.

This is true not just here but in most mature European societies - why do you think Frau Merkel has done what she has?

Stick your head in the sand all you like - this is a necessity for the future well-being of both our country and Europe - unless we exterminate quite a few million baby boomers.

Ah, I get it now 'O Moralistic Messiah', we nick all the young, capable people from less fortunate countries to prop up our ageing society. What about the society's they are leaving behind? Who cares hey.

And using Merkel as an example of sensible immigration policy is rather lame, she, and the German people now realise that her come one, come all open door policy was foolish at best.

Quote :

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This is inscribed onto the Statue Of Liberty. The highlighted bit is the famous bit. It perfectly describes the Syrian refugees.

We should be accepting of them, or people like them, for two reasons.

1) It's just the right thing to do.
2) They are useful to us.

There is a humanitarian aspect, of course there is, but there is also a selfish one. Frau Merkel is and was well aware of both - she just didn't implement her ideas very well. Then again these are extraordainary times and they are like to get more extraordainary yet. Desperate times need deserate measures. Needs must etc.

And nobody has answered the Boat Question yet. Are you ashamed to?

I think we should remain within, but I'm 95% sure the exit will come after the Referendum. I believe the vast majority who will vote will be older generations and I think that the vast majority are sick of Refugess Immigrants EU Law and a whole raft of other issues
We are going it alone on the upside in my opinion Sterling will soar

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Quote :

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
   With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
   Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
   A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
   Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
   Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
   Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
   The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

   "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
   With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
   Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
   The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
   Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
   I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This is inscribed onto the Statue Of Liberty. The highlighted bit is the famous bit. It perfectly describes the Syrian refugees.

Famous as fcuk.........how many Syrian refugees have been welcomed to the land of the free?

Over to Rickler on that one.

Contary to the opinion of some I don't know everything.