The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Thu 25 Feb 2016, 8:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

Now it is official (and some guy with a green admin name has ruined the other thread) I shall put this here for you to discuss the referendum.

by **Hero** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:15 pm

The problem is that the removal of it due to a tiny tiny number of terrorists also removes it from everyone else.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:18 pm

Azzy wrote:
Hero wrote:Can someone who's for Leave explain to me why would it be a good thing to 'dump' the European Convention of Human Rights?

We can torture whomsoever we want?

Nope - we'd then have to answer against the UN Convention Against Torture, which the UK signed independently in the 1980s. Not that Donald Trump (a "Leave" supporter) cares. He's going to bring back a "hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" because "even if it doesn't work, they deserve it". He's so tough.

Still, perhaps we can leave the UN as well.

by SecretFly Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:19 pm

Azzy wrote:
2. Scotland. Sturgeon wants to remain? That's a guaranteed Leave vote here.

I think Sturgeon and her party were doing a strategic double bluff on this one Wink

They say 'Remain', knowing that will stampede a lot of English people into the 'Leave' camp. UK leaves - and the Independence Referendum is back on the agenda quick-time.

Do the corollary on it. Sturgeon chooses the 'Leave' campaign, knowing that will stampede a lot of English people into the 'Remain' camp. UK remains - Scottish voters happy. No need for an Independence Referendum for the next 100 years.

by Azzy Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:19 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Hero wrote:Can someone who's for Leave explain to me why would it be a good thing to 'dump' the European Convention of Human Rights?

We can torture whomsoever we want?

Nope - we'd then have to answer against the UN Convention Against Torture, which the UK signed independently in the 1980s. Not that Donald Trump (a "Leave" supporter) cares. He's going to bring back a "hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" because "even if it doesn't work, they deserve it". He's so tough.

Still, perhaps we can leave the UN as well.

That would be good, save us sending our brave troops off to die in other countries.

by Coxy001 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:20 pm

Azzy wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Anyway, 39% of the 'ABC1' group are voting Leave, according to the latest YouGov survey.
I fall in the 'A' category, and will be voting to leave. For three reasons:

Kids will have better schools, as there will be a big drop off in children with English as a second language (fully half of my son's class speak Polish or Lithuanian as a first language, and it makes teaching impossible), and our Health Service will be better run as we need less and less translators to actually run the blooming thing (or we could switch the translators to speaking 'Doctor-ese' and work out whatever the hell those guys are saying to us!).

So you're minted/are very affluent yet you put your kids through state school and are in a job/can't afford private health cover? Either you're a tight arse or full of bullsh*t.

by SecretFly Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:22 pm

....all because of a letter "A"?

by funnyExiledScot Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:24 pm

Azzy wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Hero wrote:Can someone who's for Leave explain to me why would it be a good thing to 'dump' the European Convention of Human Rights?

We can torture whomsoever we want?

Nope - we'd then have to answer against the UN Convention Against Torture, which the UK signed independently in the 1980s. Not that Donald Trump (a "Leave" supporter) cares. He's going to bring back a "hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" because "even if it doesn't work, they deserve it". He's so tough.

Still, perhaps we can leave the UN as well.
That would be good, save us sending our brave troops off to die in other countries.

Pretty sure the lack of UN would, in the past, have resulted in more troops being sent to fight rather than less! On numerous occasions the UN has been seen to "get in the way" of Western powers wanting to deploy troops, usually because of the veto powers of China/Russia.

Still, we can't have our troops being sent to war can we.

by **superflyweight** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:25 pm

Azzy wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Anyway, 39% of the 'ABC1' group are voting Leave, according to the latest YouGov survey.
I fall in the 'A' category, and will be voting to leave. For three reasons:

1. Immigration. London is taking the brunt of this and I'm sick of it.
2. Scotland. Sturgeon wants to remain? That's a guaranteed Leave vote here. The Scots REALLY should have seen this referendum coming and chosen independence. Now they're going to be stuck with the rest of the UK, outside of Europe. Lose-lose for them.
3. Cameron and Corbyn. If these guys both think we should remain, that shows me that leave is the correct vote.

The last recession was excellent for me. I bought a house dirt cheap and have only a handful of years left on the mortgage. Will be done by the time I'm 40. Kids will have better schools, as there will be a big drop off in children with English as a second language (fully half of my son's class speak Polish or Lithuanian as a first language, and it makes teaching impossible), and our Health Service will be better run as we need less and less translators to actually run the blooming thing (or we could switch the translators to speaking 'Doctor-ese' and work out whatever the hell those guys are saying to us!).

