The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Garvin said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
. . . . . . the sheer disingenuous behaviour of the old boys like Alfie & PPP who LOVE to insist they were around at the time but were led down the garden path by duplicitous politicians were clearly just not paying attention. So when you point this out, the old discrediting machine gets ten pence put in the slot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/29/no-b...
Yes, the information was available back then . . . . . sort of.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/03/29/no-b...
Firstly, all the articles now dredged up were not clear about closer political integration. They referred to 'social' issues but these could be agreed between the fewer EU states back then without the need for the level of integration that is now seen.
Secondly, those articles were not widely circulated for all to see. I was not of an age to vote back then but all those I talk to now who were are clear, almost without exception, that the impression they were given by the government at the time was that it was a common market and almost exclusively about trade. Some may have realised but, in my experience, they were in the minority. You can shout at them all day long that they should have known but the simple fact is they didn't.
Garvin said:
Yes, the information was available back then . . . . . sort of.
Firstly, all the articles now dredged up were not clear about closer political integration. They referred to 'social' issues but these could be agreed between the fewer EU states back then without the need for the level of integration that is now seen.
Secondly, those articles were not widely circulated for all to see. I was not of an age to vote back then but all those I talk to now who were are clear, almost without exception, that the impression they were given by the government at the time was that it was a common market and almost exclusively about trade. Some may have realised but, in my experience, they were in the minority. You can shout at them all day long that they should have known but the simple fact is they didn't.
Indeed but these facts don't suit Eddie's agenda.Firstly, all the articles now dredged up were not clear about closer political integration. They referred to 'social' issues but these could be agreed between the fewer EU states back then without the need for the level of integration that is now seen.
Secondly, those articles were not widely circulated for all to see. I was not of an age to vote back then but all those I talk to now who were are clear, almost without exception, that the impression they were given by the government at the time was that it was a common market and almost exclusively about trade. Some may have realised but, in my experience, they were in the minority. You can shout at them all day long that they should have known but the simple fact is they didn't.
Garvin said:
Yes, the information was available back then . . . . . sort of.
Firstly, all the articles now dredged up were not clear about closer political integration. They referred to 'social' issues but these could be agreed between the fewer EU states back then without the need for the level of integration that is now seen.
Secondly, those articles were not widely circulated for all to see. I was not of an age to vote back then but all those I talk to now who were are clear, almost without exception, that the impression they were given by the government at the time was that it was a common market and almost exclusively about trade. Some may have realised but, in my experience, they were in the minority. You can shout at them all day long that they should have known but the simple fact is they didn't.
I'm not shouting at anyone. Try to stay emotionally detached when mashing your keypad.Firstly, all the articles now dredged up were not clear about closer political integration. They referred to 'social' issues but these could be agreed between the fewer EU states back then without the need for the level of integration that is now seen.
Secondly, those articles were not widely circulated for all to see. I was not of an age to vote back then but all those I talk to now who were are clear, almost without exception, that the impression they were given by the government at the time was that it was a common market and almost exclusively about trade. Some may have realised but, in my experience, they were in the minority. You can shout at them all day long that they should have known but the simple fact is they didn't.
I think I see a pattern in the debate. Well I know I do. Present a load of old nonsense, get laughed at. Fair enough that one. However, present something more concrete and you start to see a poorer side of human nature. Denigration, discrediting, denial, it's all there in that post. What you're saying wasn't circulated, we didn't have the internet, we were lied to, only a few knew.
It's all patent b
ks, all rooted in entrenched positions, all rubbish in a country that boasted manifold daily papers, three television stations & John Timpson & Brian Redhead every morning. To listen to you lot, I'd be thinking I grew up in 1950's Albania.Eddie Strohacker said:
I'm not shouting at anyone. Try to stay emotionally detached when mashing your keypad.
I think I see a pattern in the debate. Well I know I do. Present a load of old nonsense, get laughed at. Fair enough that one. However, present something more concrete and you start to see a poorer side of human nature. Denigration, discrediting, denial, it's all there in that post. What you're saying wasn't circulated, we didn't have the internet, we were lied to, only a few knew.
It's all patent bks, all rooted in entrenched positions, all rubbish in a country that boasted manifold daily papers, three television stations & John Timpson & Brian Redhead every morning. To listen to you lot, I'd be thinking I grew up in 1950's Albania.
And that little article is all you can come up with.....pathetic fool.I think I see a pattern in the debate. Well I know I do. Present a load of old nonsense, get laughed at. Fair enough that one. However, present something more concrete and you start to see a poorer side of human nature. Denigration, discrediting, denial, it's all there in that post. What you're saying wasn't circulated, we didn't have the internet, we were lied to, only a few knew.
