Are we In or Out?

[RichardWaller]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Sorry, but how's that hyperbole?

The country has a complete defence strategy. You or I might not agree with it but it's been agreed by parliament, and it is what it is and it includes nukes as an essential part of it.

Corbyn has said he wouldn't press the button if PM without regard to Parliament's opinion on it. How doesn't that undermine the UK's security strategy?

You can agree with Corbyn's take or not, but I can't see how you call the criticisms of the effect of his position hyperbole.

 

Probably could've picked a better word on the issue of security, but he has had a hell of a lot of hyperbole written and said about him, my personal favourite being from Tony Blair, "The party is walking eyes shut, arms outstretched over the cliff’s edge to the jagged rocks below".

Fair enough, security is an issue and in my opinion I think we'd stand a better chance of security if we didn't keep bombing as I think that undermines security more than refusing to push the button will. I think it's fair to attribute some blame to Blair for radicalisation in the Middle East but that's another argument. Yeah, trident has been agreed by parliament but we don't have to accept things just because they've been agreed by parliament.

[brettredmayne]

For the first time I'm actually feeling worried that we will be leaving the EU.

The support seems to be really behind leave and the remain campaign don't seem to be doing enough. The leave campaign have no idea about the economy but seem to be masking this by just bringing up immigration and a lot of people seem to be falling for it.

I work for a German company and I fear we are for a long recession if it goes the way it looks like. 

Am I been too negative?

[RichardWaller]

13 minutes ago, st dan said:

Surely the greater good for the country is better than any petty personal/party differences there may be between the Tories and Labour. 

This is such a huge vote which could potentially life changing consequences for many people. Surely little squabbles should be put aside and both parties should unite together for the remain campaign. 

They can then carry on with their squabbles as they please on 24th June up until the next general election. 

It's a risk. Yes there is the greater good to consider but when you're coming at the greater good from different sides and you know how likely it is for people to stick the knife in, I'm not sure it's worth it. In his position, I wouldn't join Cameron because I could throw Glastonbury further than I trust him.

He could make the best case in the world but can't guarantee it'll be heard. How you do that with a media that's largely opposed to you, I don't know. I think he needs to make more of the media outlets that actually do like him, and social networking. A bit idealist admittedly, but I hope the role and influence of the mainstream media in politics is in decline.

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

He can help drive the media narrative by engaging with the media. I can't say I know exactly how it's done, but every other leader seems to know so I doubt it's beyond Jeremy.

He doesn't have to necessarily share as platform with Cameron as far as I'm concerned, but he does need to encourage the media to better report what he's doing (perhaps by doing things differently), rather than be just about invisible as he is now.

It's got to the point where I'd almost prefer him to switch to out if that meant hearing something, anything, from him. I want Labour to have a leader that wants to lead.

I have no idea how he can really, either. Can't even seem to get The Guardian on his side that well. It's not a one sided problem. The media will report what they want to report and ignore what they want to ignore and I think the way forward will be more of a social networking thing. Course that won't be without its faults either but I think we've got more opportunity than ever to sift through the bollocks.

Course with some it doesn't matter how much he wants to lead given the problem he's got as leader with a decent chunk of the party refusing to be led by him.

[Avalon_Fields]

It's reasoned the Remain campaign isn't getting the message across, but maybe the message is understood and people are choosing to vote Leave.

Cameron has essentially led a negative campaign which indicates to me he has little confidence in promoting the merits of the EU, and Corbyn can only come up with protecting workers rights which I find laughable - the Socialist French government is desperately trying to curtail workers rights, the Greek Syriza government said no to austerity and bowed meekly to what the Germans told them to do, and it is difficult to see how the EU is a better economic/policy model as demonstrated by the awful unemployment rates throughout much of the EU:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

 

[Teddington]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Hey, him as an out-er thinks those are constructive for out, and me an an inner reckon they're constructive to in.

'm quite happy for him to show off the level of his argument. I'm quite happy to trust that people here are plenty smart enough to see how poor it is themselves.I

Feel free to say how you feel about his posts, but not that he shouldn't post them.

In fairness, and despite our views differing more often than not, this is very true.

