The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (5 Viewers)

[Astute]

No. In this case he is not alone in his opinion.

This is the problem that people have with you.

The last time he said something rigjt I mentioned it on here. I was then branded racist and everything else that comes with it. Farage is supposed to be the unmentionable that only gets mentioned by the remain camp.

But if you are in the remain camp you can mention the occasional thing he gets right without all the shit that comes with it.

It is the same with the daily rags. But when they print something that backs up a remain thought it is suddenly OK to use it.

 

---

[martcov]

This is the problem that people have with you.

The last time he said something rigjt I mentioned it on here. I was then branded racist and everything else that comes with it. Farage is supposed to be the unmentionable that only gets mentioned by the remain camp.

But if you are in the remain camp you can mention the occasional thing he gets right without all the shit that comes with it.

It is the same with the daily rags. But when they print something that backs up a remain thought it is suddenly OK to use it.

What was racist or bollocks in his tweet this time? He posted a widely across the board view. Not everyone agrees, but many do. It shows openness when you can accept some views of people you don’t like in general. You don’t like the EU and post exclusively negative things about it. Even when they try and correct things which you criticised.

 

[Astute]

What was racist or bollocks in his tweet this time? He posted a widely across the board view. Not everyone agrees, but many do. It shows openness when you can accept some views of people you don’t like in general. You don’t like the EU and post exclusively negative things about it. Even when they try and correct things which you criticised.

So finally you get it.

If a remainer quotes him it is OK. If a leaver quotes him they get nothing but shit. And you are one of those who gives it out. You try to make out that people love him or support his views. But we all know that for the vast majority that it isn't true.

But as usual you will try to deny it when there is page after page of that bullshit on here.

Or are you trying to say that it isn't true?

In a debate what is good for one side is also good for the other. But not on this one.

 

[Astute]

You don’t like the EU and post exclusively negative things about it. Even when they try and correct things which you criticised.

I do not like the way it is run. That is 100% correct. Things need to change. It shouldn't be a gravy train for those involved. And yes there needs ti be a way of bringing in changes without every country having to agree.

But it looks like going from one extreme to the other. Agree to lose your vote or you have to leave. You agree it is the way to go. And you go on about democracy.

Or how about the EU budget? About half goes to landowners/farmers. Yes over 50 billion a year. It keeps food prices up. The rich get money for having land passed down to them. The poor pay more for their food. Yet you call it if there is another way the poor are made worse off. You call it if it is another way the rich make money. But you ignore where about half of the EU budget goes.

How about the billions lost to fraud each year? And I am not on about the fraud that Juncker was involved in. Look at how much is lost to fraud in Italy alone. And when you think that about half of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies and landowners alone the amount lost to fraud is a high % of what remains. You say they are doing something about it. Why didn't they do something about it 20 years ago?

All you ever do is say things need to change but defend just about everything they do. And then you have a go at anyone who questions what they do.

 

[martcov]

I do not like the way it is run. That is 100% correct. Things need to change. It shouldn't be a gravy train for those involved. And yes there needs ti be a way of bringing in changes without every country having to agree.

But it looks like going from one extreme to the other. Agree to lose your vote or you have to leave. You agree it is the way to go. And you go on about democracy.

Or how about the EU budget? About half goes to landowners/farmers. Yes over 50 billion a year. It keeps food prices up. The rich get money for having land passed down to them. The poor pay more for their food. Yet you call it if there is another way the poor are made worse off. You call it if it is another way the rich make money. But you ignore where about half of the EU budget goes.

How about the billions lost to fraud each year? And I am not on about the fraud that Juncker was involved in. Look at how much is lost to fraud in Italy alone. And when you think that about half of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies and landowners alone the amount lost to fraud is a high % of what remains. You say they are doing something about it. Why didn't they do something about it 20 years ago?

All you ever do is say things need to change but defend just about everything they do. And then you have a go at anyone who questions what they do.

I don’t like gravy trainers and think their „wages“ should be linked to something e.g. average wage or x% above what we count as poverty.

If you leave, you lose your vote. That’s democracy and BTW why I haven’t voting rights in the UK...

 

[mrtrench]

I haven’t voting rights in the UK...

Phew!

 

[mrtrench]

I'm pretty happy with where we have landed so far (I think... reserve the right to change my mind if more information becomes available). If we are to have open borders between NI and Eire I cannot see a more palatable solution than the one we have reached. Logically, if we have regulatory equivalence between NI and Eire and NI and the rest of the UK, we can also have free movement of goods between Dover and Calais.