We came through the worst recession in 70 years. We can easily see off any potential recession here.

That's my number one priority.

Can't bloody move for translators down my GP surgery - all of them standing around with their [insert language here] into English dictionaries and showing off about their book learning.

I'm also glad to know that if I get run over by a bus that it will be a British doctor treating me and there won't be a translator getting in the way and distracting the doctor by having to explain that I'd failed to observe the British custom of putting on clean pants before crossing the road.

by Ent Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:27 pm

There will still be immigration and a need for translators.

Most European immigrants speak fairly good English.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:30 pm

Coxy001 wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Anyway, 39% of the 'ABC1' group are voting Leave, according to the latest YouGov survey.
I fall in the 'A' category, and will be voting to leave. For three reasons:

Kids will have better schools, as there will be a big drop off in children with English as a second language (fully half of my son's class speak Polish or Lithuanian as a first language, and it makes teaching impossible), and our Health Service will be better run as we need less and less translators to actually run the blooming thing (or we could switch the translators to speaking 'Doctor-ese' and work out whatever the hell those guys are saying to us!).

So you're minted/are very affluent yet you put your kids through state school and are in a job/can't afford private health cover? Either you're a tight arse or full of bullsh*t.

Some bad news Azzy. They are not going to deport those children in your son's class, so unless you plan to move schools the outcome of the EU referendum is not going to help you. You may think it will help children in the distant future, but that will of course depend on the deal we strike with the EU as regards free trade, and the operation of the points based system being advocated by Farage. I should also add the many senior doctors appear to think that "immigrants" are essential to a functioning NHS - they take on those jobs that are increasingly hard to staff with locals. Of course Farage will tell you that those are "good immigrants" and will be allowed in under his points-based system. Believe what you will.

by Azzy Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:37 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Some bad news Azzy. They are not going to deport those children in your son's class, so unless you plan to move schools the outcome of the EU referendum is not going to help you. You may think it will help children in the distant future, but that will of course depend on the deal we strike with the EU as regards free trade, and the operation of the points based system being advocated by Farage. I should also add the many senior doctors appear to think that "immigrants" are essential to a functioning NHS - they take on those jobs that are increasingly hard to staff with locals. Of course Farage will tell you that those are "good immigrants" and will be allowed in under his points-based system. Believe what you will.

We are moving schools, yes. But it will be fine by the time my daughter goes to school.

My wife is a teacher, and my son is at school now. Both have a 50/50 split of English-speaking and non-English speaking kids in their classes. The kids who can't speak English can't even comprehend basic English such as 'yes' and 'no'. Lessons are dumbed down so that they can participate, because there is no money to give EAL kids their own sessions. I'd rather vote leave, and see what the points system brings, than leave it as it is.

Anyone who's tried to emigrate to Australia, or Canada, will know how easy/difficult it is to get a visa. If you're a skilled professional, such as a doctor, it's quite easy. If you're a builder, no chance. So those doctors and medical professionals currently coming from overseas (and plenty are from outside of Europe), they'll continue to come.

Luckily Farage will have nothing to do with deciding what happens post-vote. Even if it's 'leave', he has no authority and will just be spouting off as normal. Considering the political bloodbath there may be - potential departures for high-ranking Tories, and potentially even Labour MPs - we could have a chance of a new look to our own domestic politics. Which, considering how much this forum gives over to complaining about politicians, can surely only be a good thing?

And whoever this coxy guy is, wow. I am impressed. We've never even spoken before and already the insults come flying out Laugh

by **Hero** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:38 pm

A number of med schools are reporting that there's been a drop in applications for the coming year due to the current issues, combined with the rise in current junior doctors that are now moving abroad will mean that in future years there will have to be a rise in doctors brought in from overseas rather than a cutback.

by Duty281 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:41 pm

Azzy wrote:Luckily Farage will have nothing to do with deciding what happens post-vote.

I am led to believe that Farage will be re-joining the Conservative Party if 'Leave' wins, before being awarded a safe seat in a by-election.

The bookmakers are already aware of this possibility.

by Coxy001 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:42 pm

Azzy wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Some bad news Azzy. They are not going to deport those children in your son's class, so unless you plan to move schools the outcome of the EU referendum is not going to help you. You may think it will help children in the distant future, but that will of course depend on the deal we strike with the EU as regards free trade, and the operation of the points based system being advocated by Farage. I should also add the many senior doctors appear to think that "immigrants" are essential to a functioning NHS - they take on those jobs that are increasingly hard to staff with locals. Of course Farage will tell you that those are "good immigrants" and will be allowed in under his points-based system. Believe what you will.

