Lowbankclaret wrote: Remain would probably win as its effectively staying in but as 2nd class members paying just as much and getting nothing.

Remain would be the status quo, meaning we'd keep the best deal of the lot. We have a better deal than even Germany and France.

We've already covered your immediate fail in the no lying stakes so there's no need to keep plugging away.

Anyway, have a great weekend folks.

quoonbeatz wrote:Remain would be the status quo, meaning we'd keep the best deal of the lot. We have a better deal than even Germany and France.

We've already covered your immediate fail in the no lying stakes so there's no need to keep plugging away.

But it’s not the status quo, is it.

The EU wants over the next 5 years.

To remove all veto’s.
To push all members to take on the Euro.
Be members of the EU army.
Give power to the EU your fiscal policy, so they set your taxes.

The EU does not want to stand still, it wants to take over.

You guys are just in denial of that.

Lowbankclaret wrote:But it’s not the status quo, is it.

The EU wants over the next 5 years.

To remove all veto’s.
To push all members to take on the Euro.
Be members of the EU army.
Give power to the EU your fiscal policy, so they set your taxes.

The EU does not want to stand still, it wants to take over.

You guys are just in denial of that.

You know we could veto all of that, right?

How ******* dumb do you have to be to fall for that bullshit?

Imploding Turtle wrote:You know we could veto all of that, right?

How ******* dumb do you have to be to fall for that bullshit?

The same level of dumbness you claim a bye election was fixed when there’s no evidence and the police have looked into it and found nothing.

Ringo will have to up his game when he returns to this thread. Lowbank has really stolen his crown as Chief Loon.

TheFamilyCat wrote:Ringo will have to up his game when he returns to this thread. Lowbank has really stolen his crown as Chief Loon.

Yep, difficult to somehow out-crank Ringo, but he’s giving it a damned good go. Just needs to do a few radio phone ins.

Sounds like it's all over for Boris:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bo ... 04366.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

martin_p wrote:The same level of dumbness you claim a bye election was fixed when there’s no evidence and the police have looked into it and found nothing.

You guys are really in your own bubble of denial.

I must be really sad to have listened to Ursula Van Der Leyen and her plans for the next five years.

Lowbankclaret wrote:You guys are really in your own bubble of denial.

I must be really sad to have listened to Ursula Van Der Leyen and her plans for the next five years.

It’s called the real world mate.

Brexbox 5 and 6 now on utube, worth a watch

martin_p wrote:It’s called the real world mate.

Yes I research probably more than most about what’s going on in the world.

Fromw hich I draw some conclusions .

I just some don’t what to accept the reality of what’s happening

Lowbankclaret wrote:Yes I research probably more than most about what’s going on in the world.

Fromw hich I draw some conclusions .

I just some don’t what to accept the reality of what’s happening

Given that we've been able to opt out of the Schengen Agreement, the EMU, the charter for human rights and the justice agreements, I think if we were to stay in, we would certainly continue to have opt-outs in other key areas of integration. There has always been a "second-tier" arrangement for ourselves and, for the most part, Denmark.

Of course, our withdrawal leaves Denmark in an awkward position. I would not be surprised if they followed suit.

I think the rise of populist parties across the world has shown that people are generally fed-up with further globalization. The new EU President can outline her laundry list of wants as she wishes, but implementing them across the next five years will likely cause more ~exits, such as Dexit, Itexit and perhaps even Frexit.

The EU's priority right now is to deal with Brexit and then stablizing the Union. Doubling down would be a disaster.

evensteadiereddie wrote:Just to clarify - yet again - I have one account on here. You have two, the second one to help support your increasingly odd behaviour and the one you run in such a feeble, unconvincing way. It's interesting that at no time have you ever denied being "Elizabeth". Still, its your prerogative to continue bullshitting, I guess.

I've no anger, no issues - I just happen to be one of the few who have sussed you out and its rattled you big time, fair enough, I get that.
What I'll never quite get is why you're pretending to be a woman..........yet you claim to have kids that you play with on the park
Something's not quite right there, is it ?