If we can now reach a reasonable trade deal without free movement of people I'll be very happy. However if we cannot then personally I'd go without the trade deal for now - they'll be back with a better offer in time.

However, I do have a doubt. The next step may be 'how can you have free movement of goods without people too?'...

 

[martcov]

I do not like the way it is run. That is 100% correct. Things need to change. It shouldn't be a gravy train for those involved. And yes there needs ti be a way of bringing in changes without every country having to agree.

But it looks like going from one extreme to the other. Agree to lose your vote or you have to leave. You agree it is the way to go. And you go on about democracy.

Or how about the EU budget? About half goes to landowners/farmers. Yes over 50 billion a year. It keeps food prices up. The rich get money for having land passed down to them. The poor pay more for their food. Yet you call it if there is another way the poor are made worse off. You call it if it is another way the rich make money. But you ignore where about half of the EU budget goes.

How about the billions lost to fraud each year? And I am not on about the fraud that Juncker was involved in. Look at how much is lost to fraud in Italy alone. And when you think that about half of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies and landowners alone the amount lost to fraud is a high % of what remains. You say they are doing something about it. Why didn't they do something about it 20 years ago?

All you ever do is say things need to change but defend just about everything they do. And then you have a go at anyone who questions what they do.

Fraud is everywhere and should be chased and punished.

The EU budget will be reduced because of Brexit and hopefully things will be rethought to be fairer.

I have said often enough I am against corruption, gravy training etc.. I defend attempts to reform. I don’t defend things that are not working.

Anyway just done my written German exam for my citizenship and after lunch I am doing my oral. If you don’t like Muslims you wouldn’t like my fellow students here. I think it is great that they are integrating and trying for citizenship. Most are young people between 20 and 35. You have to have lived 8 years to get citizenship, so maybe some of them are just sitting the exam to be able to get a job. Which is also good news.

 

[martcov]

Phew!

Bad news is that, assuming I get my German citizenship, I will be able to vote for Schulz to annoy Astute and co..

 

[mrtrench]

Who on here has said that they don't like Muslims?

 

[martcov]

Who on here has said that they don't like Muslims?

No one. People just post links about Muslim terrorists and how bad Sweden and Germany have become because of Muslim refugees. How they have made Europe unsafe.

 

[mrtrench]

No one. People just post links about Muslim terrorists and how bad Sweden and Germany have become because of Muslim refugees. How they have made Europe unsafe.

Oh, OK. Well I'll be the first then to say that I don't like Muslim terrorists. I like most of them though - the ones that don't kill people... the ones who, for example, might want to take a German citizenship test.

 

[martcov]

Theresa May’s Brexit deal ‘hard to reconcile’ with UK leaving the single market and customs union, EU says

How’s this work? Seems very contradictory. Who is blagging who here?

 

[martcov]

Oh, now I get it. Gove just answered my post: "By the time of the next election, EU law and any new treaty with the EU will cease to have primacy or direct effect in UK law," said Mr Gove, which means the UK could change or reject its agreements with Brussels.

 

[Captain Dart]

 

[martcov]

You didn’t find that in Breitbart...

 

[mrtrench]

You didn’t find that in Breitbart...

Mart, I didn't even know what Breitbart was until you started going on about it. It's rather disingenuous of you to keep namechecking it.

 

[mrtrench]

I love the first one. Certainty is a sure sign of ignorance IMO. Do people here know about the Dunning Kruger experiment? It turns out that intelligence and ability are inversely proportional to certainty and confidence.

 

[Captain Dart]

You didn’t find that in Breitbart...

Try reading the upper right hand corner..

 

[martcov]

Mart, I didn't even know what Breitbart was until you started going on about it. It's rather disingenuous of you to keep namechecking it.

It got on here through certain posters. As with Friataden.

I knew about Breitbart from my Texas namesake ( real name ). He is a gun toting racist Christian Texan nationalist and sends me links by FB. Apart from our name the only joint interest is craft beer.

 

[martcov]

Try reading the upper right hand corner..

Bertrand Russell was an atheist, so it is not surprising it comes from there. Just surprised there was no link to Muslim terrorism and Breitbart.

 

[martcov]

Northern Ireland would be under their legislation. There is zero chance Ireland will be offered a referendum prior to Brexit - Westminster won't do it, there is no Irish Parliament in N Ireland at present and Eire have said they are not interested.

So instead of skirting the issue - tell me how will they be able to join under EU legislation?