Anyone who's tried to emigrate to Australia, or Canada, will know how easy/difficult it is to get a visa. If you're a skilled professional, such as a doctor, it's quite easy. If you're a builder, no chance. S

And whoever this coxy guy is, wow. I am impressed. We've never even spoken before and already the insults come flying out

Glad to meet you, sadly my satirical sarcastic volleys are generally lost on people here. I don't mean most of it in a serious tone, honest.

As for builders emmigrating to Australia - false, it's actually pretty easy to get a working visa. The issue builders have is that their qualifications and so forth over here are pretty much meaningless there. It isn't a green card style system that America runs, yet a country that has shed loads of illegal immigrants - you start putting walls up people will simply come over and evaporate in to the wilderness on holiday visas.

by Azzy Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:42 pm

superflyweight wrote:That's my number one priority.

Can't bloody move for translators down my GP surgery - all of them standing around with their [insert language here] into English dictionaries and showing off about their book learning.

I'm also glad to know that if I get run over by a bus that it will be a British doctor treating me and there won't be a translator getting in the way and distracting the doctor by having to explain that I'd failed to observe the British custom of putting on clean pants before crossing the road.

There is at least one translator at my GP surgery, at all times. And at the nearest hospital, the two times I've stayed on a ward, the doctor has been chaperoned by one.

My comment was referring to my life-long experience of the NHS. Even as a 6 year old (quite some time ago now), doctors didn't speak clearly, and their writing was like hieroglyphics. Mass medical "immigration" hasn't improved or worsened this. But the patients who are being treated, more and more require translation services. Three years ago I was on a ward, four beds in the room, me, an old English guy, and two elderly Asian gentlemen who were thoroughly nice, but didn't speak a jot of the lingo. The cost of having a translator there must have been colossal.

And yes, we'll still require that service. However with net migration spiralling, it's a service we'll need more and more. What would people rather have, doctors and surgeons, or translators and long waiting lists? I know what I'd rather have.

by Duty281 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:43 pm

Hero wrote:A number of med schools are reporting that there's been a drop in applications for the coming year due to the current issues, combined with the rise in current junior doctors that are now moving abroad will mean that in future years there will have to be a rise in doctors brought in from overseas rather than a cutback.

Good, we need more doctors from overseas seeing as how our education system is struggling, and a fair immigration policy upon Leaving will be a way of achieving that.

by **superflyweight** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:44 pm

Azzy wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Some bad news Azzy. They are not going to deport those children in your son's class, so unless you plan to move schools the outcome of the EU referendum is not going to help you. You may think it will help children in the distant future, but that will of course depend on the deal we strike with the EU as regards free trade, and the operation of the points based system being advocated by Farage. I should also add the many senior doctors appear to think that "immigrants" are essential to a functioning NHS - they take on those jobs that are increasingly hard to staff with locals. Of course Farage will tell you that those are "good immigrants" and will be allowed in under his points-based system. Believe what you will.
We are moving schools, yes. But it will be fine by the time my daughter goes to school.

My wife is a teacher, and my son is at school now. Both have a 50/50 split of English-speaking and non-English speaking kids in their classes. The kids who can't speak English can't even comprehend basic English such as 'yes' and 'no'. Lessons are dumbed down so that they can participate, because there is no money to give EAL kids their own sessions. I'd rather vote leave, and see what the points system brings, than leave it as it is.

Anyone who's tried to emigrate to Australia, or Canada, will know how easy/difficult it is to get a visa. If you're a skilled professional, such as a doctor, it's quite easy. If you're a builder, no chance. So those doctors and medical professionals currently coming from overseas (and plenty are from outside of Europe), they'll continue to come.

Luckily Farage will have nothing to do with deciding what happens post-vote. Even if it's 'leave', he has no authority and will just be spouting off as normal. Considering the political bloodbath there may be - potential departures for high-ranking Tories, and potentially even Labour MPs - we could have a chance of a new look to our own domestic politics. Which, considering how much this forum gives over to complaining about politicians, can surely only be a good thing?

And whoever this coxy guy is, wow. I am impressed. We've never even spoken before and already the insults come flying out

Johnson and Gove will be the big winners. That's not a new kind of politics.

There is no new kind of politics - everyone (apart from Corbyn's Labour party which seems hell bent on proving that it's not a competent party of governance) proposes policies they think will get them in power. After that, they do anything that they think will keep them in power.

It's the way its always been and it the way it will always be.

by Azzy Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:46 pm

Coxy001 wrote:Glad to meet you, sadly my satirical sarcastic volleys are generally lost on people here. I don't mean most of it in a serious tone, honest.

As for builders emmigrating to Australia - false, it's actually pretty easy to get a working visa. The issue builders have is that their qualifications and so forth over here are pretty much meaningless there. It isn't a green card style system that America runs, yet a country that has shed loads of illegal immigrants - you start putting walls up people will simply come over and evaporate in to the wilderness on holiday visas.

Ah. A good friend of mine tried to move to Canada as a general labourer. Was told never to bother applying again. Australian qualifications are weird - ours don't matter over there, yet I know of two Aussie colleagues here who came with zero qualifications of any sort in their field of work - only years of working experience - and were accepted straight away. You'd think Australia would welcome the chance to have non-criminal immigrants from the UK.

by **superflyweight** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 12:49 pm

Azzy wrote:
superflyweight wrote:That's my number one priority.

Can't bloody move for translators down my GP surgery - all of them standing around with their [insert language here] into English dictionaries and showing off about their book learning.

I'm also glad to know that if I get run over by a bus that it will be a British doctor treating me and there won't be a translator getting in the way and distracting the doctor by having to explain that I'd failed to observe the British custom of putting on clean pants before crossing the road.
There is at least one translator at my GP surgery, at all times. And at the nearest hospital, the two times I've stayed on a ward, the doctor has been chaperoned by one.

My comment was referring to my life-long experience of the NHS. Even as a 6 year old (quite some time ago now), doctors didn't speak clearly, and their writing was like hieroglyphics. Mass medical "immigration" hasn't improved or worsened this. But the patients who are being treated, more and more require translation services. Three years ago I was on a ward, four beds in the room, me, an old English guy, and two elderly Asian gentlemen who were thoroughly nice, but didn't speak a jot of the lingo. The cost of having a translator there must have been colossal.

And yes, we'll still require that service. However with net migration spiralling, it's a service we'll need more and more. What would people rather have, doctors and surgeons, or translators and long waiting lists? I know what I'd rather have.

It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.

by Azzy Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:16 pm

superflyweight wrote:
Azzy wrote:
superflyweight wrote:That's my number one priority.

Can't bloody move for translators down my GP surgery - all of them standing around with their [insert language here] into English dictionaries and showing off about their book learning.

I'm also glad to know that if I get run over by a bus that it will be a British doctor treating me and there won't be a translator getting in the way and distracting the doctor by having to explain that I'd failed to observe the British custom of putting on clean pants before crossing the road.
There is at least one translator at my GP surgery, at all times. And at the nearest hospital, the two times I've stayed on a ward, the doctor has been chaperoned by one.

My comment was referring to my life-long experience of the NHS. Even as a 6 year old (quite some time ago now), doctors didn't speak clearly, and their writing was like hieroglyphics. Mass medical "immigration" hasn't improved or worsened this. But the patients who are being treated, more and more require translation services. Three years ago I was on a ward, four beds in the room, me, an old English guy, and two elderly Asian gentlemen who were thoroughly nice, but didn't speak a jot of the lingo. The cost of having a translator there must have been colossal.

And yes, we'll still require that service. However with net migration spiralling, it's a service we'll need more and more. What would people rather have, doctors and surgeons, or translators and long waiting lists? I know what I'd rather have.

It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.

Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

by **superflyweight** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:19 pm

Azzy wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
Azzy wrote:
superflyweight wrote:That's my number one priority.

Can't bloody move for translators down my GP surgery - all of them standing around with their [insert language here] into English dictionaries and showing off about their book learning.

I'm also glad to know that if I get run over by a bus that it will be a British doctor treating me and there won't be a translator getting in the way and distracting the doctor by having to explain that I'd failed to observe the British custom of putting on clean pants before crossing the road.
There is at least one translator at my GP surgery, at all times. And at the nearest hospital, the two times I've stayed on a ward, the doctor has been chaperoned by one.

My comment was referring to my life-long experience of the NHS. Even as a 6 year old (quite some time ago now), doctors didn't speak clearly, and their writing was like hieroglyphics. Mass medical "immigration" hasn't improved or worsened this. But the patients who are being treated, more and more require translation services. Three years ago I was on a ward, four beds in the room, me, an old English guy, and two elderly Asian gentlemen who were thoroughly nice, but didn't speak a jot of the lingo. The cost of having a translator there must have been colossal.

