TheCat

Katanita.....you r obviously a person who cares and loves a campaign.....but the dilution of your message with all your various causes doesn't help any of them......

I guess I wanted an aggressive response to light hearted post. So I came to the right place.....

If they guarantee places to local kids, I won't object....

Even the most committed brexit chat in the country...I.e. This thread....is getting brexit exhaustion.....no comments for over 24 hours? Surely we can find something to argue over:)

A Video Game Arcade....

Genuine question to remainers, posed in good faith, so appreciate any responses in the same spirit. If the UK and the EU struck a zero tariff, zero quota free-trade deal....how might that change your view of brexit?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of complaints on twitter from people that > should get settled status being given pre-settled > status. > > Not sure why but I'd be very clear on the form and > maybe get help filling it in. The issue is there's no 'form' so to speak, so it's not like you can apply for the wrong option. Once you identify yourself, then it's goes and looks up your records with HMRC and depending on the amount of history it finds, it awards you settled or pre-settled. I automatically got settled, but I assume if you get awarded pre-settled, and should qualify for settled, that there's some sort of appeal/manual process....but I'm guessing they dont make it easy!

I did it. It took about 15-20mins from start to finish, and was very straight forward. Everything worked for me, so no complaints at all. But guessing if any stage doesn't work for others it's probably a bit of a pain to get help from the home office.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You mentioned the word instagram, which is hardly > how I think of the people I saw on Tuesday. > > But you'll have to help me out here. I've mixed > with Greenham women, road protestors, New Age > Travelers and the like over the years with a fair > amount of sympathy and occasional more active > involvement. I expect that some on ER are drawn > from these previous environmental/alternative > lifestyle/peacenic campaigns. Are they too virtue > signalers. And you also seem to be falling into > the Brexiteer/populist trap of despising people > because they are middle class. Many including me > were the first in their family to get higher > qualifications and enter professions. Yet now > education and social mobility seem to be loathed > for the first time, as for some (not all) some > sort of jealousy that they couldn't do similar > themselves. Having worked all around the country > and similarly family well distributed I get grief > about being the London political class etc etc. > > I'm the first to have a go at some of the > stereotypes I see in this area and the extremes of > gentrification (wasn't like that when I lived off > Coldharbour Lane in the 80s!) but you appear to > tar all those on ER with the same brushI don't despise people for being middle class. I am middle class. You're perhaps taking my comments out of context a little. Go and look back on this thread at my original objections to this style of direct action, and that will perhaps provide you with more context of my position. Sure, I'm perhaps overempahsing the stereotype of people that I think typify these movements (although, it's a stereotype for a reason!)...but I don't despise them either..many of them are good friends (i would say I'm wel ad truly middle class myself, so I don't despise the middle classes!) But I disagree that this action is a good use of their time, and have said as much directly to them. Most people I see that do this genuinely think they're making a difference..good for them...I just happen to not think they are really making much of a difference at all. As an aside.....I think it's pretty hard to argue that social media (I.e. Instagram) is not a massive part of the strategy of groups such as ER....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They closed down the Department for Transport for > a morning. Most of the campaigners there were > past retirement age. I've not done my research > but that sample does not align with your views > above. Why can't the elderly also be middle class virtue signallers?

As I've said before on this thread, I'm a strong advocate for efforts to mitigate climate change, but don't agree that ER's methods are the most effective (or even very effective at all) to do so. And then having 'tacked on' protests like the one referred to below (which has nothing to do with carbon in the atmosphere) doesn't help to dispel the perception that ER is largely run by middle class virtue signallers, more interested in telling themselves (or instgramming) about 'making a difference' than actually making one..... "At London?s Billingsgate market, thousands of fish, stolen daily from their ocean homes, lie dead or dying,? said Kerri Waters, a spokesperson for Animal Rebellion. ?Many will have suffocated slowly when pulled aboard fishing vessels, while thousands of others remain alive as they?re transported by lorry to the market, where they?ll be gutted or boiled alive.? So are you protesting about fossil fuels? And global warming leading to extinction of the human species? Or about fish's feelings? People are being told they need to cut down on beef and other farmed meats becuase of the carbon impact of meat production. But apparently ER doesn't want people to eat fish either due to them being "ripped from their ocean homes".....

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And whilst all this is going on, the debt ridden > Pizza Express finds itself in big trouble. Is > pizza saturation point causing its demise? > > Louisa. No one wants a saturated pizza. Base goes all soggy.

perhaps they're churning some craft butter?

They sent Bruce Willis to drill a hole into int and blow it up with a nuclear device. I think I saw it on a documentary on Netflix last night....