It's all patent b
ks, all rooted in entrenched positions, all rubbish in a country that boasted manifold daily papers, three television stations & John Timpson & Brian Redhead every morning. To listen to you lot, I'd be thinking I grew up in 1950's Albania.alfie2244 said:
And that little article is all you can come up with.....pathetic fool.
Alfie childishly losing his cool in about two minutes flat is a nailed on racing cert you can bet your house on.But let's take Garvin's point about politicians of the day creating a false impression & turn it back on you Brexit acolytes. If they did that then as you all seem to accept, why do you believe the same false prophets today? Your Goves & Johnsons & Farridges?
Eddie Strohacker said:
alfie2244 said:
And that little article is all you can come up with.....pathetic fool.
Alfie childishly losing his cool in about two minutes flat is a nailed on racing cert you can bet your house on.But let's take Garvin's point about politicians of the day creating a false impression & turn it back on you Brexit acolytes. If they did that then as you all seem to accept, why do you believe the same false prophets today? Your Goves & Johnsons & Farridges?
so come on the then chicken boy.....how old is old?
alfie2244 said:
Loosing my cool....you really are a fantasist mate....I always have the biggest smile whilst replying to your pathetic posts I really do.... I came to my own conclusions about the EU long before anyone had even heard of Farage, Gove & Johnson.
so come on the then chicken boy.....how old is old?
Losing, not loosing. Nice recovery, even allowing that you went in studs up with your never ending oh-so-hilarious chicken references & a follow up pathetic fool. Why do insults? They never stick & just mark you out as someone without much about them, stuck in the playground.so come on the then chicken boy.....how old is old?
Anyhoo, maybe you saw through it all, but the central question remains, I've been told here today that people were led down the garden path by the hand on joining the EEC by politicians. Yet leavers swallowed the rhetoric last year. How do you square that circle?
Pan Pan Pan said:
jjlynn27 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I did not say that `my' life was sh*t, only that 40 odd years of the UK being in the EU was sh*t. You really must learn to read old boy,
It wasn't st at all. It was actually rather good. Your perception, based on either your experience or what DailyMail told you to think is 'st'. Please get there faster. Then again, given that you are demonstrably too thick to understand even the simple concept of what Miller's case was about, I don't expect you to understand much else.
Eddie Strohacker said:
alfie2244 said:
Loosing my cool....you really are a fantasist mate....I always have the biggest smile whilst replying to your pathetic posts I really do.... I came to my own conclusions about the EU long before anyone had even heard of Farage, Gove & Johnson.
so come on the then chicken boy.....how old is old?
Losing, not loosing. Nice recovery, even allowing that you went in studs up with your never ending oh-so-hilarious chicken references & a follow up pathetic fool. Why do insults? They never stick & just mark you out as someone without much about them, stuck in the playground.so come on the then chicken boy.....how old is old?
Anyhoo, maybe you saw through it all, but the central question remains, I've been told here today that people were led down the garden path by the hand on joining the EEC by politicians. Yet leavers swallowed the rhetoric last year. How do you square that circle?
Eddie Strohacker said:
Losing, not loosing. Nice recovery, even allowing that you went in studs up with your never ending oh-so-hilarious chicken references & a follow up pathetic fool. Why do insults? They never stick & just mark you out as someone without much about them, stuck in the playground.
Anyhoo, maybe you saw through it all, but the central question remains, I've been told here today that people were led down the garden path by the hand on joining the EEC by politicians. Yet leavers swallowed the rhetoric last year. How do you square that circle?
You haven't squared my circle yet,let alone yours.Anyhoo, maybe you saw through it all, but the central question remains, I've been told here today that people were led down the garden path by the hand on joining the EEC by politicians. Yet leavers swallowed the rhetoric last year. How do you square that circle?
I'll ask again.
If we were informed enough going in,why does the line "people didnt understand the issues" keep getting trotted out when we live with probably 100 times the information via internet,multiple channels and debates nowadays regarding the 2016 referendum?
alfie2244 said:
Like to give it out but not get it back....Mr predictable as ever...so go on answer my question - how old is old?
I don't know how old is old. I have literally no idea or concern for what your point is, so I concede it gladly for the sake of all that is holy. As for your first point, there's an art to sticking a knife into someone & it's not calling them a pathetic fool on the internet. If you can't see that by now, I doubt you're ever going to but as any upstanding remainer will tell you, we live in hope.Now. since you're never offering a straight answer, how about anyone else - as a leaver insisting you were duped in 1972, how do you reconcile that with the latest crop of shape shifting lizards on the leave side?