And yes, we'll still require that service. However with net migration spiralling, it's a service we'll need more and more. What would people rather have, doctors and surgeons, or translators and long waiting lists? I know what I'd rather have.

It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

No.

by Rowley Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:26 pm

Azzy wrote:
Coxy001 wrote:Glad to meet you, sadly my satirical sarcastic volleys are generally lost on people here. I don't mean most of it in a serious tone, honest.

As for builders emmigrating to Australia - false, it's actually pretty easy to get a working visa. The issue builders have is that their qualifications and so forth over here are pretty much meaningless there. It isn't a green card style system that America runs, yet a country that has shed loads of illegal immigrants - you start putting walls up people will simply come over and evaporate in to the wilderness on holiday visas.
Ah. A good friend of mine tried to move to Canada as a general labourer. Was told never to bother applying again. Australian qualifications are weird - ours don't matter over there, yet I know of two Aussie colleagues here who came with zero qualifications of any sort in their field of work - only years of working experience - and were accepted straight away. You'd think Australia would welcome the chance to have non-criminal immigrants from the UK.

The Australians probably obtained youth mobility visas which require no qualifications. They are however reciprocal between the participating countries, so brits seeking to go the other way could with relative ease. Slightly depressing that more many this debate will be decided on the topic of immigration despite them not knowing the first thing about it.

by Ent Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:28 pm

The nhs won't benefit as there will still be migrants and it depends on migrant workers.

Plus if the working time directive is binned a load of staff (already completely and utterly fed up of this gov) will do one.

Then you have the issue with funding the bus if the economy takes a hit.

by Coxy001 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:34 pm

Azzy wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
Azzy wrote:
superflyweight wrote:That's my number one priority.

Can't bloody move for translators down my GP surgery - all of them standing around with their [insert language here] into English dictionaries and showing off about their book learning.

I'm also glad to know that if I get run over by a bus that it will be a British doctor treating me and there won't be a translator getting in the way and distracting the doctor by having to explain that I'd failed to observe the British custom of putting on clean pants before crossing the road.
There is at least one translator at my GP surgery, at all times. And at the nearest hospital, the two times I've stayed on a ward, the doctor has been chaperoned by one.

My comment was referring to my life-long experience of the NHS. Even as a 6 year old (quite some time ago now), doctors didn't speak clearly, and their writing was like hieroglyphics. Mass medical "immigration" hasn't improved or worsened this. But the patients who are being treated, more and more require translation services. Three years ago I was on a ward, four beds in the room, me, an old English guy, and two elderly Asian gentlemen who were thoroughly nice, but didn't speak a jot of the lingo. The cost of having a translator there must have been colossal.

And yes, we'll still require that service. However with net migration spiralling, it's a service we'll need more and more. What would people rather have, doctors and surgeons, or translators and long waiting lists? I know what I'd rather have.

It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Azzy, we spend around 0.37% of our total government spending on EU membership. We spend around 13.7% on the NHS.

It's this make believe we send so much money balloney that leave come out with that is winding me up at present. They are making things up in that the money we spend on EU membership will be distributed far and wide, that we're at breaking point sending this money over and it will make a huge difference by dishing it out to farmers/the NHS/etc. - except it won't make much of a difference other than that we'll have a bit of loose change and not have access to the single market as a result of a leave vote.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:39 pm

Hero wrote:Patrick Stewart provides a better view on it than me...

Think I saw this on Facebook a while back. From memory it was cute but did a lot to miss/avoid the point and not deal with what are legitimate concerns.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:41 pm

Azzy wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Anyway, 39% of the 'ABC1' group are voting Leave, according to the latest YouGov survey.
I fall in the 'A' category, and will be voting to leave. For three reasons:

1. Immigration. London is taking the brunt of this and I'm sick of it.
2. Scotland. Sturgeon wants to remain? That's a guaranteed Leave vote here. The Scots REALLY should have seen this referendum coming and chosen independence. Now they're going to be stuck with the rest of the UK, outside of Europe. Lose-lose for them.
3. Cameron and Corbyn. If these guys both think we should remain, that shows me that leave is the correct vote.

