Brexit busted.

[Tommy Tainant]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.

 

[Drummond]

--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???

You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a foreign preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???

We British have a right to decide OUR decisions, OUR way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).

If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, we have a right to know that.

Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.

I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.

I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.

I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.

If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.

You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.

Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.

Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.

Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.

You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.

What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda foreign to, and outside of, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?

The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide our future, for us, in terms of what best serves that future.

This we have every conceivable right to do.

Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.

For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.

WHY ? Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?

With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.

We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.

So - are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?

I seem rattled? Why's that?

Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?

Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?

So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.

You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?

But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... but, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?

For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion - the illusion - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?

You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.

For myself ... I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.

No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.

What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.

So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.

I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.

Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.

Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.

Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".

I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?

I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.

Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".

I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.

On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to choose to bend to it !!!!

The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not Barack Obama's interests. Not in Chancellor Merkel's interests. Not in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!! OUR INTERESTS !!!

As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !

So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?

Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!

Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?

But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.

You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....

 

[Drummond]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.

For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.

The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.

Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....

 

[frigidweirdo]

I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.

I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.

If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.

You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.

Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.

Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.

Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.

You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.

What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda foreign to, and outside of, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?

The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide our future, for us, in terms of what best serves that future.

This we have every conceivable right to do.

Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.

For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.

WHY ? Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?

With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.

We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.

So - are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?

I seem rattled? Why's that?

Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?

Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?

So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.

You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?

But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... but, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?

For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion - the illusion - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?

You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.

For myself ... I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.

No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.

What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.

So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.

I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.

Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.

Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.

Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".

I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?

I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.

Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".

I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.

On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to choose to bend to it !!!!

The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not Barack Obama's interests. Not in Chancellor Merkel's interests. Not in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!! OUR INTERESTS !!!

As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !

So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?

Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!

Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?

But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.

You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....

Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?

Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?

Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction

Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)

Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit

"The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."

Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".

Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?

Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.

No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?

Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?

I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.

Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.

So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?

As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.

For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.

The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.

Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....

Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.

What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?

Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?

 

[Drummond]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.

See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!

Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.

So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting - the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....

And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??

 

[Drummond]

Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.

Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.

You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.

What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda foreign to, and outside of, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?

The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide our future, for us, in terms of what best serves that future.

This we have every conceivable right to do.

Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.

For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.

WHY ? Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?

With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.

We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.

So - are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?

I seem rattled? Why's that?

Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?

Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?

So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.

You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?

But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... but, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?

For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion - the illusion - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?

You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.

For myself ... I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.

No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.

What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.

So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.

I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.

Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.

Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.

Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".

I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?

I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.

Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".

I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.

On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to choose to bend to it !!!!

The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not Barack Obama's interests. Not in Chancellor Merkel's interests. Not in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!! OUR INTERESTS !!!

As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !

So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?

Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!

Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?

But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.

You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....

Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?

Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?

Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction

Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)

Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit

"The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."

Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".

Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?

Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.

No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?

Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?

I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.

Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.

So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?

As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.

In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???

Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???

The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...

I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??

Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.

Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.

And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.

... 'Sorry' ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.

See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!

Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.

So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting - the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....

And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??

I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.

I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.

Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.

Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics

"Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."

You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.

The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.

Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.

That's these countries.

There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).

So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.

Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.

There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???

So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.

How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.

 

[Drummond]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.

For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.

The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.

Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....

Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.

What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?

Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?

Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).

I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...

1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.

2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.

 

[Drummond]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.

See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!

Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.

So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting - the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....

And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??

I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.

I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.

Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.

Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics

"Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."

You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.

The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.

Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.

That's these countries.

There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).

So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.

Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.

There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???

So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.

How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.

Non-EU immigration is indeed higher. Not much higher .. but, yes, higher.

There's a roughly 50-50 split in the numbers, isn't there ?

Gaining a 50 percent better control over borders than you have otherwise, just HAS to be a highly relevant debating point !! To deny that it is, is nonsense. It can't help but benefit the UK to gain that extra control.

The Uk's welfare system is indeed stretched. Part of the reason is that immigrants put a burden on it !! And yes, that doesn't just involve 'the legals'. Illegal immigrants do what they can to sponge off of us as well.

Since when did the EU place any sort of priority on considering the state of our welfare system ? Yet, they STILL insist on porous borders for us !! No .. the EU burdens us ... and we have to take up the slack, because we're forced into it.

On June 23rd, this can change. I say it needs to !!