Step lightly, Missy, its a cross-dressing jungle out there.

And, as you'd say,

evensteadiereddie wrote:

I did it a few years ago on a Bolton Wanderers boardOne account being the hostile, gleeful Burnley fan, the other a long-suffering Trotters fan with patience sadly running out.

evensteadiereddie wrote:

what I was doing on the Trotters board. Both my accounts, successful in different ways, were brilliant wind-up jobs although the inevitable bans did make life a tad difficult at times

[/b][/size][/quote]

evensteadiereddie wrote:It was, to be fair, pretty interesting to see how you could manipulate others' thinking. Nothing "split personality" about that, chap, far from it - two uses of different persona. That's why I did it

[/b][/size][/quote]

evensteadiereddie wrote:i Was happy to spend time on the Bolton board engaged in guerilla verbal warfare

evensteadiereddie wrote:I ran one account as a legit BFC fan enjoying the er, banter with some of their lads. Occasionally it went too far and one lad, Mallorca Trotter, bless him, had my BFC fan account shut. No problem - new user name, tone it all down a bit and off we went. The other account, never questioned, was a ****-take from start to finish, posting stuff just to see how gullible some of those fools were.

Game on, Lowbank.

Lowbankclaret wrote:But it’s not the status quo, is it.

The EU wants over the next 5 years.

To remove all veto’s.
To push all members to take on the Euro.
Be members of the EU army.
Give power to the EU your fiscal policy, so they set your taxes.

The EU does not want to stand still, it wants to take over.

You guys are just in denial of that.

Sounds like a great idea if member states had a veto eh?

The nicest thing I can say is that you've been listening to what you want to hear, not what is actually happening

Lancasterclaret wrote:Sounds like a great idea if member states had a veto eh?

The nicest thing I can say is that you've been listening to what you want to hear, not what is actually happening

We will just have to agree we disagree.

Let’s see time settle this one.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Sounds like a great idea if member states had a veto eh?

The nicest thing I can say is that you've been listening to what you want to hear, not what is actually happening

So what’s your version of what the EU plans over the next 5 years??

Lowbankclaret wrote:So what’s your version of what the EU plans over the next 5 years??

Honestly?

Depends on the situations around the world to be honest.

It takes time to a lot of stuff in a country, let alone one of 27 differing member states.

Not a lot basically, it will continue to argue and stand up for what it believes in.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Honestly?

Depends on the situations around the world to be honest.

It takes time to a lot of stuff in a country, let alone one of 27 differing member states.

Not a lot basically, it will continue to argue and stand up for what it believes in.

So you have not been listening to what’s being said and planned.

That’s the biggest example of ignorance I have seen Lancaster.

Lowbankclaret wrote:So you have not been listening to what’s being said and planned.

That’s the biggest example of ignorance I have seen Lancaster.

Nope

I haven't been listening to what you are watching which is telling you what they think is happening.

Thst is quite a crucial difference.

In 2016 when Cameron negotiated with Brussels the other EU countries formerly recognised that Britain didn’t wish for “an ever closer union”

Having said that it would be in our interest to harmonise some taxes (corporate for one) in order to better deal with companies declaring their profits in low tax areas.

Let's be honest, lowbank has illustrated repeatedly that he's happy to believe and regurgitate unsourced "facts" that he's read on the internet so long as they support his point of view.

If you don't agree with them he won't provide actual facts he'll just mutter about conspiracies and say that you're not living in the "real" world.

There's not much point in pointing out that this stuff is made up, the UK can veto it, etc from the point of view of lowbank, he's a true believer.

However, it is worth pointing out that his posts are full of lies, inaccuracies and half-truths so that other people don't get suckered into believing what he says.

Lowbankclaret wrote:But it’s not the status quo, is it.

The EU wants over the next 5 years.

To remove all veto’s.
To push all members to take on the Euro.
Be members of the EU army.
Give power to the EU your fiscal policy, so they set your taxes.

The EU does not want to stand still, it wants to take over.

You guys are just in denial of that.