The last recession was excellent for me. I bought a house dirt cheap and have only a handful of years left on the mortgage. Will be done by the time I'm 40. Kids will have better schools, as there will be a big drop off in children with English as a second language (fully half of my son's class speak Polish or Lithuanian as a first language, and it makes teaching impossible), and our Health Service will be better run as we need less and less translators to actually run the blooming thing (or we could switch the translators to speaking 'Doctor-ese' and work out whatever the hell those guys are saying to us!).

We came through the worst recession in 70 years. We can easily see off any potential recession here.

And that, my friends, is why LEAVE campaign's job is so easy. Don't need any actual logic fact or rationale - just apply to certain people's inner bigot.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:44 pm

Hero wrote:The problem is that the removal of it due to a tiny tiny number of terrorists also removes it from everyone else.

Who aren't the persons actually abusing and who already have extensive protection through reems of other legislation without need for ECHR.

by SecretFly Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:46 pm

What's the definition of a bigot?

by TopHat24/7 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 1:58 pm

SecretFly wrote:What's the definition of a bigot?

Sorry if two syllables and only 5 letters is too small to register on your linguistic radar.....

by Corporalhumblebucket Tue 07 Jun 2016, 2:03 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote: Worth noting that this isn't solely part of the EU ref debate. Scrapping the ECHR in favour of a British equivalent is actually Tory policy, trumpeted by Theresa May.

Indeed, the ECHR is separate from the European Union and covers many more countries.

by SecretFly Tue 07 Jun 2016, 2:04 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:What's the definition of a bigot?

Sorry if two syllables and only 5 letters is too small to register on your linguistic radar.....

Is that an example of it?

by Azzy Tue 07 Jun 2016, 2:11 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Anyway, 39% of the 'ABC1' group are voting Leave, according to the latest YouGov survey.
I fall in the 'A' category, and will be voting to leave. For three reasons:

1. Immigration. London is taking the brunt of this and I'm sick of it.
2. Scotland. Sturgeon wants to remain? That's a guaranteed Leave vote here. The Scots REALLY should have seen this referendum coming and chosen independence. Now they're going to be stuck with the rest of the UK, outside of Europe. Lose-lose for them.
3. Cameron and Corbyn. If these guys both think we should remain, that shows me that leave is the correct vote.

The last recession was excellent for me. I bought a house dirt cheap and have only a handful of years left on the mortgage. Will be done by the time I'm 40. Kids will have better schools, as there will be a big drop off in children with English as a second language (fully half of my son's class speak Polish or Lithuanian as a first language, and it makes teaching impossible), and our Health Service will be better run as we need less and less translators to actually run the blooming thing (or we could switch the translators to speaking 'Doctor-ese' and work out whatever the hell those guys are saying to us!).

We came through the worst recession in 70 years. We can easily see off any potential recession here.

And that, my friends, is why LEAVE campaign's job is so easy. Don't need any actual logic fact or rationale - just apply to certain people's inner bigot.

Indeed, especially when using words you clearly don't understand:

Bigot - a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions
Intolerant - not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.

Not at any stage have I been intolerant towards those holding a different opinion to my own. I choose to have different opinions, but I absolutely tolerate the opinions of others, and in fact welcome their opinions. How can one truly understand one's own opinion unless presented with other alternatives?

Perhaps use 'actual logic fact' and rationale to your utilization of the English language, before questioning others.

[the following section does not pertain specifically to TopHat's comments]

And that, my friends, is why LEAVE campaign's job is so easy. Anyone who wants to LEAVE is supposedly a bigot, a racist, xenophobic, stupid, and poor. That only makes those unsure of which way to vote more likely to vote LEAVE - as it's the remain campaign that is at the heart of the name-calling, and the LEAVE campaign at the heart of making a difference.

Seeing as there are NO 'actual logic facts' regarding what would happen in the event of a LEAVE vote winning, it would be folly to attempt to prove anything to remain voters.

As the Tories are showing us, we will all disagree with people we like. We'll agree with people we dislike. At the end of the day, I want this country to be better than it is, and I believe that a LEAVE vote will accomplish that. If you don't, good for you - but you won't see me calling people names.

by Corporalhumblebucket Tue 07 Jun 2016, 2:20 pm

Azzy wrote:
....Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

I very much doubt that argument, as spending on the NHS is a substantial proportion of public expenditure and bearing in mind that NHS requires increasing expenditure - considerably above the inflation rate - just to maintain existing service levels, on account of ageing population and other factors. That pressure - if combined with the predicted lower growth in GDP (or even GDP contraction) associated with business uncertainty, progressive loss of access to single market etc - is likely to make a nonsense of claims made by BoJo et al. I can't see the EU exit camp being willing to make the massive cuts in other big spending areas such as police, prison, education to pay for real terms increases in NHS spending.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 2:59 pm

SecretFly wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:What's the definition of a bigot?

