Brexit busted.

[frigidweirdo]

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

Ah, and we come back to this attack again.

I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.

I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.

I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.

But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.

 

[Drummond]

Everyone knows that lords in the House of Lords reach their position through no form of voting system. However ... they are at least British, and do NOT constitute any foreign power. The same cannot be said of the EU, of course, where foreigners predominate, AND have the power to legislate 'for' us.

But see this ...

Who will be in the EU’s next unelected politburo? | AECR

You were saying .... ?

Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?

You say they're British.

Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)

That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?

Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.

Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.

And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.

Tell me - have the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?

And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?

Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....

Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".

They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?

Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.

The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".

I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...

But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...

... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.

You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.

Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)

The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.

Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.

However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.

The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.

What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.

This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.

A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...

Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.

Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, also doesn't.

You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?

If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !

 

[Drummond]

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

Ah, and we come back to this attack again.

I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.

I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.

I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.

But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.

I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are truly being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!

As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?

If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.

And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, it's okay because they're British. Do they represent the normal British people though? More of them are Tories than anything else. Is this fair? The Tories have permanent dominance in one part of government? If you're not a Tory, then does the House of Lords represent you?

You say they're British.

Scotland has 16 peers as far as I can tell from this: MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9) (Hansard, 22 June 1999)

That's out of 801 who can sit in the House of Lords. Do you think the Scottish might think this is a little unfair? How many of these Scottish peers are more interested in the interests of England or Britain over Scotland too?

Juncker was appointed as head of the EU. There are 28 members of the commission, each one is chosen by the ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the country they are from. Each country gets one. So, the UK voted for Cameron, Cameron chose this person. That's a lot more democratic than the House of Lords where the government can just make anyone a peer, so they can put in 2,000 of their own, and have a massive majority, no matter what.

Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.

And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.

Tell me - have the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?

And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?

Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....

Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".

They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?

Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.

The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".

I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...

But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...

... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.

You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.

Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)

The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.

Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.

However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.

The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.

What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.

This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.

A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...

Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.

Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, also doesn't.

You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?

If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !

Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.

My true agenda? You want my true agenda?

I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.

But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.

You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.

 

[frigidweirdo]

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

Ah, and we come back to this attack again.

I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.

I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.

I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.

But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.

I'm trying to find out what's truly behind your anti-Brexit argumentation. To see what agenda is in play, and whose interests are truly being served by it. Which is entirely reasonable of me, considering your determination to argue a path for the UK that will one day see it stripped of sovereignty and autonomy !!

As yet, you've gone so far as to hint at a Left-wing set of biases,one anti-Nationalistic ... so tell me. Is your agenda one of a Globalist, 'One World', Socialist-led world ? Do you perhaps see the expanding and nationality-crushing EU as a stepping-stone to such an ambition ?

If I'm wrong, you can choose to offer information proving me wrong. But will you do so ?

Why are you trying to find this out? So you can attack me?

Why not stick to the arguments? It can't be that hard, even if the arguments are as weak as American piss beer.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.

And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES

Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.

 

[Esmeralda]

Obama's Brexit message.


We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.

He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
I think we know the answer to that.

It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.

Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.

 

[Phoenall]

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

Ah, and we come back to this attack again.

I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.

I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.

I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.

But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.

Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.

Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists

 

[Mindful]

Obama's Brexit message.


We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.

He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
I think we know the answer to that.

It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.

Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.

He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.

And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.

 

[frigidweirdo]

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

Ah, and we come back to this attack again.

I'll attack the Tory government because I happen to think the NHS is quite a good system. I mean, it costs half what the US system costs, isn't half as bad in any respects, and treats all people, and under Labour it was what people dreamed it could be, and under the Tories it's what it shouldn't be.