What - foreign, nationalistic ? - interest do you have for saying otherwise ?

 

[Drummond]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.

See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!

Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.

So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting - the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....

And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??

I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.

I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.

Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.

Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics

"Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."

You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.

The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.

Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.

That's these countries.

There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).

So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.

Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.

There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???

So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.

How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.

On our 'benefits' system ...

Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits

David Cameron has vowed that securing changes to the terms on which EU migrants can access the UK’s benefits system – including in-work benefits - will be an “absolute requirement” in the forthcoming negotiation. While securing these changes will be crucial to restore public confidence in the principle of free movement, there is no doubt it will put him on a collision course with several other EU leaders.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I seem rattled? Why's that?

Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?

Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?

So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.

You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?

But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... but, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?

For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion - the illusion - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?

You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.

For myself ... I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.

No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.

What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.

So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.

I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.

Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.

Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.

Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".

I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?

I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.

Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".

I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.

On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to choose to bend to it !!!!

The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not Barack Obama's interests. Not in Chancellor Merkel's interests. Not in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!! OUR INTERESTS !!!

As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !

So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?

Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!

Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?

But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.

You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....

Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?

Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?

Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction

Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)

Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit

"The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."

Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".

Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?

Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.

No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?

Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?

I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.

Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.

So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?

As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.

In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???

Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???

The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...

I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??

Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.

Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.

And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.

... 'Sorry' ...

How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?

No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter.

Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body.
Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?

Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama?

I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance.

In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious.

'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service

"
'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service"

This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.

(I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)

NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists

"
NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists"

So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting.

After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.



Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge.

I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).

 

[frigidweirdo]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.

For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.

The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.

Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....

Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.

What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?

Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?

Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).

I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...

1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.

2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.

What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.

But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?

Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.

As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?

Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?

 

[frigidweirdo]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.

See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!

Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.

So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting - the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....

And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??

I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.

I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.

Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.

Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics

"Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."

You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.

The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.

Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.

That's these countries.

There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).

So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.

Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.

There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???

So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.

How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.

On our 'benefits' system ...

Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits

David Cameron has vowed that securing changes to the terms on which EU migrants can access the UK’s benefits system – including in-work benefits - will be an “absolute requirement” in the forthcoming negotiation. While securing these changes will be crucial to restore public confidence in the principle of free movement, there is no doubt it will put him on a collision course with several other EU leaders.

I've read that before, and I laughed. And I'm laughing again.

All the other EU countries have managed it, but the UK govt can't, and people are claiming it's all because of the EU. Again, other countries don't have this problem.

""Tougher rules" is often shorthand for welfare systems which are also less generous to all citizens (many EU member states have no equivalent to housing benefit or in-work tax credits)."

So.... get rid of housing benefits and in-work tax credits. Or make certain requirements for these that a person has to have worked for 5 years before they can get them, or that they have to have lived in an area for 5 years before they can get them.

"The actual rules governing access to these benefits are determined nationally, but once in place they have to apply to all EU citizens, just as they do in the UK."

So, you make rules that mean that someone who just turns up doesn't get them. Also make rules so that 18 year olds leaving school and wanted to doss around, can't do it on government money, they either go back into education or get themselves a job and work for at least 5 years before they're entitled to anything.

"The British system is mostly non-contributory, meaning that receipts are not linked to prior contributions."

Funny how this article points out the problem with the system, then says that the UK needs to leave the EU in order to not deal with the problem.

Is it me, or is that just really stupid?

 

[frigidweirdo]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

And then we all know that immigration is almost a non-issue and the Brexit people want to avoid talking about the economy because they know it will get worse.

See the argument I just put to Tommy. Immigration is a major issue, it has to be, when the current numbers are close to record highs !!

Immigration (obviously any authoritative assessment can only involve LEGAL immigrants ... there are others !!) involves catering for the immigrants ! This therefore involves what resources we have to do so. This itself very definitely MUST have an economic dimension to it.

So there's not the great 'economic v immigration' divide you're suggesting - the two are inextricably linked. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Perhaps you will answer the question Tommy has yet to address. How many immigrants, according to you, do you believe the UK can tolerate, and where's the cutoff point, where we have to say 'no more' ....

And, chained to the EU, how on earth could we ever exercise such a 'cutoff' ... ??

I didn't say immigration wasn't an issue.

I'm saying for the EU debate it shouldn't be.

Again, the figures show that non-EU immigration is high and has been high for a while.

Migration Statistics Quarterly Report - Office for National Statistics

"Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)."

You tell me why net non-EU immigration is HIGHER than net EU immigration and it has been since 2006 and before.

The point is that non-EU immigration is high, and it's the sort of immigration that is causing most of the problems.

Look at the chart. The majority of immigration to the UK is from EU-15 countries, ie, countries in the EU before 2004.

That's these countries.

There is an increase of EU-2 (Bulgaria and Romania) and steady EU-8 (2004 entrants to the EU).

So, the reality is, those who the UK doesn't really want to let in are from the EU-2 countries and many of those from non-EU countries.

Why do these people go to the UK? The welfare system? Why doesn't the UK change the welfare system to stop this happening? Why do they wait at the coast of France to go to the UK? Again... it's not really an immigration issue with the EU.

There is an immigration issue, why are so many non-EU citizens getting in? But leaving the EU doesn't solve this. Then there's a welfare issue within the EU, and why can't they make a welfare system which WORKS???

So, post EU exit the government still will have a welfare system that doesn't work, they'll still have too many people getting in. What changes? Maybe it's time to elect someone who can actually do the job they're elected to do.

How many immigrants can the UK tolerate? Less than are currently in the UK, especially non-EU immigrants and EU-2 immigrants. But then, this isn't Brexit issue.

Non-EU immigration is indeed higher. Not much higher .. but, yes, higher.

There's a roughly 50-50 split in the numbers, isn't there ?

Gaining a 50 percent better control over borders than you have otherwise, just HAS to be a highly relevant debating point !! To deny that it is, is nonsense. It can't help but benefit the UK to gain that extra control.

The Uk's welfare system is indeed stretched. Part of the reason is that immigrants put a burden on it !! And yes, that doesn't just involve 'the legals'. Illegal immigrants do what they can to sponge off of us as well.

Since when did the EU place any sort of priority on considering the state of our welfare system ? Yet, they STILL insist on porous borders for us !! No .. the EU burdens us ... and we have to take up the slack, because we're forced into it.

On June 23rd, this can change. I say it needs to !!

What - foreign, nationalistic ? - interest do you have for saying otherwise ?

The funny thing with your argument is this.

You say the UK will be better able to deal with immigration if it's not in the EU, but then concede that the UK doesn't deal effectively with its borders in the area that has nothing to do with the EU.

Why do you think things will improve after the UK leaves the EU? It's kind of like people who say "I'll go to the gym tomorrow, today I don't feel like it", but then tomorrow never arrives, they always use the same excuse.

So, basically, immigration as an argument for leaving the EU just isn't there. Most people have less of a problem with the EU citizens in the UK than with the non-EU citizens, Pakistanis seem to be a bit of a problem for the British people, Africans seem to be a bit of a problem, the Yardies came from Jamaica. People complain about these people more than about the Poles who come and work hard for the most part. Bulgarians and especially Romanians I can understand. Romanians are involved in a lot of crime and so on.

So, the welfare system is stretched and immigrants, a long with some freeloading teenagers (or people who have never grown up) is a burden on the country in general. Change the welfare system, keep it fair, but make it so they can't just walk in (or walk out of school) and get benefits.

Do you agree with me that an 18 year old should not be able to leave school and walk straight into benefits that don't include things like continuing education?

On June 23rd, if the EU votes leave, you'll have a big party. You'll feel the hope that many people are searching for. Then in 5 years time you'll wonder what the hell happened and why nothing has changed.

In 1990 Helmut Kohl told the people of Germany that reunification was going to be great, and they voted for him. The SPD (liberals) said it would be a tough hard road and the people didn't like this, there was no hope.

They got Kohl and they got the tough road and they weren't prepared for it.

The UK is going to do the same thing if they decide to leave. You'll see, history repeats itself, but you want that hope, just as you might hope England or Wales win the Euros.

 

[HenryBHough]

Carry devolution far enough and Welshmen and Scots will need passports and, if there is genuine caution, strip-searches before being allowed to head across the border and into London.

I can see some good in that.......

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views

Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.

This is shocking.

The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.

Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.

Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.

Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.

The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.

Hmm, well....

There are a lot of conflicts at play here. Corbyn is at best lukewarm and is sitting this one out. Cameron is leading the charge but is a divisive figure.
He was "debating" with Farage last night and it is now a clear economy v immigration debate.