[mikegday]

42 minutes ago, clarkete said:

 Firstly that affecting the amount of money coming into the country.

Secondly affecting the ability of our citizens to move as freely to other countries.

If people wish to take drastic action that's one thing, but they have to accept that there will be potentially severe consequences for their actions.

1. If we increase the amount of visas and citizenship to maintain a similar overall migration. The difference being those people would be of a different calibre and from differing countries. Explain to me how would that have a negative effect on the money coming in?

 

2.  I have never once said that it won't have an impact on our ability to travel. So please don't assume anything. I just don't think that's really a major point as I believe the impact will be little. We may have to apply for an evisa to go on holiday to Spain, it will most likely take seconds and cost nothing. That's really not a major issue here.

I can travel just as well on my Aus passport as my UK one, in fact sometimes better. I can work for 2 years in Canada with my Aus. UK passport holders need to apply for a capped visa.

3. Yes there will be consequences, but those may be postive consequences? Don't be so negative.

Edited June 11, 2016 by mikegday

[clarkete]

3 minutes ago, mikegday said:

1. If we increase the amount of visas and citizenship to maintain a similar overall migration. The difference being those people would be of a different calibre and from differing countries. Explain to me how would that have a negative effect on the money coming in?

 

2. I can travel just as well on my Aus passport as my UK one, in fact sometimes better. I can work for 2 years in Canada with my Aus. UK passport holders need to apply for a capped visa.

3. Yes there will be consequences, but those may be postive consequences? Don't be so negative.

1.  Have you not seen the front pages of the newspapers or listened to Farage for example?  They are talking explicitly about vastly reducing the numbers, indeed look in the comment pages anywhere and that's what people have picked up on regarding lack of housing, places at doctors etc.  They've been told that's down to levels of immigration.

2.  Indeed, there will likely be places they have to get visas for in future where they don't currently, that would be a consequence of the controls they choose to impose in point 1.

3.  This isn't me being negative, it's just the harsh reality.  If we choose to ignore the enormous majority of experts from every field who have said uncategorically that this is not in our best interests there will be consequences.  If some people are happy to accept those consequences so be it, but if you choose not to expect them then you're just being naive.

[mikegday]

9 minutes ago, clarkete said:

1.  Have you not seen the front pages of the newspapers or listened to Farage for example?  They are talking explicitly about vastly reducing the numbers, indeed look in the comment pages anywhere and that's what people have picked up on regarding lack of housing, places at doctors etc.  They've been told that's down to levels of immigration.

2.  Indeed, there will likely be places they have to get visas for in future where they don't currently, that would be a consequence of the controls they choose to impose in point 1.

3.  This isn't me being negative, it's just the harsh reality.  If we choose to ignore the enormous majority of experts from every field who have said uncategorically that this is not in our best interests there will be consequences.  If some people are happy to accept those consequences so be it, but if you choose not to expect them then you're just being naive.

1. I have said it already, I'm voting out not to reduce immigration numbers. I just want a visa application process that applies to all and allows us to pick and choose who we grant entry to. If that results in higher immigrantion numbers, great! I'm more concerned with the immigration process.

2. I have nothing to hide, no reason to be rejected by any country for a tourist visa. If I wish to work there then I would expect to be assessed against that countries current criteria, needs and wants. As the UK would too grant tourist visa's and work visas. What you're proposing is the solution I am aiming for!

Edited June 11, 2016 by mikegday

[clarkete]

17 minutes ago, mikegday said:

1. I have said it already, I'm voting out not to reduce immigration numbers. I just want a visa application process that applies to all and allows us to pick and choose who we grant entry to. If that results in higher immigrantion numbers, great! I'm more concerned with the immigration process.

2. I have nothing to hide, no reason to be rejected by any country for a tourist visa. If I wish to work there then I would expect to be assessed against that countries current criteria, needs and wants. As the UK would too grant tourist visa's and work visas. What you're proposing is the solution I am aiming for!

1.  I don't understand, do you think it will be your policy, or you're happy that you will vote for their solution but that your wish will count for nothing?  Farage was talking about 50,000 this week I believe.