I don't like Trump. (I don't like Hillary either). The Republicans are destroying the US.
I happen to think Merkel in Germany is a rather effective leader, even if she's on the right, but right often means different things in different countries.
In Austria I happen to find the FPOe rather repulsive, and the BZOe that existed before in Karten.
In South Africa I happen to find the ANC rather repulsive these days and wish they'd stop being so corrupt.
In China I might be against the authoritarian leadership, but believe that at present it is the best thing for the Chinese people.
In Russia I understand why Putin does so well, I don't particularly like him because he's a Nationalist of the worst kind, but then the Russians don't seem to be able to cope well with other leaders.

I have opinions about many countries. You don't need to know where I'm from, just that I'm rather informed about many different political systems around the world, yet know almost nothing about East Timor's government.

But again, this is about the arguments. I have my slant on things, just like everyone else's. You seem to want to try attacking people to make them shut up, which is rather worrying, but then I tie that in with your support for Brexit and I've formed an opinion of you, which I don't need to state because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll leave my personal thoughts on you far away from the debate.

Under Labour the working man in the UK could not get any treatment as migrants came first, and that is why we saw queues waiting to be seen while migrants from all over the world were ushered into private rooms and given the best of everything. An ambulance used to ferry a whole family to A&E so that little Abdul could be treated for a splinter in his finger. Now they get told to visit their G.P or take it out themselves.

Strange how you swing your Pom Pom's for Labour yet loathe the ANC when they are the same party, both neo marxists

Er... I don't believe that, in fact I know it not to be true.

Yes, Labour caused problems with mass immigration, I won't deny they were wrong.

However this was the British government doing this. Not the EU government. WHich begs the question of what people think they're going to get different outside of the EU from immigration.

 

[Esmeralda]

Obama's Brexit message.


We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.

He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
I think we know the answer to that.

It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.

Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.

He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.

And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.

He said what he believed to be the truth. He didn't order you to do anything. He didn't 'warn' you not to do what you wanted. He said simply and straightforwardly what it meant. You characterized it very differently than what it was.

You think he doesn't consider America's interests? He considers America's interests in everything he does and says.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Obama's Brexit message.


We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.

He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
I think we know the answer to that.

It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.

Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.

He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.

And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.

He said what he believed to be the truth. He didn't order you to do anything. He didn't 'warn' you not to do what you wanted. He said simply and straightforwardly what it meant. You characterized it very differently than what it was.

Problem is, the only thing the Brexit people have is to try and shut anyone up who doesn't say what they don't like.

I've got a guy coming on here and attacking me, demanding to know things about me, simply so he doesn't have to deal with the issue.

 

[Mindful]

Obama's Brexit message.


We saved your asses in WW2, now do what you are told.

He was giving an honest opinion which wasnt to the taste of the little Englanders who want to live in the 50s. Have they actually spoken to any of the countries that they want to trade with ?
I think we know the answer to that.

It was no opinion. It was an ultimatum.

Who told you this stuff? It's really nonsense.

He's warned us in no uncertain terms, if we leave, we go to the back of the queue.

And it's the first time I've heard him refer to considering America's interests.

He said what he believed to be the truth. He didn't order you to do anything. He didn't 'warn' you not to do what you wanted. He said simply and straightforwardly what it meant. You characterized it very differently than what it was.

We took exception to his arrogance.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.

And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES

Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.

How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

So we rid the UK of 10% of its current population that is costing £trillions and get back 0.25% as pensioners on private pensions paying taxes. Would you like to do the costings, and explain how this is so unfair. We would be a lot better of and in the black for the NHS again.

And were have the EU said they will kick out 3 million ex pats, or is this another of your LIES

Costing trillions, of which they're paying money. Change the low paid work force and exchange them for old grannies who won't work, and then see plumbers earning a fortune because the UK doesn't have enough, unless of course you want to solve your plumbing problems by sticking a grannie in the cracks.

How are they paying when they are too old to work, have no skills and don't want to work. Those that do work claim all the welfare they can and send it straight back home. Then there is the education needed to allow them to talk English, and not need translators to answer questions. The cost of treating their medical problems alone has put the NHS on the brink of bankruptcy. I could have made a fortune 10 times over putting right the shoddy and dangerous work done by migrants claiming to be plumbers, same with friends who were joiners, electricians and bricklayers. People go to a migrant plumber and pay them half what the job would cost, and then have to pay twice as much when it is seen to be dangerous. Simple answer is to make the workshy get out and do those jobs or stop their money. After 14 years of Labour pandering to the lazy and feckless we needed something done to sort the problem, and importing more unemployables is not the way.