More Northern Irish people want to join the Republic to stay in the EU than stay in the UK

 

[mrtrench]

More Northern Irish people want to join the Republic to stay in the EU than stay in the UK

"More than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland were asked whether they would vote to join a united Ireland or to stay in the UK "in the context of a hard Brexit... leaving the EU with no deal on the border, the Good Friday Agreement or citizens' rights".

Misleading headline - it's a bad survey:

1) Poor question leading the response. Could they have been more negative?
2) Tiny sample size
3) "The survey commissioned by a left-leaning group in the European Parliament". So hardly surprising the survey was biased. This is just propaganda. What has happened to the Independent, it used to be a good newspaper?

 

[mrtrench]

It's OK, I've answered my own question:

"On 25 March 2010, Independent News & Media sold the newspaper to Russian oligarchAlexander Lebedev for a nominal £1 fee and £9.25m over the next 10 months"

Bit of a misnomer calling itself the Independent doncha think?

 

[martcov]

"More than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland were asked whether they would vote to join a united Ireland or to stay in the UK "in the context of a hard Brexit... leaving the EU with no deal on the border, the Good Friday Agreement or citizens' rights".

Misleading headline - it's a bad survey:

1) Poor question leading the response. Could they have been more negative?
2) Tiny sample size
3) "The survey commissioned by a left-leaning group in the European Parliament". So hardly surprising the survey was biased. This is just propaganda. What has happened to the Independent, it used to be a good newspaper?

They told you the size of the survey and who commissioned it. It is in the news anyway, so I think it is fair enough for them to publish it with that information- you can make up your own mind as to it’s relevance. It seems to fit in with what other people claim to have heard. It would be advisable to see what others say before writing it off though. That way you get a broader picture.

 

[martcov]

It's OK, I've answered my own question:

"On 25 March 2010, Independent News & Media sold the newspaper to Russian oligarchAlexander Lebedev for a nominal £1 fee and £9.25m over the next 10 months"

Bit of a misnomer calling itself the Independent doncha think?

Tbf it is not following the Russian troll line which is anti EU.

 

[Astute]

EU region BEGS Brussels to give Britain good Brexit deal amid fears of economic MELTDOWN

Seems similar to what some of us are saying. And they get a say unless vites are taken away quickly.

 

[skybluetony176]

"More than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland were asked whether they would vote to join a united Ireland or to stay in the UK "in the context of a hard Brexit... leaving the EU with no deal on the border, the Good Friday Agreement or citizens' rights".

Misleading headline - it's a bad survey:

1) Poor question leading the response. Could they have been more negative?
2) Tiny sample size
3) "The survey commissioned by a left-leaning group in the European Parliament". So hardly surprising the survey was biased. This is just propaganda. What has happened to the Independent, it used to be a good newspaper?

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s right though. The population split is pretty equal in terms of Protestant to Catholic and we all know what Catholics want. Then you have to consider the amount of people from all faiths who depend on the south for work whether that be that they work in the south or their business/the business they work for depends on the south. To some people simply being able to pay their mortgage might be enough to sway their vote. It’s finely balanced in the north. Regardless of the source of the story I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.

 

[mrtrench]

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s right though. The population split is pretty equal in terms of Protestant to Catholic and we all know what Catholics want. Then you have to consider the amount of people from all faiths who depend on the south for work whether that be that they work in the south or their business/the business they work for depends on the south. To some people simply being able to pay their mortgage might be enough to sway their vote. It’s finely balanced in the north. Regardless of the source of the story I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.

I'd be very surprised if it were correct. Historically only about 20% of people wanted to leave the UK. However if there is a majority now then I'd support them leaving.

 

[martcov]

EU region BEGS Brussels to give Britain good Brexit deal amid fears of economic MELTDOWN

Seems similar to what some of us are saying. And they get a say unless vites are taken away quickly.

Anyone can veto any deal. Gove has also just said the UK can change any deal after leaving the EU. No one wants a lose lose situation. So, basically no news. But good headline for Brexiteers.

 

[mrtrench]

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s right though. The population split is pretty equal in terms of Protestant to Catholic and we all know what Catholics want. Then you have to consider the amount of people from all faiths who depend on the south for work whether that be that they work in the south or their business/the business they work for depends on the south. To some people simply being able to pay their mortgage might be enough to sway their vote. It’s finely balanced in the north. Regardless of the source of the story I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.

And it's not the source I'm questioning Tony - the question is bad and the sample size is so small as to make the results irrelevent. I know a little about surveys from my degree. Let me try to explain.