You refer to the EU as if it's an independent entity not answerable to anyone

In reality the heads of the member states, and therefore their electorate, really drive the direction.

If the UK stayed in do you really believe they'd just hand over their vetoes and join the Euro?

Do you really think Hungary is going to let the EU set its taxes and make it join the Euro?

Just because someone is talking about their vision it doesn't mean it's going to happen. There are so many factors blocking it.

aggi wrote:Let's be honest, lowbank has illustrated repeatedly that he's happy to believe and regurgitate unsourced "facts" that he's read on the internet so long as they support his point of view.

If you don't agree with them he won't provide actual facts he'll just mutter about conspiracies and say that you're not living in the "real" world.

There's not much point in pointing out that this stuff is made up, the UK can veto it, etc from the point of view of lowbank, he's a true believer.

However, it is worth pointing out that his posts are full of lies, inaccuracies and half-truths so that other people don't get suckered into believing what he says.

Thing is, come the election, he’s going to be spouting these lies doorstep to doorstep in the name of the Brexit Party. And as the referendum result showed, there’s plenty of folk out there who will fall for it.

aggi wrote:Interestingly, the older living generations may be more pro-EU.

The theory seems to be that having lived through the war they value the principles of unity more (obviously that doesn't stop people who didn't fight in WWII attempting to claim that those who fought in WWII would be disgusted at the EU or that we {not actually the people saying it of course} survived two world wars so we can survive Brexit).

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/04/ ... llennials/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first question posed by the blogger is "In the wake of the Brexit referendum result, it was oft repeated that the older generations were more likely to have voted for Britain to leave the European Union. This presents something of a puzzle; why would older generations, likely to have experienced the impact of the war first-hand, seek to remove Britain from an institution that has helped maintain peace in Europe for more than seven decades?"

The obvious answer being that the older generation are less likely to confuse NATO with the EEC than the younger generation are.

The other obvious theory as to why older people dislike the EU is because they have lived through it and know what it is like; younger people haven't lived through it and have an idealistic view rather than a practical view.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask why the people who were born between, say, 1944 and 1964, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EEC in 1975 but strongly against the EU in 2016? It's not because they are different people; it's because they are the same people and have changed their minds.

Spijed wrote:David Cameron sticking the boot into Boris:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49690618" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ia this the same Cameron who put his runners on as soon as the referendum result was announced, he can't call anyone

CnBtruntru wrote:Ia this the same Cameron who put his runners on as soon as the referendum result was announced, he can't call anyone

Indeed. Cameron is the one who started this whole bloody mess in order to gain a majority which he bailed out of after a year.

dsr wrote:The first question posed by the blogger is "In the wake of the Brexit referendum result, it was oft repeated that the older generations were more likely to have voted for Britain to leave the European Union. This presents something of a puzzle; why would older generations, likely to have experienced the impact of the war first-hand, seek to remove Britain from an institution that has helped maintain peace in Europe for more than seven decades?"

The obvious answer being that the older generation are less likely to confuse NATO with the EEC than the younger generation are.

No, the obvious answer is that the majority of pensioners didn’t, as is claimed by the blogger, experience the war first hand. The war has been nearly 75 years, to even have any memory of war time you’d have to be over 80 and even then it’s a stretch to say you’d ‘experienced it’. People who experienced the war as adults are all in their mid nineties at least.

Unfortunately the demographics lump all pensioners in a single category and it voted 60/40 for leave. But it may well be that the war time generation did in fact support remain and it’s the ‘baby boomer’ generation that didn’t experience the war that were the leavers.

And your second ‘lived through it’ point is a bit bizarre. What exactly have young people lived through if not EU membership?

And to finish, a third of the people born between 44 and 64 were too young to vote in the ‘75 referendum. In the ‘75 referendum the 18-30 age group (which would be pretty much all eligible voters born since 1944) were the LEAST likely to have voted to stay in the EU, so that’s consistent with a group between 60 and 75 being most likely to vote leave in 2016.

dsr wrote:The first question posed by the blogger is "In the wake of the Brexit referendum result, it was oft repeated that the older generations were more likely to have voted for Britain to leave the European Union. This presents something of a puzzle; why would older generations, likely to have experienced the impact of the war first-hand, seek to remove Britain from an institution that has helped maintain peace in Europe for more than seven decades?"

The obvious answer being that the older generation are less likely to confuse NATO with the EEC than the younger generation are.

The other obvious theory as to why older people dislike the EU is because they have lived through it and know what it is like; younger people haven't lived through it and have an idealistic view rather than a practical view.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask why the people who were born between, say, 1944 and 1964, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EEC in 1975 but strongly against the EU in 2016? It's not because they are different people; it's because they are the same people and have changed their minds.

Well no, that's a different question.

This is showing that maybe pensioners aren't a homogeneous group, and in particular those who lived through an actual world war are more pro-EU.

As an aside, how have younger people (and given the demographics I guess you're referring to under 40s) not lived through the EU? Where have they all been living?

aggi wrote:Well no, that's a different question.

This is showing that maybe pensioners aren't a homogeneous group, and in particular those who lived through an actual world war are more pro-EU.

As an aside, how have younger people (and given the demographics I guess you're referring to under 40s) not lived through the EU? Where have they all been living?

Just a guess, but those under a certain age will only know the EU as it is now, the older people have watched it change from its original concept into what it is now and may not like where they think it's heading.

I could be wrong though

If it be your will wrote:I haven't factually checked any of that, but I'm assuming it to be correct. If so, that's a very illuminating post.

Thanks. The numbers were broadly correct, unless I miscounted.

The EU being dodgy in the diversity stakes is well known, in 2018 only 3 of 751 MEPs was black, according to the Guardian. But for some reason the Lib Dem’s and SNP get a free pass.

We could then expand the logic and count the Lords where the Lib Dem’s have 94 peers (in that they are free to appoint whoever they like). They have a pen picture on their website and it appears that there are ONLY 3 are people of colour (two men of South Asian heritage and the great Floella Benjamin, who I grew up watching in Play School).

That, again, is a far lower percentage than the Tories.

I suspect the reason is because the Lib Dem’s are actually the party with the narrowest demographic, they are TOP in the percentage of members in social group ABC1 (85%). The Lib Dem’s also have a bigger portion in the South of England (45% vs Tory 42%). Average age 52 years old vs Tory 57 years old. Source = Commons Briefing Paper on Party Membership.

Basically a bunch of middle class white professionals who we can only conclude like virtue signalling about diversity but don’t want it in their own back yard.

We could call them the Anti-Liberal Anti-Democrats.

I find it amazing they get such a free ride from the media.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Thanks. The numbers were broadly correct, unless I miscounted.

The EU being dodgy in the diversity stakes is well known, in 2018 only 3 of 751 MEPs was black, according to the Guardian. But for some reason the Lib Dem’s and SNP get a free pass.

We could then expand the logic and count the Lords where the Lib Dem’s have 94 peers (in that they are free to appoint whoever they like). They have a pen picture on their website and it appears that there are ONLY 3 are people of colour (two men of South Asian heritage and the great Floella Benjamin, who I grew up watching in Play School).

That, again, is a far lower percentage than the Tories.

I suspect the reason is because the Lib Dem’s are actually the party with the narrowest demographic, they are TOP in the percentage of members in social group ABC1 (85%). The Lib Dem’s also have a bigger portion in the South of England (45% vs Tory 42%). Average age 52 years old vs Tory 57 years old. Source = Commons Briefing Paper on Party Membership.

Basically a bunch of middle class white professionals who we can only conclude like virtue signalling about diversity but don’t want it in their own back yard.

We could call them the Anti-Liberal Anti-Democrats.

I find it amazing they get such a free ride from the media.

The number of black MEPs has nothing to do with the EU. That’s down to the parties who selected the candidates and the people who voted for them.

The baby boomer generation are those who have this weird chip on their shoulder. Pining for a time they never lived in and proudly harking on about a war they never went through.

Blitz spirit, Dunkirk, fight them on the beaches.

Shut up Cath you were born in 1952.

claret_in_exile wrote:Given that we've been able to opt out of the Schengen Agreement, the EMU, the charter for human rights and the justice agreements, I think if we were to stay in, we would certainly continue to have opt-outs in other key areas of integration. There has always been a "second-tier" arrangement for ourselves and, for the most part, Denmark.
.

Hi exile, doesn't it strike you as odd that anyone would want to be a member of a club on the basis of a growing list of vetos? How many opt-outs do you think the UK should have before the EU reaches their limits on granting any more opt-outs? And, of course, how many of the other EU27 should also be granted opt-outs? At what stage does the EU say "this isn't working?"

Paul Waine wrote:Hi exile, doesn't it strike you as odd that anyone would want to be a member of a club on the basis of a growing list of vetos? How many opt-outs do you think the UK should have before the EU reaches their limits on granting any more opt-outs? And, of course, how many of the other EU27 should also be granted opt-outs? At what stage does the EU say "this isn't working?"

Great question.

Honestly, it doesn't. There are usually different tiers of membership to a club. Jacques Delors criticized the UK for wanting to be in a "second class" within the EU, but I actually think it worked out pretty well for the UK. There is no appetite for EMU within the UK, but both sides benefitted massively from the single market / customs union and I personally benefitted from the freedom of movement.

If they went to an "all or nothing" approach, they would likely see many more ~exits as it would be impossible to get all the EU27 to agree to absolutely everything. Each nation has its own set of red lines, after all - Greece's is Turkey/Cyprus, France's is the CAP, etc.

Just back from a service for the Dunkirk little ships - commemorating all the volunteers who didn't make it back.

Chaplain (I'm guessing Navy...) said that there were 850 little ships volunteered, including 100 from Teddington (where service was) and the Upper Thames. Of these 850, 200 didn't make it back.

There were 18 "Dunkirk 1940" boats in the Lock (otherwise known for Monty Python's fish slapping dance) - all a minimum of 80 years old (simple maths). Of course, none of the current owners were involved in 1940 - but they've done a great job of preserving/maintaining the boats.

Thought it might be of intertest to post this here - and given the references to pensioners and "the war." Teddington is part of Vince Cable's Twickenham constituency - very strongly remain.

TheFamilyCat wrote:Thing is, come the election, he’s going to be spouting these lies doorstep to doorstep in the name of the Brexit Party. And as the referendum result showed, there’s plenty of folk out there who will fall for it.

When you go canvassing your told what you can and cannot say.
Mainly you just ask if you can count on their vote and then ask what their 3 biggest issues are.
You normally have to toe any party line if questions are asked which I would do.

Lowbankclaret wrote:When you go canvassing your told what you can and cannot say.
Mainly you just ask if you can count on their vote and then ask what their 3 biggest issues are.
You normally have to toe any party line if questions are asked which I would do.

Regardless of who comes to my door, when I'm asked about "issues" I usually refer to all the dog "doings" on the streets.

Paul Waine wrote:Regardless of who comes to my door, when I'm asked about "issues" I usually refer to all the dog "doings" on the streets.

Your not wrong, plus the black bags in the trees with poo in them.

All poo bags should be biodegradable!

I know ours are. But they go in the bin, not in the trees.

Lowbankclaret wrote:When you go canvassing your told what you can and cannot say.
Mainly you just ask if you can count on their vote and then ask what their 3 biggest issues are.
You normally have to toe any party line if questions are asked which I would do.

Although I don’t know you, I find it hard to believe that you would hold back, based on your contributions to this thread recently.

I see another MP has switched parties today.

Any reason why we don't have a by-election when this happens?
The constitutes voted for a particular party to represent them after all.

Lowbankclaret wrote:Your not wrong, plus the black bags in the trees with poo in them.

All poo bags should be biodegradable!

I know ours are. But they go in the bin, not in the trees.

I don't get the idea of dog owners carrying a bag for their dog - and then thinking the dirty stuff will just disappear if they throw it in a tree. (I imagine they throw it, I can't imagine anyone carefully hanging it like they would decorate a tree at Christmas).

A major policy change by the Lib Dems is on the cards https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49698800

Now i don't imagine anybody thinks the Lib Dems will emerge from any forthcoming GE with an outright majority,so unless they can persuade Labour to become an exclusively remain party,this policy isn't going to see the light of day,i'm guessing this decision should it happen rules out any possibility of a Con/Lib Dem coalition or supply and confidence arrangement.

The advantage for the Conservatives is in straight fights with the Lib Dems they can paint the Lib Dems as totally disregarding the initial referendum result,it's one thing to campaign for a 2nd ref,it's quite another to revoke Article 50 without another public vote,and this plays into Boris Johnson's narrative that parliament isn't intent on honouring the 2016 vote.

tiger76 wrote:A major policy change by the Lib Dems is on the cards https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49698800

Now i don't imagine anybody thinks the Lib Dems will emerge from any forthcoming GE with an outright majority,so unless they can persuade Labour to become an exclusively remain party,this policy isn't going to see the light of day,i'm guessing this decision should it happen rules out any possibility of a Con/Lib Dem coalition or supply and confidence arrangement.

The advantage for the Conservatives is in straight fights with the Lib Dems they can paint the Lib Dems as totally disregarding the initial referendum result,it's one thing to campaign for a 2nd ref,it's quite another to revoke Article 50 without another public vote,and this plays into Boris Johnson's narrative that parliament isn't intent on honouring the 2016 vote.

Interesting analysis here:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/09/13/th ... -midlands/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aggi wrote:Well no, that's a different question.

This is showing that maybe pensioners aren't a homogeneous group, and in particular those who lived through an actual world war are more pro-EU.

As an aside, how have younger people (and given the demographics I guess you're referring to under 40s) not lived through the EU? Where have they all been living?

Sorry, the curse of literalism again. Yes, UK citizen who is 45 years old or less has been in the EEC and the EU for all of his or her life. But the general point is that they haven't lived in the EU for as long as older people, and even more, that for much of that time they were paying little or no attention to politics.

Students are idealists. (And I apologise in advance to those who want some sort of proof, because I am saying it based on experience of life and not empirical evidence.) What is the main feature of student idealists? They have not spent very long living through and paying attention to the practicalities of government. They are theorists. As they get older - as with all of us - they learn more, they experience more, they deal with practicalities more. That's the pont - people who were old enough to vote last time round have been watching and experiencing the EEC/EU, as voting adults, since the last referendum. Younger people have not.

TheFamilyCat wrote:Although I don’t know you, I find it hard to believe that you would hold back, based on your contributions to this thread recently.

Oh I can be very professional.

You don’t become a top Engineer for a blue chip company if you cannot.

This is a football website where you can express your views freely, or at least I hope you can.

You may not agree with my thoughts, that’s your choice as we are free people.

But I can toe the party line when I believe in it.

dsr wrote:Sorry, the curse of literalism again. Yes, UK citizen who is 45 years old or less has been in the EEC and the EU for all of his or her life. But the general point is that they haven't lived in the EU for as long as older people, and even more, that for much of that time they were paying little or no attention to politics.

Students are idealists. (And I apologise in advance to those who want some sort of proof, because I am saying it based on experience of life and not empirical evidence.) What is the main feature of student idealists? They have not spent very long living through and paying attention to the practicalities of government. They are theorists. As they get older - as with all of us - they learn more, they experience more, they deal with practicalities more. That's the pont - people who were old enough to vote last time round have been watching and experiencing the EEC/EU, as voting adults, since the last referendum. Younger people have not.

I'm glad the young are idealists.

I'm always going to err with the idealism and enthusiasm of youth, over the cynicism and stubbornness of the old.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm glad the young are idealists.

I'm always going to err with the idealism and enthusiasm of youth, over the cynicism and stubbornness of the old.

If we went with the idealism of youth, we would all be socialists. And then when we got old, we would still be cynical but we would also have no money.

Basically any MP changing parties will get the derision of their previous party and constituents. They will be protected by their new party and rewarded with the chance to stand in a 'safe' seat at the next general election.