There's a problem with the welfare system. I've said this a lot recently. People think that leaving the EU will make the UK welfare system better. How? It's the UK govt that makes the welfare system.

It's funny, people keep pointing out reasons why the UK needs to leave the EU, and mostly they point to the incompetence of the UK govt for the reasons for leaving.

I don't get it.

 

[Drummond]

Yes, I say they're British. As in, not part of a foreign control-freaking elite, dominated by those foreigners, putting UK interests a long way down their list of priorities ! Whether or not you like the House of Lords, they do NOT represent a foreign power, and the activities of the House of Lords do serve British interests. And, British interests FIRST.

And if you concede that the Government can put in peers 'of their own', then it's an ELECTED Government that chooses to. The result may not be directly democratic ... but, there's an indirect version of it in play in your scenario.

Tell me - have the Government put in '2000' peers ? Care to list them ?

And in your 'model democracy' in the EU ... even with the example you gave, isn't it the case that foreign votes predominate over ours ?

Oh , and do tell us what your ambitions and goals are in arguing your line. Are they 'British-friendly' ? I keep addressing this. But you won't even divulge your nationality, to so much as give us a clue. And .. you won't be candid as to why ....

Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".

They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?

Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.

The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".

I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...

But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...

... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.

You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.

Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)

The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.

Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.

However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.

The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.

What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.

This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.

A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...

Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.

Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, also doesn't.

You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?

If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !

Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.

My true agenda? You want my true agenda?

I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.

But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.

You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.

Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ?

Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.

As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.

... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Unless of course you're Scottish, Welsh or Catholic from Northern Ireland, in which case you probably do thing they're part of a "foreign control-freaking elite".

They don't put British interests first. Many of them are Tories, when have the Tories ever put British interests first? I mean, the Tories are destroying the NHS, right? Whose interests are they representing exactly when they do this? The people? No, they're putting the interests of the RICH first. What about education, are they representing the British people when they're messing around with schools, turning them into academies for no reason other than they want to save money and privatize the schools, and make the rich richer?

Seriously? Just because you're British, doesn't mean you're looking out for the interests of the British.

The funny thing about what I said about the House of Lords, you concede there is indirect democracy. This is the same as the EU executive. Yet with the EU you say "it's bad, it's not democracy" with the House of Lords you say "It's good, it's indirect democracy".

I'm an Englishman, living in Wales. Do I think I'm living in a foreign land ? NO. Do I doubt my thinking, when I'm surrounded by people (occasionally) talking in a near impenetrable Welsh accent ? Er'm, sometimes ...

But, no. I don't think of Wales, Scotland, etc as 'foreign lands'. Do I think of France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc as 'foreign lands' ... well .. YES .. because ... they ARE ...

... and they think they have a right to legislate for us in the UK, courtesy of being part of the EU !! High time we were shot of such interference in our affairs.

You say the Conservatives don't put British interests first. I disagree ... some Conservatives definitely do .. Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith .. two stellar examples for you of Conservatives who do. There are, of course, other such examples. Though .. Cameron could be argued, through his scaremongering tactics, to be putting the EU before all else,namely, FOREIGN interests .. so maybe you've a point of sorts.

Don't bore me with talk of the Conservatives 'trying to destroy the NHS'. Such claims were made decades ago, yet the NHS not only still exists, but dominates our healthcare. These claims are mere Leftie rot.

... OK. Your last posting was an attack on the Conservatives. I must ask you yet again what agenda you're following. Since you won't even admit to your own nationality (!) ... and since you're disparaging of our own Party in Government, can I safely conclude that yours is definitely a hostile agenda .. this accounting for your many, persistently, pro-EU arguments ????