Eddie Strohacker said:
alfie2244 said:
Like to give it out but not get it back....Mr predictable as ever...so go on answer my question - how old is old?
I don't know how old is old. I have literally no idea or concern for what your point is, so I concede it gladly for the sake of all that is holy. As for your first point, there's an art to sticking a knife into someone & it's not calling them a pathetic fool on the internet. If you can't see that by now, I doubt you're ever going to but as any upstanding remainer will tell you, we live in hope.Now. since you're never offering a straight answer, how about anyone else - as a leaver insisting you were duped in 1972, how do you reconcile that with the latest crop of shape shifting lizards on the leave side?
alfie2244 said:
"Old" is your point not mine..... so you use words that you have no idea what they mean? Balls the size of a chicken I would say....or should that be a cloaca?
Right. Now you're just being weirdly non sequitur. I realise those long blank days of retirement need filling somehow, but throwing alphabetti spaghetti at the computer screen is a waste of both our time. Enjoy Countdown, grandad!Eddie Strohacker said:
alfie2244 said:
"Old" is your point not mine..... so you use words that you have no idea what they mean? Balls the size of a chicken I would say....or should that be a cloaca?
Right. Now you're just being weirdly non sequitur. I realise those long blank days of retirement need filling somehow, but throwing alphabetti spaghetti at the computer screen is a waste of both our time. Enjoy Countdown, grandad!
Eddie Strohacker said:
alfie2244 said:
You off then? Bye
No, I should clarify, I'm off from you, for the time being as you've gone a bit weird & persistent with the name calling. I say that as I just googled 'cloaca' & was hit with the realisation that you don't listen to a damn word anyone says.Pan Pan Pan said:
Breadvan72 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If that is the case, then the fact that the same legal process was not applied to way the UK was taken into the EU, must surely mean that the governments action then was illegal, and our apparent membership has consequently been illegal.
Why was it Ok for the government to take the UK into the EU without the legal process initiated by Gina Miller following the 2016 referendum, but apparently not OK for the government of the day to take the UK out of the EU in exactly the same way in 2016? Surely if such legal action was a requirement in 2016, it should also have an been equal requirement, when the UK was taken into the EU, especially as the citizens of the UK were not given a referendum on the matter at the time.
You seem to be genuinely confused about this topic so I am genuinely trying to help dispel the confusion. The exact same legal process applied to EEC entry as now applies to EU departure. Parliament legislated for EEC entry. Parliament therefore had to legislate for EU departure. Why was it Ok for the government to take the UK into the EU without the legal process initiated by Gina Miller following the 2016 referendum, but apparently not OK for the government of the day to take the UK out of the EU in exactly the same way in 2016? Surely if such legal action was a requirement in 2016, it should also have an been equal requirement, when the UK was taken into the EU, especially as the citizens of the UK were not given a referendum on the matter at the time.
Miller made her challenge because the UK Government was seeking to depart the EU without involving Parliament.
There is no constitutional requirement for a referendum on anything. As it happened, the decision to enter the EEC was approved by a referendum in 1975 in which the majority then voting opted to stay in, but that referendum was optional.
Many only believed they were voting to join a European trading bloc known as the EEC. Had they been told at the time that the EEC would change `itself' into an over arching organization which would hold supremacy over the laws of this country and its ability to self determine, the vote in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly to leave the EEC, (especially as many extant then with ability to vote, would have been those who only a few years before had been fighting the very country which now controls the EU).
Gina Millers legal intervention, not forgetting the actual experience of living in the EU for 40 odd years, and the vast difference in information available to the voting public of the UK in 2016, means that the result of the 2016 referendum is in all probability much more sound than the fudged way the UK was slid into the EU via voting to remain in the EEC..
If the EU had truly been (or had even been perceived) as being good for the `majority' of the people of UK, the 2016 vote would have been for it to remain a member state, but what is now history has shown us, is that this was not in fact the case.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Tuesday 24th October 10:49
The vote in 2016 saw a higher turnout than the one in 1975, but was based on far more contentious arguments, some of which were demonstrably false (not in the sense of false predictions, but false averments of alleged fact). The 1975 referendum does not trump the 2016 one because nothing is set in stone and past generations cannot rule present ones, but to suggest that the 2016 vote was "sounder" than the 1975 is, I suggest, unrealistic.
EDIT: I said lower turnout for 16 vs 75. That was a mistake - it was the other way around.
How has history shown us that the EU was not good for the majority of the UK? How can anyone yet judge on that?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 24th October 14:40
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff