This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Originally posted by steven_t92
Since joining the EU we have opposed 73 new laws. Those 73 have all passed, if you think we have any say in our laws then you can't be looking at the facts. I'm voting out, it's no longer a trade agreement. It's a dictatorship as when have you ever had the opportunity its to elect one of the 4 presidents of the EU? Thanks Steve, and ofcourse you are welcome to vote whichever you think is right....but 73 laws IS THAT ALL!! I was under the impression from davemonkey that that all our laws had been 'transcribed' down to us from the eu. I thought for a moment dave had been reading exodus and the story of the burning bush as he made it sound, almost biblically, that most of our laws were being handed down to us despite me saying that in my recent experience of jury service, corporate articles of assoc and conveyancing that i noticed no legal impact from the eu. He called me ignorent - fair enough but can you please let me know what just 2 of these laws were? (No googling now!)...and did they have a significant negative effect? The reality ofcourse in a democracy is that there will be laws passed that we dont agree with, ask any member of the labour party in the last 6 years. We may even be frustrated by interventions from lobby groups (funded by large corps) or the house of lords which are both unelected.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
I wasn't calling you "the .....geek" but the person who had slap dashed that excel sheet. The Guido Fawkes link above is spurrious in that its assertion is that the only reason those organisations are pro-remain is because they receive some funding from the EU. The writer does not know that for a fact yet is presenting it as such. Manipulation in short. By him and by you. "....From a position of strength borne through knowledge and experience" you say? The 'knowledge' bit I get: research; but I don't think for one minute you were alive the last time we weren't in the common market/eu so could you explain what your 'experience' refers to. Ta. With regard to my 'reasoning' trawl through any of the UKIP/Farage/EU threads in GT over the last 18 months and you can find plenty as I don't want to repeat myself Any new points raised will be addressed. Yet it was I that "slap dashed" it, I suspect you know that (though I now realise the utter futility of arguing with you). Odd that you criticise the "quality" of the presentation, yet have difficulty criticising the actual figures. Like I say, I'm not overly bothered about name-calling - it is you that seems to take issue with it. As for EU funding for those vocal critics of leaving the EU. You are ironically saying that highlighting non-disclosure of financial interest in a body you make very public statements on is "manipulative". Really. Is that really manipulative? Or is it highlighting the unfortunate correlation? When the NUS tell students "if we leave the EU, you will not be able to go and study in Europe ever again" (in itself utter rubbish), do you not thing the public should be aware they say so being the recipients (to date) of £600,000? Just what planet do you live on, Kermit? Very plausibly, these "organisations" are pro-Remain for other reasons ("what was it about the large taxpayer-funded grants that attracted you to the EU?" Finally, to suggest I am required to have existed since Roman times to be able to comment on the parallels between the decline of the Roman Empire and the EU is, frankly, laughable. Yet this is the logical reasoning you posit. I'll just leave this analogy here and leave those to decide if it warrants consideration. It is entirely possible for me to have gained experience, via exposure to the EU (and indeed working within other countries outside of the EU) to identify that it is not how the rest of the world works, and with extremely good reason. Finally: I do not need to "justify" in ANY way, my knowledge and experience to you. You are not the arbiter of what passes as sufficient to engage in debate. That is literally the textbook definition of ad hominem.
|
|
| Hoof Hearted 14 May 16 11.12am | |
|---|---|
|
That's about the 3rd time in a very short space of time you have had to pull your trousers and pants back up Kermy. Ouch.......
|
|
| Hoof Hearted 15 May 16 9.29am | |
|---|---|
|
Totally agree. Both sides need to rein in exaggeration, lies and just stick to the facts.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Totally agree. Both sides need to rein in exaggeration, lies and just stick to the facts. I agree with this as well. Similar to the Barack Obama intervention 'threatening' the back of the queue/line, i think it takes credibility from the speaker. I do however think the eu has been an instrument that has helped peace in Europe but implying we are going into a war is over the top....more blundering from the leaders on both sides, which i have no doubt will continue
|
|
|
Boris didn't actually say what the headline suggests. Just sayin'.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
Boris didn't actually say what the headline suggests. Just sayin'. To be fair, the comparison was made, albeit in an entirely different context to what the idiot public would conclude without even reading, thanks in part to media sensationalism.
|
|
| nickgusset |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by johnfirewall
To be fair, the comparison was made, albeit in an entirely different context to what the idiot public would conclude without even reading, thanks in part to media sensationalism. Is it worse than what Ken said and was suspended for?
|
|
|
Originally posted by JohnyBoy
You are quite correct Danny, the figures speak for themselves....and just this morning the IMF has announced that in all of the economic analysis it has received from various independent sources there was not one favourable economic outcome from brexit. The results ranged from bad 1.5% of gdp to very very bad 9.5% of gdp. I find this truly astounding. Furthermore, john major is announcing that the brexit campaign is based purely on immigration which risks causing deep divisions in society for years to come.
And you have done nothing to answer my point, that the incessant pressure for everyone to get along, coupled with the stifling pressure (and idiocy) of political correctness are ironically IMO the main driving forces behind the rise of the right across Europe. Tell me are you as arrogant in real life as you are on here ?
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Is it worse than what Ken said and was suspended for?
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Is it worse than what Ken said and was suspended for? One comment - which was made in defence of someone proposing the removal of an ethnic/ religious group - pointed out that someone else had also proposed moving this group to their own state but decided to kill them all instead. Would you care to illustrate how what Boris said is comparable, other than the fact that they mention the same person? Edited by johnfirewall (16 May 2016 12.52pm)
|
|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
And you have done nothing to answer my point, that the incessant pressure for everyone to get along, coupled with the stifling pressure (and idiocy) of political correctness are ironically IMO the main driving forces behind the rise of the right across Europe. Tell me are you as arrogant in real life as you are on here ? Ahem...i think you will find that my riposte was based on your accusation that i manipulated and marginalised the figures to suit my own agenda which was "a trait" of mine...
|
|
|
Originally posted by johnfirewall
One comment - which was made in defence of someone proposing the removal of an ethnic/ religious group - pointed out that someone else had also proposed moving this group to their own state but decided to kill them all instead. Would you care to illustrate how what Boris said is comparable, other than the fact that they mention the same person? Edited by johnfirewall (16 May 2016 12.52pm) When i look at what Boris said objectively, i think he was trying to appeal to the much older voter who would remember either ww2 or its aftermath i.e rations, poverty etc. But Boris is a skilled politician and i think he blundered this time because the analogy most people have of the Nazi regime is not just one of tanks rolling across Poland and the Battle of Britain but also of truly hideous crimes against humanity, a holocaust and a regime that brutalised its own people and every one of its neighbouring countries....and its this analogy which people will make which is why i think he made a mistake to use it....its also quite divisive for people of German, French or Italian origin whose families often fought and died fighting Hitler, Mussolini or even Napoleon and similarly say "never again"...sorry but he did no favours for the leave campaign.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.