Brexit is off ?

They should be looking at both sides because neither was cleaner than clean.  The whole process was both flawed and poorly conducted and I doubt anyone came out of it with my great credit

I was thinking in terms of criminal charges against individuals rather than against the campaign organisations.

dayjay posted:

They should be looking at both sides because neither was cleaner than clean.  The whole process was both flawed and poorly conducted and I doubt anyone came out of it with my great credit

I think a very few individuals did come out with some credit and their integrity intact.  One who for me stands out was Chuka Umunna.

On the principle of investigating both sides, strangely I agree with that - it's absolutely necessary as a political expedient.  The CPS and judiciary must maintain the appearance of disinterest as well as truly remaining disinterested.  An interesting consequence of a court finding that there was undue influence is that it would invalidate the result of the referendum.

(Quickly donning PPE to protect against the oncoming assault!)

Eloise posted:

Huge posted:

In my opinion, there should be a more direct comeback on those politicians who can, in law, be shown to have lied outside of the House (of Commons or of Lords).  Within the House, Parliamentary Privilege allows for "terminalogical inexactitudes" (inside the House it's against the rules to accuse someone of lying!) but outside the House they do not have that protection in law, and should therefore be held to the legally defined standards of behaviour required by others in public office (such as Civil Servants).

The CPS are investigating if the Leave campaign used "undue influence" (in plain speak lied) during the campaign.

I might vest that with some credibility if Alison Saunders wasn't in charge. Rather like putting Peter Sutcliffe in charge of a bordello .

andarkian posted:

Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

 

Leaving aside the fact pointed out above that foreign aid as it is generally understood is not dependent on EU membership,  it seems to me to be self defeating for those opposed to immigration to also oppose foriegn aid. Surely the only humane way to encourage people not to migrate is to help improve their lives in the country they were born in? There are many ways of doing this including: not fomenting/sponsoring wars; fair trade; and, yes, well targeted foreign aid.

If that approach is rejected then it seems that the only way of "securing our borders" is by brute force, unless I am missing something? 

Disclosure: I speak as one who values the contribution of those who have migrated to this country and has no wish to "build a wall" but accept that we cannot accommodate all those in the world who would be vastly materially better off if they lived here.

It's quite simple really... redistribute the worlds resources and wealth evenly. That way, people will have no particular reason to go globetrotting in search of 'a better life' - there won't be anywhere that's better.

Oh, I just remembered - there will still be the 'retired' contingent who want to go chasing the Spanish sun all year round - we'd have to allow that because that might be me soon.

Oh, and we'd have to recognise those 'dangerous' (for want of a better word) jobs that no-one in their right mind wants (like mining and bomb disposal and stuff) and give them a bit more of the worlds resources.

Oh, and we'd need to recognise that some folks have to dress up posher than the rest of us (like the Queen and the Prime Minister and President Donald.. to name a few), so they'd need a bit more of the worlds resources.

...oh bugger it, let's just build a wall.

dayjay posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Strangely enough Don when I vote I don't feel it necessary to outline my thought processes to you or to a hifi forum, nor do I expect you to have to do so in order for me to assume that you are capable of thinking and that you have made a judgement, even if a different one from me, when you cast your vote.  I automatically assume that you are capable of thinking and making your own decision based on whatever logic you choose to apply even when I don't agree with your conclusion - perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to me and others who disagree with you.  An inability to accept that others can disagree with you and still be capable of rational thought is just blind arrogance.  I would question why you feel it is necessary to resort to insults in the first place.

dayjay, you have mis-understood.

I haven't asked you or anybody else to outline your though process regarding your reason for voting to leave. Nor have I been  at all insulting towards yourself or others.

I have, very clearly pointed out that yourself and other Brexiteers haven't outlined their vision of the future and how it might be achieved. This is quite different to suggesting that you and others on this forum are incapable of rational thought or being driven by blind ignorance - although to be fair, those Brexiteers that do nothing more than bleat "We won, get over it !" most probably are incapable of rational thought and are being driven by blind ignorance. So, it was a simple invitation to you all to outline the benefits that you perceive and how they might be achieved.