2.  Good for you then.  Sounds bloody miserable to me.

3.  Thankfully you're unencumbered by the concerns of economists, scientists, universities, etc, etc ad infinitum. 

I've read far too much of the Gove nature "Britain has had enough of experts", where people dismiss everyone as being both part of an elite and on the gravy train.  If you choose to accept the risks then fair enough, but they are significant, particularly for people of your generation.

Edited June 11, 2016 by clarkete

[brettredmayne]

What remain need to do is concentrate on its main asset which is jobs and the economy. 

The leave campaign have yet to come up with any answers on how these 2 can be safeguarded so this point needs to be pushed in the next 12 days

[Vacant0]

29 minutes ago, mikegday said:

1. I have said it already, I'm voting out not to reduce immigration numbers. I just want a visa application process that applies to all and allows us to pick and choose who we grant entry to. If that results in higher immigrantion numbers, great! I'm more concerned with the immigration process.

2. I have nothing to hide, no reason to be rejected by any country for a tourist visa. If I wish to work there then I would expect to be assessed against that countries current criteria, needs and wants. As the UK would too grant tourist visa's and work visas. What you're proposing is the solution I am aiming for!

Which isn't what is going to automatically happen if the UK votes to leave. 

[mikegday]

1 minute ago, Vacant0 said:

Which isn't what is going to automatically happen if the UK votes to leave. 

True. Whilst there's no guarantee's we'll move to a 'Aus style' point system, it won't happen at all if we stay in. 

[mikegday]

16 minutes ago, clarkete said:

1.  I don't understand, do you think it will be your policy, or you're happy that you will vote for their solution but that your wish will count for nothing?  Farage was talking about 50,000 this week I believe.

So that means instead of voting for something that moves us in the direction I think immigration policy should go (to assess any non-uk passport holder equally) I must vote for the complete opposite? If people are voting leave to get net migration down to 50,000 then there are going to be a lot of dissapointed people! Thankfully I'm not voting on that basis, nor would I ever want that.

[clarkete]

39 minutes ago, mikegday said:

So that means instead of voting for something that moves us in the direction I think immigration policy should go (to assess any non-uk passport holder equally) I must vote for the complete opposite? If people are voting leave to get net migration down to 50,000 then there are going to be a lot of dissapointed people! Thankfully I'm not voting on that basis, nor would I ever want that.

But as with any election, it's not down to you as an individual, it's down to the majority.  Your views seem be slightly out of step with the majority of exit voters.

If we do leave, those who have led the exit campaign will be carried aloft and rewarded at the ballot box, both on the kipper and tory side, with the expectation that they will follow through on their previous intentions.  That's the bit that frankly horrifies me, as I'm well aware of the consequences of Boris, Gove and most particularly IDS carrying out their plans.

[Winslow Leach]

The Leave campaign is straight up racist and exploits political ignorance. If you vote Leave that's what you're supporting. 

[Mardy]

Been pondering this on my way to work and back today. I've got a properly bad feeling about this, and it's getting worse daily. I tell you this, if the Outs win, and wreck the fucking country, i'll not be able to forgive them. I suspect i'm not alone and there could be a lot of rancour floating around afterwards.

[clarkete]

4 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Been pondering this on my way to work and back today. I've got a properly bad feeling about this, and it's getting worse daily. I tell you this, if the Outs win, and wreck the fucking country, i'll not be able to forgive them. I suspect i'm not alone and there could be a lot of rancour floating around afterwards.

It's clear that  whichever way it goes there will be lots.  July will be miserable one way or another post G  

[DeanoL]

6 hours ago, Thevorpalblade said:

The average wage in Turkey is less than the equivalent of 600 Euros. They'll soon have free access to the whole of Europe.

Vote IN to welcome up to 70 million Turk's and not be able to control the numbers.

Yeah but you could move there and with your wage and the low cost of living, you could live like a millionaire.

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's just not a great argument, that's why.

There were UK re-generation funds before that competence was transferred to Brussels, just as (for comparison) there were UK farmers subsidies before those were transferred to Brussels.

Given that we give the EU more than we get back, it's hard to seriously suggest that anything of these sorts of subsidies would change for the worst in the short or medium-term, even tho you (might) perhaps worry over the longer term - but when there's the same no-guarantee the EU will stick with them over the longer-term either. The EU goes where its member states take it with stuff like this

Except the leave campaign want to spend all that money to build a new hospital every week instead. That's what their letter said.