Sorry if two syllables and only 5 letters is too small to register on your linguistic radar.....

Is that an example of it?

I wouldn't say so but you're free to believe what you want.

by Irish Londoner Tue 07 Jun 2016, 3:06 pm

Azzy wrote:It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.

Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Of course because up to press BoJo, Gove, Priti Patel and IDS have been such great advocates of increasing NHS spending haven't they ?

by **ShahenshahG** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 3:17 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:What's the definition of a bigot?

Sorry if two syllables and only 5 letters is too small to register on your linguistic radar.....

Is that an example of it?

I wouldn't say so but you're free to believe what you want.

by Duty281 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 3:21 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:
Azzy wrote:It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Of course because up to press BoJo, Gove, Priti Patel and IDS have been such great advocates of increasing NHS spending haven't they ?

Since there won't be an NHS in ten years if we vote to Remain - thanks to TTIP - our health service will be a beneficiary of a Leave vote even if no extra money is put in.

by **ShahenshahG** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 3:41 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
Azzy wrote:It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Of course because up to press BoJo, Gove, Priti Patel and IDS have been such great advocates of increasing NHS spending haven't they ?

Since there won't be an NHS in ten years if we vote to Remain - thanks to TTIP - our health service will be a beneficiary of a Leave vote even if no extra money is put in.

If it wasn't for the EU we'd already be signed up to it

by Corporalhumblebucket Tue 07 Jun 2016, 3:42 pm

Duty281 wrote: Since there won't be an NHS in ten years if we vote to Remain - thanks to TTIP - our health service will be a beneficiary of a Leave vote even if no extra money is put in.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 3:51 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
Azzy wrote:It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Of course because up to press BoJo, Gove, Priti Patel and IDS have been such great advocates of increasing NHS spending haven't they ?

Since there won't be an NHS in ten years if we vote to Remain - thanks to TTIP - our health service will be a beneficiary of a Leave vote even if no extra money is put in.

If it wasn't for the EU we'd already be signed up to it

Bit like our steel industry. The rest of the EU voted to raise tarriff barriers to protect against malignant Chinese influence but we're too keen to bend over for their teeney weenies so UKG block it.

by **ShahenshahG** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 4:47 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
Azzy wrote:It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Of course because up to press BoJo, Gove, Priti Patel and IDS have been such great advocates of increasing NHS spending haven't they ?

Since there won't be an NHS in ten years if we vote to Remain - thanks to TTIP - our health service will be a beneficiary of a Leave vote even if no extra money is put in.

If it wasn't for the EU we'd already be signed up to it

Bit like our steel industry. The rest of the EU voted to raise tarriff barriers to protect against malignant Chinese influence but we're too keen to bend over for their teeney weenies so UKG block it.

No need for that.

by Duty281 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 5:06 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
Azzy wrote:It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Of course because up to press BoJo, Gove, Priti Patel and IDS have been such great advocates of increasing NHS spending haven't they ?

Since there won't be an NHS in ten years if we vote to Remain - thanks to TTIP - our health service will be a beneficiary of a Leave vote even if no extra money is put in.

If it wasn't for the EU we'd already be signed up to it

Eh? TTIP is a (mostly secretive) deal between the EU and the USA. If we exit the EU, we will have no part of it.

by Duty281 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 5:09 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
Azzy wrote:It's not a straight choice between the two. If there was no need for translators the money wouldn't be spent on extra doctors and nurses - the budget would just be cut accordingly.
Or would it? Wouldn't Gove and BoJo HAVE to be seen to be spending extra on the NHS after their lurid promises to date? If there's one area guaranteed to be the beneficiary of the leave vote, it's the NHS.

Of course because up to press BoJo, Gove, Priti Patel and IDS have been such great advocates of increasing NHS spending haven't they ?

Since there won't be an NHS in ten years if we vote to Remain - thanks to TTIP - our health service will be a beneficiary of a Leave vote even if no extra money is put in.

If it wasn't for the EU we'd already be signed up to it

Bit like our steel industry. The rest of the EU voted to raise tarriff barriers to protect against malignant Chinese influence but we're too keen to bend over for their teeney weenies so UKG block it.