For my part, despite voting to remain, I have been pro-actively involved in helping HMG to assess the possible advantages of leaving and the potential risks that we need to avoid - well, at least with regard to some aspects of aviation. Again, in this respect my post was a simple invitation to you and the others to outline what you might be doing to inform HMG about our future outside the EU.

Pev posted:

andarkian posted:

Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

 

Leaving aside the fact pointed out above that foreign aid as it is generally understood is not dependent on EU membership,  it seems to me to be self defeating for those opposed to immigration to also oppose foriegn aid. Surely the only humane way to encourage people not to migrate is to help improve their lives in the country they were born in? There are many ways of doing this including: not fomenting/sponsoring wars; fair trade; and, yes, well targeted foreign aid.

If that approach is rejected then it seems that the only way of "securing our borders" is by brute force, unless I am missing something? 

Disclosure: I speak as one who values the contribution of those who have migrated to this country and has no wish to "build a wall" but accept that we cannot accommodate all those in the world who would be vastly materially better off if they lived here.

Again, I only mentioned Foreign  Aid as another GROSS waste of taxpayers' money better spent at home. I value nothing of the immigrants' so called contribution. It is a trite platitude that I am not going to pretend to subscribe to. A country that cannot run itself is no country at all. People can come and go to this country but only on a value added basis. I have no interest in any 'humane way' that guarantees the destruction of the futures of my children and grandchildren. 

andarkian posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Right, sleeves rolled up!

Let's start with all those billions we will not be contributing to the EU (nope don't start that one again as I have no interest in pouring it down the NHS plug hole). It's our money and we should be able to invest it a bit more appropriately for our own benefits.

The £8bn net represents less than 1% of our GDP and fails to take account of the nett benefit we secure being part of the EU. This benefit is difficult to measure because it isn't "paid" into a single account eg The Treasury. It has been estimated at c.£3,000pa per family which would suggest c.£45bn pa (assuming my maths is correct and there are c.15m families in the UK.). The economics suggest we would be much better off inside the EU rather than outside.

I know, but at least there are less layers of bureaucracy and it doesn't actually have to go to non existent olive fields in Rumania or wherever.

The proportion of the c.£14bn p.a we paid to the EU that was spent on administration was 6%. ie c.£1bn. At the risk of upsetting HH, i'm sure the UK Civil service and Local Gov can absorb this piddling sum without delivering any significant benefit to our economy.

Then there is the cost of chasing all these cases through the courts right up to the ECJ,

....starting with the High Court and then the Gov's appeal to the Supreme Court....both completely unnecessary if May stopped being a dictator.

and then we can eliminate one layer of useless politicos inhabiting Brussels. No more costs of running useless EU elections to appoint worthless, overpaid rubber stamps.

If you mean 22 or so UKIP MEPs, then i'm with you on this one !

Then there's our borders, which become ours again and I know it's a hard stretch and will give some of you the vapours, but if our UK based politicians would do something to address the massive inflow whether European or otherwise then may be we could find schools for our kids, see a doctor, access a hospital, maybe even buy a house or drive on some roads that are not massively congested,

these are not uniquely EU related problems. Sure Dodgy Dave could have done better with his "benefits deal" with the EU (eg you only get benefits after 18 years UK residence providing Mum and Dad have paid into the Tax Fund and NI Scheme - just like all other UK Citizens)

or even have a chance at fixing the railway infrastructure.

don't hold your breath on that one, even outside the EU

And I can assure you we do not need any more baristas or berry pickers. 

Presumably this is your area of specialisation so I bow to your expertise.

Oh, and we can perhaps slim the ranks of those who fill think tanks, analyse impacts of unpredictable events, shuffle bits of paper, enforce worthless diktats from Brussels and generally while away their existences as jobsworths. 

Substitute Westminster for Brussels and I think you are looking at the future.

I worked implementing systems in real companies that made real products, some of them even British all around the world, until we gave it all away based on 'fair trade' and 'open market forces'. Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

Blimey Dan you've just opened a new can of worms! Anyway in remembrance..

“and when he knew for certain/ Only drowning men could see him/ He said all men will be sailors then/ Until the sea shall free them”.

Anyway, nice to know how you perceive the future, ...... spending c. -£37bn pa (£-45bn + £8bn)

But I do agree that we need to look at what incentivises our people. Clean air, clean water, food, shelter and warmth, sanitation, health, transportation and communication, education, defence & internal security, justice, entertainment, collective funding v individual enterprise to name but a few.

Will that c.£8bn pa go very far (even if the ££ remains a desirable currency, ie the UK remains a safe investment). How do we compensate the reduction of c.£3k pa per family.

Is the Gov definitely going to negotiate a total ban on immigration with the EU. Is it going to do the same with India ? and other nations with whom we plan to negotiate trade deals ? I don't know, and i'm not convinced they do either. But I am interested what Brexiteers are hoping for.

andarkian posted:

Pev posted:

andarkian posted:

Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

 

Leaving aside the fact pointed out above that foreign aid as it is generally understood is not dependent on EU membership,  it seems to me to be self defeating for those opposed to immigration to also oppose foriegn aid. Surely the only humane way to encourage people not to migrate is to help improve their lives in the country they were born in? There are many ways of doing this including: not fomenting/sponsoring wars; fair trade; and, yes, well targeted foreign aid.

If that approach is rejected then it seems that the only way of "securing our borders" is by brute force, unless I am missing something? 

Disclosure: I speak as one who values the contribution of those who have migrated to this country and has no wish to "build a wall" but accept that we cannot accommodate all those in the world who would be vastly materially better off if they lived here.

Again, I only mentioned Foreign  Aid as another GROSS waste of taxpayers' money better spent at home. I value nothing of the immigrants' so called contribution. It is a trite platitude that I am not going to pretend to subscribe to. A country that cannot run itself is no country at all. People can come and go to this country but only on a value added basis. I have no interest in any 'humane way' that guarantees the destruction of the futures of my children and grandchildren. 

Now I have no compunction about terming this specific post as being 'racist'.

How do you define an 'immigrant', by the way, or one whose contribution you do not value? Do you believe that no immigrant has contributed anything to this country? Does race come into it, or ethnic origin. Does the term encompass those people from Ireland, Australia or New Zealand who have relocated to this country. Would you refer to Scots working in the financial sector in London as immigrants?

Just what is your definition.

rjstaines posted:

It's quite simple really... redistribute the worlds resources and wealth evenly. That way, people will have no particular reason to go globetrotting in search of 'a better life' - there won't be anywhere that's better.

Oh, I just remembered - there will still be the 'retired' contingent who want to go chasing the Spanish sun all year round - we'd have to allow that because that might be me soon.

Oh, and we'd have to recognise those 'dangerous' (for want of a better word) jobs that no-one in their right mind wants (like mining and bomb disposal and stuff) and give them a bit more of the worlds resources.

Oh, and we'd need to recognise that some folks have to dress up posher than the rest of us (like the Queen and the Prime Minister and President Donald.. to name a few), so they'd need a bit more of the worlds resources.

...oh bugger it, let's just build a wall.

reminds me of one of my uncles. (we come from the North East so are all socialists - well, they are but our family were the black sheep).

Sold his house which he had inherited and moved into a council house. Spent half of his money on women, drink, fast cars and gambling. Just wasted the other half.

Had a "solution" for all our  ills and injustises. "Collect ALL the money (wealth) in and re-distribute it equally"..........with me so far ?..........."then, when I have spent all MINE, collect ALL the money in again and re-distribute it equally........."

simples.

Don Atkinson posted:

andarkian posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Right, sleeves rolled up!

Let's start with all those billions we will not be contributing to the EU (nope don't start that one again as I have no interest in pouring it down the NHS plug hole). It's our money and we should be able to invest it a bit more appropriately for our own benefits.

The £8bn net represents less than 1% of out GDP and fails to take account of the nett benefit we secure being part of the EU. This benefit is difficult to measure because it isn't "paid" into a single account eg The Treasury. It has been estimate at c.£3,000pa per family which would suggest c.£45bn pa (assuming my maths is correct and there are c.15m families in the UK.). The economics suggest we would have much better off inside the EU rather than outside.

I know, but at least there are less layers of bureaucracy and it doesn't actually have to go to non existent olive fields in Rumania or wherever.

The proportion of the c.£14bn p.a we paid to the EU that was spent on administration was 6%. ie c.£1bn. At the risk of upsetting HH, i'm sure the UK Civil service and Local Gov can absorb this piddling sum without delivering any significant benefit to our economy.

Then there is the cost of chasing all these cases through the courts right up to the ECJ,

....starting with the High Court and then the Gov's appeal to the Supreme Court....both completely unnecessary if May stopped being a dictator.

and then we can eliminate one layer of useless politicos inhabiting Brussels. No more costs of running useless EU elections to appoint worthless, overpaid rubber stamps.

If you mean 22 or so UKIP MEPs, then i'm with you on this one !

Then there's our borders, which become ours again and I know it's a hard stretch and will give some of you the vapours, but if our UK based politicians would do something to address the massive inflow whether European or otherwise then may be we could find schools for our kids, see a doctor, access a hospital, maybe even buy a house or drive on some roads that are not massively congested,

these are not uniquely EU related problems. Sure Dodgy Dave could have done better with his "benefits deal" with the EU (eg you only get benefits after 18 years UK residence providing Mum and Dad have paid into the Tax Fund and NI Scheme - just like all other UK Citizens)

or even have a chance at fixing the railway infrastructure.

don't hold your breath on that one, even outside the EU

And I can assure you we do not need any more baristas or berry pickers. 

Presumably this is your area of specialisation so I bow to your expertise.

Oh, and we can perhaps slim the ranks of those who fill think tanks, analyse impacts of unpredictable events, shuffle bits of paper, enforce worthless diktats from Brussels and generally while away their existences as jobsworths. 

Substitute Westminster for Brussels and I think you are looking at the future.

I worked implementing systems in real companies that made real products, some of them even British all around the world, until we gave it all away based on 'fair trade' and 'open market forces'. Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

Blimey Dan you've just opened a new can of worms! Anyway in remembrance..

“and when he knew for certain/ Only drowning men could see him/ He said all men will be sailors then/ Until the sea shall free them”.

Anyway, nice to know how you perceive the future spending c. -£37bn pa (£-45bn + £8bn)

But I do agree that we need to look at what incentivises our people. Clean air, clean water, food, shelter and warmth, sanitation, health, transportation and communication, education, defence & internal security, justice, entertainment, collective funding v individual enterprise to name but a few.

Will that c.£8bn pa go very far (even if the ££ remains a desirable currency, ie the UK remains a safe investment). How do we compensate the reduction of c.£3k pa per family.

Is the Gov definitely going to negotiate a total ban on immigration with the EU. Is it going to do the same with India ? and other nations with whom we plan to negotiate trade deals ? I don't know, and i'm not convinced they do either. But I am interested what Brexiteers are hoping FYI

To paraphrase The Beatles -  You are a Loser! Your numbers mean nothing, just as Project Fear meant nothing to the sentient voter. We need not one more immigrant to this country and we need no more platitudes from people such as yourself. Bring 'em in  and we need more schools, hospitals, houses and especially welfare to cope with the influx. We simply cannot afford them.

You took us into this mess and am just as sure your only capability is to take us deeper into the mire. I talked of a tabula rasa earlier and no one needs your projections on the clean slate. Your numbers are fictitious and the only reality anyone should look at is the reality of the destruction being perpetrated by the EU throughout the European continent by elitists whose only cause they would fight would be their own entitlement to their next Michelin meal.

Just let me make it clear, we also need not one more Indian, Pakistani or any other so called favoured nation whose own countries are miserable wrecks. In fact I am wholeheartedly in favour of allowing one native of any of these mentioned into the UK for one from the UK who decides to emigrate there. After all, we are stealing their corn seed to 'enrich' our own country, though I cannot see how we cannot possibly teach a curry chef and you all know that is allegedly one of the the shortages that we have.

As a country we did okay and advanced ourselves quite remarkably until the liberal elite decided to 'reeducate' us by giving us massive guilt trips about the success we created. 

Hmack posted:

andarkian posted:

Pev posted:

andarkian posted:

Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

 

Leaving aside the fact pointed out above that foreign aid as it is generally understood is not dependent on EU membership,  it seems to me to be self defeating for those opposed to immigration to also oppose foriegn aid. Surely the only humane way to encourage people not to migrate is to help improve their lives in the country they were born in? There are many ways of doing this including: not fomenting/sponsoring wars; fair trade; and, yes, well targeted foreign aid.

If that approach is rejected then it seems that the only way of "securing our borders" is by brute force, unless I am missing something? 

Disclosure: I speak as one who values the contribution of those who have migrated to this country and has no wish to "build a wall" but accept that we cannot accommodate all those in the world who would be vastly materially better off if they lived here.

Again, I only mentioned Foreign  Aid as another GROSS waste of taxpayers' money better spent at home. I value nothing of the immigrants' so called contribution. It is a trite platitude that I am not going to pretend to subscribe to. A country that cannot run itself is no country at all. People can come and go to this country but only on a value added basis. I have no interest in any 'humane way' that guarantees the destruction of the futures of my children and grandchildren. 

Now I have no compunction about terming this specific post as being 'racist'.

How do you define an 'immigrant', by the way, or one whose contribution you do not value? Do you believe that no immigrant has contributed anything to this country? Does race come into it, or ethnic origin. Does the term encompass those people from Ireland, Australia or New Zealand who have relocated to this country. Would you refer to Scots working in the financial sector in London as immigrants?

Just what is your definition.

 

Boy, you're going to hate my reply to Don Atkinson! You're also going to hate that I am an Indian born Scot who lives in England.

Really? I thought you were from Andarkia.

sjbabbey posted:

Really? I thought you were from Andarkia.

Trite ��

andarkian posted:

Hmack posted:

andarkian posted:

Pev posted:

andarkian posted:

Sometimes you should just protect your own house, with its own borders and look after your own family, which then takes me to Foreign Aid or sweet FA as it should be known...

 

Leaving aside the fact pointed out above that foreign aid as it is generally understood is not dependent on EU membership,  it seems to me to be self defeating for those opposed to immigration to also oppose foriegn aid. Surely the only humane way to encourage people not to migrate is to help improve their lives in the country they were born in? There are many ways of doing this including: not fomenting/sponsoring wars; fair trade; and, yes, well targeted foreign aid.

If that approach is rejected then it seems that the only way of "securing our borders" is by brute force, unless I am missing something? 

Disclosure: I speak as one who values the contribution of those who have migrated to this country and has no wish to "build a wall" but accept that we cannot accommodate all those in the world who would be vastly materially better off if they lived here.

Again, I only mentioned Foreign  Aid as another GROSS waste of taxpayers' money better spent at home. I value nothing of the immigrants' so called contribution. It is a trite platitude that I am not going to pretend to subscribe to. A country that cannot run itself is no country at all. People can come and go to this country but only on a value added basis. I have no interest in any 'humane way' that guarantees the destruction of the futures of my children and grandchildren. 

Now I have no compunction about terming this specific post as being 'racist'.

How do you define an 'immigrant', by the way, or one whose contribution you do not value? Do you believe that no immigrant has contributed anything to this country? Does race come into it, or ethnic origin. Does the term encompass those people from Ireland, Australia or New Zealand who have relocated to this country. Would you refer to Scots working in the financial sector in London as immigrants?

Just what is your definition.

 

Boy, you're going to hate my reply to Don Atkinson! You're also going to hate that I am an Indian born Scot who lives in England.

Not at all.

There are no National or racial boundaries to racism. You still haven't answered my question by providing your definition of an 'immigrant'.

Does the term apply to anyone who was not born in the UK?

Someone who comes into a country on a mutual beneficial basis. Feel free to define exactly what 'beneficial' means.

andarkian posted 

Again, I only mentioned Foreign  Aid as another GROSS waste of taxpayers' money better spent at home. I value nothing of the immigrants' so called contribution. It is a trite platitude that I am not going to pretend to subscribe to. A country that cannot run itself is no country at all. People can come and go to this country but only on a value added basis. I have no interest in any 'humane way' that guarantees the destruction of the futures of my children and grandchildren. 

The reason we now depend upon this immigrant expertise to keep the health service and the wheels of industry, etc. turning is because of the lack of investment for education and training of it's own people by the successive governments of the last 30 years. Since the days of Mrs Thatcher (The Witch) it has been cut, cut, cut, but remember these cuts were always justified at the time as being efficiency savings and as such there would be no impact services or delivery of needs. 30 years later we have unemployed people who can't get jobs or training apprenticeships because the current vogue is to import expertise, why? Because it's cheaper. We have lots young people who would love to become nurses, technicians, scientists, engineers if only the opportunity was there. In the 70's when I graduated there were so many opportunities for everyone but not so today. We need to invest in our own people instead of buying in the expertise. Just one of many things wrong with the politics of our country over the last 20+ years.

Don Atkinson posted:

dayjay posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Strangely enough Don when I vote I don't feel it necessary to outline my thought processes to you or to a hifi forum, nor do I expect you to have to do so in order for me to assume that you are capable of thinking and that you have made a judgement, even if a different one from me, when you cast your vote.  I automatically assume that you are capable of thinking and making your own decision based on whatever logic you choose to apply even when I don't agree with your conclusion - perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to me and others who disagree with you.  An inability to accept that others can disagree with you and still be capable of rational thought is just blind arrogance.  I would question why you feel it is necessary to resort to insults in the first place.

dayjay, you have mis-understood.

I haven't asked you or anybody else to outline your though process regarding your reason for voting to leave. Nor have I been  at all insulting towards yourself or others.

I have, very clearly pointed out that yourself and other Brexiteers haven't outlined their vision of the future and how it might be achieved. This is quite different to suggesting that you and others on this forum are incapable of rational thought or being driven by blind ignorance - although to be fair, those Brexiteers that do nothing more than bleat "We won, get over it !" most probably are incapable of rational thought and are being driven by blind ignorance. So, it was a simple invitation to you all to outline the benefits that you perceive and how they might be achieved.

For my part, despite voting to remain, I have been pro-actively involved in helping HMG to assess the possible advantages of leaving and the potential risks that we need to avoid - well, at least with regard to some aspects of aviation. Again, in this respect my post was a simple invitation to you and the others to outline what you might be doing to inform HMG about our future outside the EU.

 

"Clearly we both know that these people are incapable of THINKING." It was this sentence that I found irritating Don, if I have taken it out of context then I apologise. Whilst this is a serious subject it's not serious enough for me to fall out with fellow music fans over.  I am happy to debate the issues but not for it to descend into name calling etc.

Andarkian posted:

"Boy, you're going to hate my reply to Don Atkinson"

"To paraphrase The Beatles -  You are a Loser! Your numbers mean nothing, just as Project Fear meant nothing to the sentient voter. We need not one more immigrant to this country and we need no more platitudes from people such as yourself. Bring 'em in  and we need more schools, hospitals, houses and especially welfare to cope with the influx. We simply cannot afford them.

You took us into this mess and am just as sure your only capability is to take us deeper into the mire. I talked of a tabula rasa earlier and no one needs your projections on the clean slate. Your numbers are fictitious and the only reality anyone should look at is the reality of the destruction being perpetrated by the EU throughout the European continent by elitists whose only cause they would fight would be their own entitlement to their next Michelin meal.

Just let me make it clear, we also need not one more Indian, Pakistani or any other so called favoured nation whose own countries are miserable wrecks. In fact I am wholeheartedly in favour of allowing one native of any of these mentioned into the UK for one from the UK who decides to emigrate there. After all, we are stealing their corn seed to 'enrich' our own country, though I cannot see how we cannot possibly teach a curry chef and you all know that is allegedly one of the shortages that we have.

As a country we did okay and advanced ourselves quite remarkably until the liberal elite decided to 'reeducate' us by giving us massive guilt trips about the success we created". 

Indeed!

I was not impressed by your post.

I will restrain myself by simply stating that it does you no credit whatsoever. 

Hmack posted:

Andarkian posted:

"Boy, you're going to hate my reply to Don Atkinson"

"To paraphrase The Beatles -  You are a Loser! Your numbers mean nothing, just as Project Fear meant nothing to the sentient voter. We need not one more immigrant to this country and we need no more platitudes from people such as yourself. Bring 'em in  and we need more schools, hospitals, houses and especially welfare to cope with the influx. We simply cannot afford them.

You took us into this mess and am just as sure your only capability is to take us deeper into the mire. I talked of a tabula rasa earlier and no one needs your projections on the clean slate. Your numbers are fictitious and the only reality anyone should look at is the reality of the destruction being perpetrated by the EU throughout the European continent by elitists whose only cause they would fight would be their own entitlement to their next Michelin meal.

Just let me make it clear, we also need not one more Indian, Pakistani or any other so called favoured nation whose own countries are miserable wrecks. In fact I am wholeheartedly in favour of allowing one native of any of these mentioned into the UK for one from the UK who decides to emigrate there. After all, we are stealing their corn seed to 'enrich' our own country, though I cannot see how we cannot possibly teach a curry chef and you all know that is allegedly one of the shortages that we have.

As a country we did okay and advanced ourselves quite remarkably until the liberal elite decided to 'reeducate' us by giving us massive guilt trips about the success we created". 

Indeed!

I was not impressed by your post.

I will restrain myself by simply stating that it does you no credit whatsoever. 

Other than getting 'corn seed' the wrong way round I stand by every word. Feel free to right my genuine wrongs.

dayjay posted:

They should be looking at both sides because neither was cleaner than clean.  The whole process was both flawed and poorly conducted and I doubt anyone came out of it with my great credit

This comment is a general response and portray the facts of the case (as I understand them) rather than expressing my opinion if they are correct or not.

My understanding is that the Electoral Commission* have investigated both sides but found only the Leave side have used "undue influence" as while the Remain campaign made some dubious claims (a loss of £4,000 per family and the "threat" of a post referendum emergency budget would be required being the main two), those were considered to be matter of opinion (which are permitted). On the other hand Leave made factually incorrect statements (the £350million sent to the EU and claims of Turkey being about to join the EU) and continued to use them even after being informed they were factually incorrect.

Note the electoral commission in this instance act in the same way the police would in most criminal cases; it's not up to the CPS if there is sufficient evidence and if a prosecution would be in the public interest.

dayjay posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

dayjay posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't heard from the Brexiteers on this forum, Question-Time or BBC News at Ten what sort of future they have in mind. And more importantly, how they are going to achieve it. Just harping on about "get over it !"

I have spent a bit of time post referendum  helping HMG anticipate the potential benefits and risks in the aviation industry of leaving the EU and EASA.

What exactly have dayjay, andarkian, Simon and other Brexiteers on this Forum positively done with regard to analyising some aspect of our future and how to achieve it ?

Strangely enough Don when I vote I don't feel it necessary to outline my thought processes to you or to a hifi forum, nor do I expect you to have to do so in order for me to assume that you are capable of thinking and that you have made a judgement, even if a different one from me, when you cast your vote.  I automatically assume that you are capable of thinking and making your own decision based on whatever logic you choose to apply even when I don't agree with your conclusion - perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to me and others who disagree with you.  An inability to accept that others can disagree with you and still be capable of rational thought is just blind arrogance.  I would question why you feel it is necessary to resort to insults in the first place.

dayjay, you have mis-understood.

I haven't asked you or anybody else to outline your though process regarding your reason for voting to leave. Nor have I been  at all insulting towards yourself or others.

I have, very clearly pointed out that yourself and other Brexiteers haven't outlined their vision of the future and how it might be achieved. This is quite different to suggesting that you and others on this forum are incapable of rational thought or being driven by blind ignorance - although to be fair, those Brexiteers that do nothing more than bleat "We won, get over it !" most probably are incapable of rational thought and are being driven by blind ignorance. So, it was a simple invitation to you all to outline the benefits that you perceive and how they might be achieved.

For my part, despite voting to remain, I have been pro-actively involved in helping HMG to assess the possible advantages of leaving and the potential risks that we need to avoid - well, at least with regard to some aspects of aviation. Again, in this respect my post was a simple invitation to you and the others to outline what you might be doing to inform HMG about our future outside the EU.

 

"Clearly we both know that these people are incapable of THINKING." It was this sentence that I found irritating Don, if I have taken it out of context then I apologise. Whilst this is a serious subject it's not serious enough for me to fall out with fellow music fans over.  I am happy to debate the issues but not for it to descend into name calling etc.

dayjay,

That quote did not appear in the post to which you responded. ie the one cascaded above.

It appeared on Page 6 of this thread in a completely separate post. I have re-read that post and the context in which it appeared. In context, I consider it was a fair comment. ie about those Brexiteers who have absolutely nothing to offer other than hysterically repeating "We won, you lost, shut up" (or words to that effect).

I'm sure that if I re-read this thread and the "Sleepwalking" thread you have had more to offer and will continue to offer more. As you say, it is a serious subject, but no need to fall out, either as individuals or as a Nation.

Eloise posted:

My understanding is that the Electoral Commission* have investigated both sides but found only the Leave side have used "undue influence" as while the Remain campaign made some dubious claims (a loss of £4,000 per family and the "threat" of a post referendum emergency budget would be required being the main two), those were considered to be matter of opinion (which are permitted). On the other hand Leave made factually incorrect statements (the £350million sent to the EU and claims of Turkey being about to join the EU) and continued to use them even after being informed they were factually incorrect.

 

I can't believe that is true. The leaflet that the Electoral Commission sent to every household in the country contained the information Turkey where about to join the EU and we give £350 million a week to the EU.

Take a look at page 5 of the link below. Bizarrely, the heading on the page is “the truth”

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/_...and-and-Scotland.pdf

I believe the Electoral Commission where in part to blame for the quit vote prevailing. What where they thinking, why give either side the opportunity to misinform the voters in an official government document.

Eloise posted:

dayjay posted:

They should be looking at both sides because neither was cleaner than clean.  The whole process was both flawed and poorly conducted and I doubt anyone came out of it with my great credit

This comment is a general response and portray the facts of the case (as I understand them) rather than expressing my opinion if they are correct or not.

My understanding is that the Electoral Commission* have investigated both sides but found only the Leave side have used "undue influence" as while the Remain campaign made some dubious claims (a loss of £4,000 per family and the "threat" of a post referendum emergency budget would be required being the main two), those were considered to be matter of opinion (which are permitted). On the other hand Leave made factually incorrect statements (the £350million sent to the EU and claims of Turkey being about to join the EU) and continued to use them even after being informed they were factually incorrect.

Note the electoral commission in this instance act in the same way the police would in most criminal cases; it's not up to the CPS if there is sufficient evidence and if a prosecution would be in the public interest.

was this a typo ?

fatcat posted:

Eloise posted:

My understanding is that the Electoral Commission* have investigated both sides but found only the Leave side have used "undue influence" as while the Remain campaign made some dubious claims (a loss of £4,000 per family and the "threat" of a post referendum emergency budget would be required being the main two), those were considered to be matter of opinion (which are permitted). On the other hand Leave made factually incorrect statements (the £350million sent to the EU and claims of Turkey being about to join the EU) and continued to use them even after being informed they were factually incorrect.

 

I can't believe that is true. The leaflet that the Electoral Commission sent to every household in the country contained the information Turkey where about to join the EU and we give £350 million a week to the EU.

Take a look at page 5 of the link below. Bizarrely, the heading on the page is “the truth”

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/_...and-and-Scotland.pdf

I believe the Electoral Commission where in part to blame for the quit vote prevailing. What where they thinking, why give either side the opportunity to misinform the voters in an official government document.