1) If you want to draw conclusions you need to ensure that your question is clear, has no room for noise and doesn't lead the responder to answer in a specific way. The question fails that test. If asks if people want to lose the Good Friday agreement and citizens' rights as well - you cannot conclude from the answers that most want to join the republic.

2) In order to draw conclusions, you need a sample size big enough with respect to the population such that your hypothesis can be supported with any confidence. I won't go into the details of the calculation, but there is a mathematical formula to assess the confidence you can have in the result (confidence is measured as a percentage).

Let me give you an example. If I give you a bag with 100 balls inside and you draw 3 at random and they are all black, how confident would you feel saying that most of the balls in the bag are black? Now let's use the proportions from this survey: 2000 people in a population of 1.8 million. That's the equivalent of giving you a bag with 1,000 balls and you drawing one (that's 1!) and see it is black. Even if you were confident drawing 3 from 100 (and I'm not) - surely you can see that the result is irrelevant on that basis?

 

[martcov]

And it's not the source I'm questioning Tony - the question is bad and the sample size is so small as to make the results irrelevent. I know a little about surveys from my degree. Let me try to explain.

1) If you want to draw conclusions you need to ensure that your question is clear, has no room for noise and doesn't lead the responder to answer in a specific way. The question fails that test. If asks if people want to lose the Good Friday agreement and citizens' rights as well - you cannot conclude from the answers that most want to join the republic.

2) In order to draw conclusions, you need a sample size big enough with respect to the population such that your hypothesis can be supported with any confidence. I won't go into the details of the calculation, but there is a mathematical formula to assess the confidence you can have in the result (confidence is measured as a percentage).

Let me give you an example. If I give you a bag with 100 balls inside and you draw 3 at random and they are all black, how confident would you feel saying that most of the balls in the bag are black? Now let's use the proportions from this survey: 2000 people in a population of 1.8 million. That's the equivalent of giving you a bag with 1,000 balls and you drawing one (that's 1!) and see it is black. Even if you were confident drawing 3 from 100 (and I'm not) - surely you can see that the result is irrelevant on that basis?

Not totally irrelevant as it was taken from several areas. In other words several bags.

 

[mrtrench]

Not totally irrelevant as it was taken from several areas. In other words several bags.

Mart, that's not correct. The bag is Northern Ireland.

Don't mean to be rude but I'm calling superior knowledge on this one as someone who studied statistics to degree level as part of a maths degree. Believe what you want but a 'so called expert' is saying that this survey is flawed and you cannot draw the conclusion that most people in NI want to merge with the Republic to remain in the EU.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Anyone can veto any deal. Gove has also just said the UK can change any deal after leaving the EU. No one wants a lose lose situation. So, basically no news. But good headline for Brexiteers.

Sensible comment by Gove ie basically saying whatever the final agreement will need the UK publics buy in. If the EU try to leg us over the public won't stand for it. Most sensible brexiteers will accept a fair compromise but if it swings too far the other way they are likely to cut up rough.

So far so good (on a the face of it) in terms a sensible compromise although still uncertain about the Irish border position (fudge). Certainly the 'bill' appears to be fair and once the public look and understand the detail ie how much we'd have to pay per year for the commitments we have signed up until 2019/2020 and then the transition period it's not the ridiculous figure it might first appear.

As I said previously Mays had a shocking year but has done well to get it to this stage. I'm not sure whether anyone else in the Tory party (and certainly not Corbyn) could have.

 

[martcov]

Sensible comment by Gove ie basically saying whatever the final agreement will need the UK publics buy in. If the EU try to leg us over the public won't stand for it. Most sensible brexiteers will accept a fair compromise but if it swings too far the other way they are likely to cut up rough.

So far so good (on a the face of it) in terms a sensible compromise although still uncertain about the Irish border position (fudge). Certainly the 'bill' appears to be fair and once the public look and understand the detail ie how much we'd have to pay per year for the commitments we have signed up until 2019/2020 and then the transition period it's not the ridiculous figure it might first appear.

As I said previously Mays had a shocking year but has done well to get it to this stage. I'm not sure whether anyone else in the Tory party (and certainly not Corbyn) could have.

That is not what he said He said after the election and after we have left, then we will be able to alter any deal. Which is dishonest and I would think that the EU will have twigged that. They can read as well.

Honest and fair would be to make any deal dependent on a referendum or an election - before we leave. To change it afterwards is neither democratic nor honest.