The UK government and 13 other EU countries, I believe.

by TopHat24/7 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 5:20 pm

Point is, those nasty fat barstewards sat around in Brussells whom LEAVE are blaming all the UK's ills on were the ones wanting to protect our now decimated steel industry.

by **Notch** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 6:11 pm

I'll be incredibly p'ed off if the rest of the UK drags us into a situation where we can't maintain open borders with Ireland. I've got family on the other side as do thousands of others and we're looking at potentially going through passport control every time we want to drive down and see them- absolute nightmare.

There are towns that literally straddle the border and thousands who live on one side and commute to jobs on the other, plus about 200 undocumented rural roads that go across the border, so the whole thing was cause both governments a fortune, be a massive pain in the arse, damage tourism, damage the economies of both countries... couple that with the cutting off of EU investment into NI and the loss of farm subsidies and we're looking at leaving being a complete disaster for us to be honest.

by **Notch** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 6:16 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Eh? TTIP is a (mostly secretive) deal between the EU and the USA. If we exit the EU, we will have no part of it.

Until the Tories negotiate something worse- Britain is one of the biggest supporters of the deal. All the most effective opposition to the deal is coming from mainland European countries. If Cameron had his way we'd be signed up already. Unless Labour somehow win the next election, the UK will continue to pursue such policies inside or outside the EU

by Duty281 Tue 07 Jun 2016, 6:45 pm

Notch wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Eh? TTIP is a (mostly secretive) deal between the EU and the USA. If we exit the EU, we will have no part of it.

Until the Tories negotiate something worse- Britain is one of the biggest supporters of the deal. All the most effective opposition to the deal is coming from mainland European countries. If Cameron had his way we'd be signed up already. Unless Labour somehow win the next election, the UK will continue to pursue such policies inside or outside the EU

Perhaps, but the Tories (unlike the unelected European Commission) can be voted out and held democratically accountable for their actions.

No UK political party would willingly sign away a health service that is free at the point of use, because they know it would be the death of their party.

by **Hero** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 6:54 pm

Notch wrote:I'll be incredibly p'ed off if the rest of the UK drags us into a situation where we can't maintain open borders with Ireland. I've got family on the other side as do thousands of others and we're looking at potentially going through passport control every time we want to drive down and see them- absolute nightmare.

There are towns that literally straddle the border and thousands who live on one side and commute to jobs on the other, plus about 200 undocumented rural roads that go across the border, so the whole thing was cause both governments a fortune, be a massive pain in the arse, damage tourism, damage the economies of both countries... couple that with the cutting off of EU investment into NI and the loss of farm subsidies and we're looking at leaving being a complete disaster for us to be honest.

Is there not only a concern that the Peace treaty will be scuppered?

by **Notch** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 7:18 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Notch wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Eh? TTIP is a (mostly secretive) deal between the EU and the USA. If we exit the EU, we will have no part of it.

Until the Tories negotiate something worse- Britain is one of the biggest supporters of the deal. All the most effective opposition to the deal is coming from mainland European countries. If Cameron had his way we'd be signed up already. Unless Labour somehow win the next election, the UK will continue to pursue such policies inside or outside the EU

Perhaps, but the Tories (unlike the unelected European Commission) can be voted out and held democratically accountable for their actions.

No UK political party would willingly sign away a health service that is free at the point of use, because they know it would be the death of their party.

The Tories have been working towards the death of the NHS for years. They don't say it, they tend to lie about their intentions and then chronically underfund it and stealthily sell parts of it off to private capital. So I would take the argument that leave will protect the NHS with a huge pinch of salt. The threat to the NHS is the Tories- they could use their influence to oppose TTIP or change it. Britain has enough heft it's opposition could actually make a difference, despite Cameron consistently alienating the rest of Europe. They won't do it, because its exactly what they would do if they had these powers devolved to the UK.

I don't know what the Commission has to do with it. It consists of members nominated by democratically elected governments of the member states and is subject to the democratically elected EU parliament. It can be dissolved by the EU Parliament. This isn't ideal but it's also not too different from any government. We don't vote for the Minister of Defence or the Chancellor or the Prime Minister- we vote for our representatives and then the largest party in Parliament forms a government. I think the commission is an overly technocratic way of governing and that there is a democratic deficit, but it has little relevance here. It's especially ironic considering how undemocratic the UK system is.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue 07 Jun 2016, 7:54 pm

Jesus, I still cant believe some people will look at Cameron and go "if he wants it, I don't" but see Farage, Boris and Gove and say "Thats the one for me"

by Sponsored content

Will you vote Leave or Remain?