[DeanoL]

5 hours ago, majormajormajor said:

I've thought about this too. I think he's just sitting back and letting it all unfold, watching the Tories delve into civil war. It's not positive, the issue is too important to take that stance. Or perhaps private polling for the leave campaign suggests he's toxic, and keep him away. Unlikely though.

He's probably just a fence sitter. It's extremely weak in any case.

There's something to be said for "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake". Not sure the collapse of the Tory party is worth leaving the EU though.

5 hours ago, mikegday said:

I'm not being goaded by anyone. Oh and I'm 25 - a big majority of young people I talk to are either undecided or voting out. It's untrue that the old vote out and the young vote in.

That's true. Anecdotally I'm seeing a definite link between the whole young person 'lad' culture and voting out. Definitely not just older people.

4 hours ago, mikegday said:

Don't forget we apply to attend a festival surrounded by a massive wall of steel, it too has gates, it too controls who comes in. The result is an enjoyable festival, in relative safety. Would we all enjoy Glastonbury as much if there was no fence and a million people turned up on the Wednesday? We have controls to maintain order. 

Some people maintain it was better in the 90s. But everyone has the same chance to get in with Glastonbury, more or less. The comparison would be if Glastonbury tickets were sold as 120,000 to those who went the previous year, and 10,000 to new people. Because that first group should have priority because they're already there.

3 hours ago, Digital Monkey (Womad) said:

I understand why Corbyn was favoured by the grassroots but we are definitely seeing now how dangerous the appointment of Corbyn could be. Very understandable that Blair was livid about the choice. Whatever happened to David Milliband?

I thought the days of right and left wing politics were over. Sadly, that is not looking the case and even more worrying if we do exit EU, Bojo could possibly become PM.

The difficult thing is, Corbyn was a joke candidate. They put him on the ballot to shake things up. The left of the party never seriously went "who among us should we put forward as our left-leaning candidate?"

[Mardy]

16 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Do you get a vote, Mardy? Is your permanent address still classed as UK, or are you an evil tax exile?

I get a vote, yeah, postal vote all sorted. On the electoral roll in the UK. As if i could be anything other than a full, upstanding member of society

[Mardy]

Mind you, I duuno about permanent address etc. I'm sort of like the Littlest Hobo. If you replace the word 'littlest' with 'fattest'.

And 'hobo' with 'c**t'.

 

but having lived in post soviet states for many years, i've seen at first hand plenty of the dangers of breaking up these sort of arrangements. There is power in a union.

[fightoffyour]

7 hours ago, Thevorpalblade said:

The average wage in Turkey is less than the equivalent of 600 Euros. They'll soon have free access to the whole of Europe.

Vote IN to welcome up to 70 million Turk's and not be able to control the numbers.

You're a moron and a c**t.

[Mr.Tease]

1 hour ago, Mardy said:

Been pondering this on my way to work and back today. I've got a properly bad feeling about this, and it's getting worse daily. I tell you this, if the Outs win, and wreck the fucking country, i'll not be able to forgive them. I suspect i'm not alone and there could be a lot of rancour floating around afterwards.

I try to console myself with the idea that at least Cameron would be gone, but then I realise his replacement is likely Boris, plus UKIP will likely have a surge in support, and then suddenly I feel like I'm staring at the apocalypse... 

[clarkete]

48 minutes ago, Mardy said:

Mind you, I duuno about permanent address etc. I'm sort of like the Littlest Hobo. If you replace the word 'littlest' with 'fattest'.

And 'hobo' with 'c**t'.

Didn't we all used to love our summer holidays as kids, sitting around watching 'The fattest c**t' on the telly?

[Spindles]

3 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah but you could move there and with your wage and the low cost of living, you could live like a millionaire.

Except the leave campaign want to spend all that money to build a new hospital every week instead. That's what their letter said.

Many of whom have spent the last 6 years downgrading and closing hospitals, reducing the provision of a&e and maternity services and then pointing east and blaming foreigners for overloading the services rather than admitting they have been cutting them and THAT is why they are under strain.