The south of Wales is far more Anglosized than the north of Wales. Now, I don't know where abouts you live, but I also know that many in Scotland hate the English political system based in London far more than the Welsh (the Welsh with the Assembly but the Scots with the Parliament, for example, shows that the Scots are far more independent.)

The point I'm making again, is, the Scots and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even some Welsh, might feel the same about Westminster as you do Brussels.

Do you think Boris Johnson is putting the UK first? I think he's putting himself first. With this whole EU campaign, he's gunning for the top job, PM. This is what it's about for him. Ian Duncan Smith, yeah, maybe he's got much more integrity than many other politicians.

However the Tories in general don't, and Cameron's still going to be PM.

The NHS still exists. The Tories aren't trying to destroy the NHS so much that people vote them out. They must remember 1997 and getting their arses handed to them on a plate, and the state the NHS was in. Do you remember the MRSA (I think that's what it was called) problem in hospitals that was as a result of neglect in hospitals for so long.

What the Tories want is a private system like the US. It gives future Tory donors lots of opportunities to make money out of a system that is totally unnecessary. So they're going for the slow disintegration of the NHS, to meet their own needs, make healthcare more expensive, more private, more in line with their own ways of making profit.

This isn't the place here for such a large discussion about this, but I can see it's happening.

A 'slow disintegration' of the NHS, having lasted decades already, with the NHS still one of the largest employers on the planet (!) .... and still ongoing, apparently to take, ahem, 'decades more' ...

Really ... this is classic Leftie stuff, and it does NOT stack up against reality.

Just as the spectre of WWIII breaking out, if the UK leaves the EU, also doesn't.

You've dodged questioning over what your true agenda is. You've definitely avoided accountability over EVEN what your NATIONALITY is. Now .. maybe you do have a right to withhold that information. But you're doing it for a reason - one which possibly disguises the really hostile nature of your anti-Brexit argumentation ? An agenda putting the interests of a power perhaps a rival one, before those of the UK .. ?

If I'm wrong ... I challenge you to prove it !

Decades already? Now, it's been 6 years. You do remember that the Tories haven't been in for decades, don't you? That people elected Labour to save it in 1997?
And education. I know some teachers in the UK, and I know they're far more demoralized now than they were under Labour.

My true agenda? You want my true agenda?

I like using my brain, that's my true agenda.

But then again it doesn't matter. This isn't life or death, you aren't going to change your vote talking to me not matter how right I am. So.... my agenda can't be that much if you're like the only British person I even debate about the EU with. I do know someone who's on the stay campaign though, I don't talk to him and haven't for a long while, but there you go.

You go looking for ghouls and demons and ignore answering the questions and looking at the points.

Six years, currently. Have there been no Conservative Governments before 2010 ?

Margaret Thatcher was accused of wanting to dismantle the NHS, and that was decades ago.

As for education ... I lament the demise of grammar schools. It's a way of saying goodbye to excellence.

... as to your agenda ... you ARE Left wing, you've established that. You remain secretive about your nationality. I am entitled to draw conclusions from that ... and, I do.

Yes, with a massive gap where Labour massively increased funding for education and health, and repaired the health service in 13 years, only to see it go downhill again.

As for my agenda, blah, blah, blah, shut the fuck up this got old already.

 

[frigidweirdo]

EU referendum: Which type of person wants to leave, and which type wants to remain?

Unfortunately can't bring up the graph.

Most pro-EU, Northern Ireland, Scotland, London, Wales and North East of England.

It's only England that wants out. Yet England is all it's about, apparently.

The young want in, it's their future, the old want out, they don't give a shit any more, they just want to moan and groan and wouldn't mind a quicky with Farage or Johnson.

The more educated want to stay in, the less educated want to leave.

They just like to be told what to think, rather than use their own brain.

 

[Mindful]

I've just been watching a woman on Fox Business applauding the idea of Brexit, welcoming the idea of Britain and the US as trading partners.

In direct contrast to what Obama was telling us when he was in the UK.