Kate Garraway tried to pin Cameron down, this morning, on the issue of failing to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. She - of course - failed.

For as long as we're in the EU, Cameron can do nothing about it. But he can't come clean about that, and is totally unable to give any promise as to when 'meaningful' progress can ever be made on that.

The UK is not of infinite size. It does not have infinite resources. And yes, this includes economic ones.

Tommy .. do you, yet, have any estimate to offer as to the greatest number of immigrants we can take, here in the UK ? I keep asking you this ....

Er... What do you mean, Cameron can do nothing about it? That's complete rubbish. Again, they're queuing at the French coast to get to the UK, and apparently everyone else can do something about it, but not Cameron.

What makes you think Cameron will be able to do anything about it after?

Why are so many non-EU citizens getting in?

Some immigrants have a 'legal' status. Some do not. This is itself reason for saying that we need the strongest possible controls over our own borders. The EU denies us that, and will continue to (as a 'founding policy', no less !!).

I think we have two tasks ahead of us. In order ...

1. GET SHOT OF THE EU.

2. Work to strengthen border controls. That they DO need strengthening, is surely undeniable, and it's long overdue. Being shot of the EU gives us the maximum freedom to see to it.

What does "strongest possible controls" mean? Strongest possible controls might mean not letting anyone in or out of the country, then you'd have no problems. However the British people have expectations about what their borders are going to be like.
They like visa free travel to a lot of countries and this requires reciprocal agreements.

But, like I've said again, the problems are easier dealt with than you're saying. I don't think I need to talk about welfare again, do i?

Leaving the EU doesn't necessarily make things better. The welfare system will still be the welfare system, it still won't work, and you don't know if the UK will join Schengen or not anyway.

As for number 2, you say the UK needs stronger borders, but do you think the UK government will do this?

Also, how can the UK borders be strengthened? Just by stopping some EU citizens from being able to enter the UK?

Before the world discovered Islam the Poles were the big bugbear of the far right in Britain. By leaving the EU they hope to kick out all of these people. Obviously making Britain a better place.

The downside is that the EU would kick out 3m British pensioners and we would have to find homes for them and Doctors to deal with their many ailments.

I havent seen any costings on this yet.

 

[Drummond]

You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?

But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... but, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?

For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion - the illusion - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?

You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.

For myself ... I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.

No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.

What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.

So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.

I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.

Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.

Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.

Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".

I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?

I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.

Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".

I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.

On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to choose to bend to it !!!!

The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not Barack Obama's interests. Not in Chancellor Merkel's interests. Not in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!! OUR INTERESTS !!!

As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !

So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?

Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!

Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?

But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.

You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....

Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?

Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?

Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction

Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)

Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit

"The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."

Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".

Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?

Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.

No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?

Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?

I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.

Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.

So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?

As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.

In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???

Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???

The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...

I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??

Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.

Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.

And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.

... 'Sorry' ...

How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?

No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter.

Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body.
Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?

Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama?

I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance.

In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious.

'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service

"
'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service"

This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.

(I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)

NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists

"
NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists"

So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting.

After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.



Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge.

I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).

The first part of your reply is laughable. I'm to understand that we in the UK are supposed to be 'fine' about being pushed to the back of the queue to form trading agreements ??

Is this a comment, I wonder, from someone interested in the BEST for the UK, or the WORST ? I suggest your comment is informative .....

In any case, as I said before, it was an empty threat. A nasty one, an empty one, one borne of some measure of politically-motivated desperation, apparently, since it was issued despite being NOT at all authoritatively enforceable !!

You say it might not be a threat, but an insight into how the US Government works. So ... the US Government routinely shoves us to the back of trading queues ?? Since when ? [And, if 'routine' .. then why did Obama even comment ?]

If Obama genuinely has the UK interests at heart, then, if he thinks staying in the EU serves them, he could set out his own case to 'persuade' us ... and not THREATEN us. Oh, and in so doing, he should explain what self-serving agenda on behalf of the US he's pursuing .. yes, he should be that transparent ...

On 'transparency' ... I, ahem, 'like' this wording, from you ...

However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance.

You're keeping everyone ignorant, here, about your nationality, and therefore what self-serving agenda you're pursuing ! You say you've a 'strong' reason for doing so (but you won't say what it is ..). You could easily be from a rival power, one that routinely has not shown itself to be our ally ... and it's that mindset which could well be driving you now. Unfortunately, none of us have any way, so far as I know, of getting to the truth (or otherwise) of that.

Knowledge, not ignorance. Yes - quite ...

On to David Owen's view, then ... Owen, by the way, was a senior figure in British politics in past decades. He even part-founded a Party rivalling Labour, called the SDP. He's also been a Government Minister ...

Look at the Express's report. Owen gives, as his reasoning ...

He is expected to say that a vote to leave the EU would allow the UK to take back control of the NHS and protect it from outside competition.

He will argue that the NHS would be freed from any competition-and-market-led involvement from the European Commission, including a proposed transatlantic free trade deal between the EU and the US.

So, there's your answer. We're freed from the EU's restrictive practices, and their bureaucracy, in this matter. We will be far more free to craft our own agreements elsewhere .. which can only aid the NHS. After all, even as things stand, the NHS is the fifth biggest employer on the planet !! It makes sense to expand the NHS's freedom to seek alternative resources !

Fact is that as matters stand, the EU insists we maintain porous borders.These are borders through which EU citizens (and that's just 'legal' people !!) can pour, seeking benefits they consider they can't get at home. The obvious answer is to put a plug in the plughole, and STOP this traffic of people forever trying to sponge off of us !!

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.

What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.

So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.

I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.

Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.

Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.

Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".

I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?

I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.

Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".

I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.

On Obama ... what's truly 'fucking pathetic' (to quote you) is a world leader coming to Britain, believing he can use his time to throw a threat at us he cannot possibly back up ... and our not seeing through him. Obama's a good example of someone following a political agenda which is NOT Britain's own, its nature can be discerned from Obama's need to use a hostile threat to follow through on it, yet, we're expected, somehow, to choose to bend to it !!!!

The British people have every right to decide their own future. The Conservatives recognised that principle when they paved the way for the forthcoming Referendum. And .. decide it, we will -- according to what is seen to be in the UK's own interests. Not Barack Obama's interests. Not in Chancellor Merkel's interests. Not in Putin' interests, or China's interests, or (if they even care) ISIS's own interests !!! OUR INTERESTS !!!

As for you ... you debate the pros and cons of Brexit, but obviously there's more to your debating than just 'academic interest' ... and an objective need or wish to assess the issue on its own merits. There has to be. Saying so isn't 'attacking' you ... it's just stating the bleedin' obvious, when you're obviously so very determined to hide your nationality here !

So, what advantage do YOU gain, by persuading Brits to abandon thoughts of Brexit ? What nationalistic interest is in play, for you, which you won't even hint at the nature of ?? What will you achieve (or hope to achieve) which a victory in this debate for you will give you ?

Are you arguing a pro-Europe stance because you're from mainland Europe ? Do you serve German interests ? French interests ? Spanish interests ? Romanian interests ? Polish interests ? Perhaps you want immigration into the UK to remain as easy as possible, because it's in your nationalistic interest to see to it that it is ... and unrestrained immigration is NOT in the UK's own interests !!!

Are you ... Russian ? Chinese ? From the Middle East ? Do you represent THEIR political interests .. and want to see to it that the UK follows their preferences, at a cost to its own ?

But still ... never mind. You still need, evidently, to keep silent about your nationality here. It may be your right to do so - I don't question that it is - but it also seems that your reason for hiding it must be a remarkably strong one.

You can't, surely, blame me for wondering about that. Or .. blame anyone else, if they, too, wonder about it ....

Obama threw a threat? What threat would that be?

Would it be this "threat" on this video? Or would you be able to show me this supposed "threat"?

Obama’s remarks on UK remaining in EU get hostile Eurosceptic reaction

Or this one, the Express (do you read the express, please tell me you don't read that trash)

Obama's amazing THREAT to Britain: UK would be at the 'back of the queue' after Brexit

"The US President warned the UK would be “at the back of the queue” for a trade deal with America if it quit Brussels."

Doesn't seem to be a threat, just seems like a "there's a queue, you'd have to join the queue".

Surely the British people need to know this information, wouldn't you say? Don't you think it would be unwise of people to vote in the referendum without knowing what might happen to trade?

Obama is clearly stating an American point of view. The British people need to know more than just the British view of things.

No, you're coming out with "it's for the British people to decide", have you not commented on Trump and Hillary? I mean, it's not your place to make comments, it's only for the Americans, so you should be prevented from saying anything?

Or, can we agree, that everyone should have the right to discuss politics, everyone should have the right to hear other people's opinions, but those who can vote are those who can vote, and Obama can't vote, so why all this anger?

I know why, it's simple. Someone coming out against.

Sol Campbell came out against the EU, I didn't try and shout him down, just say why his reasoning was completely and utterly wrong. Marie Le Pen also came out in favor of leaving, did I criticize and say she shouldn't? No, I did not.

So why do you feel the need to stop British people listening to the arguments you don't like? What is there to hide about leaving the EU that you feel the need to hide?

As for discussing me, I think we can leave that out, don't you? I'm not interested in discussing me. If you are, you can make a threat about me. But yes, my reason for hiding it is strong. I don't come on here for people to attack me. It's simple.

In referring to Obama's threat, I refer to the one the Express reported. And it WAS a threat. By the time we're sufficiently disenfranchised from the EU (these things take time to arrange) Obama would no longer be President, and it's likely that his own Party will also be out of power, too. So ... on what conceivable 'authority' can he be remotely sure about our place in this trading queue he wanted to threaten us about ???

Answer .. HE COULDN'T. Which meant he was making an empty threat, one he couldn't reasonably back up. And yet ... still, he made it !! What powerful, all-overriding imperative, could he have had, to do such a thing ???

The answer has to be a political one. A political goal, agenda, which Obama is desperate to have us follow, and this on the back of an empty threat !! It's just a bit like Al Capone making a personal threat just at the very time he's prosecuted for tax evasion ...

I take it that my case is clear. Foreign agendas do matter, our understanding of what they are, and what they will lead to, definitely ditto. Should the UK decide its fate according to OUR interests, or instead to serve the interests of a power issuing an empty, yet hostile, threat ??

Knowing what others intend for us MATTERS. It helps us reach a fair and reasonable decision.

Oh, and yes, I do read the Express .. and not the Guardian, which is a LEFTIE rag.

And yes ... whether you, Mr (or Mrs ?) Anonymous, approve or not ... I do have every right to make such a choice. It's mine to make.

... 'Sorry' ...

How was it a threat? Because the Express shout out to the rooftops that it is a threat? Oh come on. It sounds more like procedure. Don't the British like their fair queuing and you go to the back of the queue rather than push into the front?

No, Obama would no longer be President. So again, how's it a threat? If Obama is telling the truth, then it's merely how the US govt works, if Obama isn't telling the truth then it doesn't matter.

Perhaps it was a political view. Perhaps Obama believes that Britain being in the EU is in the best interests of the US. I mean, he stated at other times that this is what he believes. See the BBC video on Guardian site for him saying that the USA prefers the EU as a strong united body.
Again, why shouldn't the British people know what the US President has to say on this matter? Surely knowledge is power. However the Brexit side seem to find their power comes from ignorance. Why? Isn't that worrying?

Foreign agendas do matter. Which is why the people need to listen to what foreign leaders are saying. So why are you trying to stop people listening to Obama?

I didn't say you didn't have every right to make your own decision. However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance. As I said before, Brexit people have been trying to keep people in ignorance.

In fact some of their statements are absolutely hilarious.

'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service

"
'Only Brexit can save the NHS' Ex Labour minister says EU is DESTROYING our health service"

This would make me laugh out hard if it weren't so serious. The Tories have been destroying the NHS since day one, the Lib Dems sat back and watched it happen and their own supporters turned against them. But the Express blame this on the EU.

(I just found this, I'd not actually read this before, and was a little shocked, this next one is what I was looking for)

NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists

"
NHS to save £300million EVERY YEAR after Brexit by stopping 'freeloading' health tourists"

So, they made this claim. I've already stated that the UK govt could put in place measures to stop this, but haven't. Health tourists would still be able to go to the UK after leaving the EU anyway, and they'd still get free healthcare. I doubt the EU health card thing would disappear, as it would cause problems for so many British tourists who get free healthcare in countries like Spain and Greece after alcohol induced vomiting.

After this, I'm sorry I can't think exactly what it was, but there was something a day or two after the one I quoted happened and some stay person made claims about how much money would be saved from something or other, and then Johnson or Farage came out and criticized them for making stuff up about costs, which is exactly what they had done like 2 days previously.



Also, I don't see why you're saying sorry. I want people to vote, and I want them to vote for they think is best for them. However I think people need knowledge.

I'm a liberal. Someone before the 2010 asked me about who to vote for at that election and I didn't say "vote Labour" or "vote Lib Dems". I gave her the facts and I believe she then voted Tory (but I doubt she'll be doing that again, she became a teacher in the UK).

The first part of your reply is laughable. I'm to understand that we in the UK are supposed to be 'fine' about being pushed to the back of the queue to form trading agreements ??

Is this a comment, I wonder, from someone interested in the BEST for the UK, or the WORST ? I suggest your comment is informative .....

In any case, as I said before, it was an empty threat. A nasty one, an empty one, one borne of some measure of politically-motivated desperation, apparently, since it was issued despite being NOT at all authoritatively enforceable !!

You say it might not be a threat, but an insight into how the US Government works. So ... the US Government routinely shoves us to the back of trading queues ?? Since when ? [And, if 'routine' .. then why did Obama even comment ?]

If Obama genuinely has the UK interests at heart, then, if he thinks staying in the EU serves them, he could set out his own case to 'persuade' us ... and not THREATEN us. Oh, and in so doing, he should explain what self-serving agenda on behalf of the US he's pursuing .. yes, he should be that transparent ...

On 'transparency' ... I, ahem, 'like' this wording, from you ...

However I would like you, and everyone else who will be voting, to make a vote based on knowledge and not ignorance.

You're keeping everyone ignorant, here, about your nationality, and therefore what self-serving agenda you're pursuing ! You say you've a 'strong' reason for doing so (but you won't say what it is ..). You could easily be from a rival power, one that routinely has not shown itself to be our ally ... and it's that mindset which could well be driving you now. Unfortunately, none of us have any way, so far as I know, of getting to the truth (or otherwise) of that.

Knowledge, not ignorance. Yes - quite ...

On to David Owen's view, then ... Owen, by the way, was a senior figure in British politics in past decades. He even part-founded a Party rivalling Labour, called the SDP. He's also been a Government Minister ...

Look at the Express's report. Owen gives, as his reasoning ...

He is expected to say that a vote to leave the EU would allow the UK to take back control of the NHS and protect it from outside competition.

He will argue that the NHS would be freed from any competition-and-market-led involvement from the European Commission, including a proposed transatlantic free trade deal between the EU and the US.

So, there's your answer. We're freed from the EU's restrictive practices, and their bureaucracy, in this matter. We will be far more free to craft our own agreements elsewhere .. which can only aid the NHS. After all, even as things stand, the NHS is the fifth biggest employer on the planet !! It makes sense to expand the NHS's freedom to seek alternative resources !

Fact is that as matters stand, the EU insists we maintain porous borders.These are borders through which EU citizens (and that's just 'legal' people !!) can pour, seeking benefits they consider they can't get at home. The obvious answer is to put a plug in the plughole, and STOP this traffic of people forever trying to sponge off of us !!

Well at least you're having fun, hey?

No, you aren't being pushed to the back, you're taking your position at the back of the queue. You seem to be demanding special treatment here. Why?

Is Obama interested in the best interests of the UK? No. He never said he was. He's said what is in the best interests of the USA. The UK out of the EU might not be in the best interests of the USA, and making a trade deal with Britain as priority might not be in the best interests of the USA, it might be in their interests to do things in chronological order.

The point being, again, Obama has the power to say, and the British people should use their brains and listen.

You keep making this into some kind of fight without actually looking at what is sensible for people to do.

Again, KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, knowing how other countries might react is knowledge that can lead to the best decision.

All you seem interested in is vilifying Obama, America, anyone who has an opinion other than yours, then start shouting that you have the right to vote the way you like and blah blah, but so does everyone else, and they also have the right to know what is going on before they vote.

Why does Brexit not want people to know?

You started attacking me because you don't know where I'm from. You attack Obama because he's from America.... really? People should be informed, don't you think?


My nationality has nothing to do with it. I'm beginning to think you want to fuck me, the amount you keep talking about me. Did you notice "frigidweirdo" in the title of this thread? No, well then, stick to the topic.

The People of the UK don't need to know where I'm from, I mean, I think I only talk to about 2 or three UK people about this anyway.