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Shouldn't that be booing immigrants? > > That's British exceptionalism for you, one of the > reasons why we're in this mess... Ask Steve Smith if the English like booing foreigners:).....

exdulwicher Wrote: First off, I'm like to say thanks for actually trying to address the points I raised in that essay. I've shown that to various people over the last 3 years, and for most its just too long to be bothered with (or too well argued I think:)..jokes....anyway...here goes on my responses to your responses..... > > > > > > 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How > can > > I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say > we > > would be worse off under a Brexit scenario? > > All the economic forecasts (even if they are short > term) state we'll be worse off but "you think" > that longer term (ie after we've been through > another recession, had stagnant / zero growth, > lost huge amounts of tax revenue and > investment...) we'll be better off? Righto. I think that response is more than a little disingenuous, and misrepresenting what I originally wrote, particularly given my comments in the lines you deleted for the sake of brevity..?where I specifically talk about the long term forecasts within those reports. But in anycase, yes, at some point we all have to ?think??.there?s no expert, document, or Guardian article which has all the answers on either outcome?. > > > 2. Immigration: Finally, a controlled > > immigration system is not just about attracting > > doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if > we > > need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for > > example, then a sensible Home Office will > ensure > > visas are issued to the people the UK requires > to > > do this. > > Have you seen the Home Office systems? Some of the > most badly designed, badly implemented "systems" > ever, courtesy of one Theresa May (and various > other Home Secretaries before her) all of who > played the "immigrants are bad, we'll cut down on > immigration" becasue they knew it played well to > the Daily Wail brigade. > https://www.freemovement.org.uk/theresa-mays-immig > ration-legacy/ > Couple that with various scandals like Windrush > and the overall tone of the campaign (especially > the Farage poster of all the dirty foreigners > queuing to get in) and you can't deny that the > whole campaign was overtly rascist. Immigration > rules are set by the country although there are > overarching protocols from the EU around Freedom > of Movement. You can read a simple guide of it > here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088 > > Free movement is a reciprocal arrangement that > allows people to decide for themselves where they > want to live, that enriches our communities with > different culture, perspectives and food ? and > that supports our economy and public services. But > free movement is supposed to come with conditions. > According to EU law, after three months of living > in another member state, citizens must be in work, > looking for work with a genuine chance of > employment or have their own health insurance and > be able to prove they won?t be dependent on public > funds. No UK Government has ever implemented these > rules ? yet ministers have blamed EU immigration > for decades of failures to build enough houses, > fund our health service and support our schools. > The policy was there all along but never > implemented by the British Government. Did you actually read the lines that you deleted? I dont deny for a second that parts of the campaign were rascist. Again, i think I made that pretty clear in the lines that you deleted. I state at the start that farage?s distasteful banner and poor campaigning were pretty much the entire reason I wrote the whole bloody thing 3 years ago - to show that there non-racist reasons to vote Leave, because it was hard to see them given the campaigns (both of them) were so poor?.. again?..I basically said exactly that. So again, a little diengenous on your behalf. However, your point on the lack of home office government co-ordination is fair. But if your starting point is always an unknown/state of flux; its just going to make it harder to ever see any improvement in the area right? Furthermore, if you?re saying that ministers have blamed EU immigration ?for decades?, then its high time we forced them to face up to the improvements the system needs. If ministers can no longer blame EU immigration for their lack of organisation and action with regards to housing, schools, health etc, then its pretty obvious where the problems are and the voting public (over time) will act accordingly until improvements are made. > > > 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling > > bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the > > European Council, the Council of the European > > Union, the European Parliament, the European > > Commission, the Court of Justice of the > European > > Union, the European Central Bank, and the > European > > Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies > are > > elected by the people. The rest are appointed. > The > > European Council and the European Commission > make > > most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are > not > > elected bodies. So for example, if you think > the > > British government should support British steel > > works or that the railways should be > nationalised > > again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally > > bans countries from nationalising certain > > industries. > > How many bodies, committees, commissions of UK > Parliament / Government are there? How many civil > servants running things behind the scenes? None of > them are elected. Frankly the British public have > shown themselves to be incapable of choosing a > name for a boat, never mind electing officials to > run every little detail. You don't elect the > manager of your local supermarket or bank or GP, > you assume that the people in charge know the > general processes and skillset and you leave them > to employ the best people to do that particular > job. > The European Council sets EU Policy Agenda and > it's comprised of all the Heads of State - the > British Prime Minister literally sits on this > council. You voted for a governing party > (historically either Conservative or Labour); the > governing party selects the Prime Minister and the > PM sits on the European Council! That's hardly > "unelected". And you can read about the European > Commission here: > https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en because there's > way too much info for me to type out. Again, the > UK sits on this Commission and has a defining role > in how those rules and regulations are defined and > implemented (and can veto or opt out like the UK > has opted out of Schengen). > And EU Law does NOT ban nationalisation: > https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nation > alisation-is-not-against-eu-law/ and > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre > xit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market > -restrictions-labour-a8968691.html Yes, there?s lots of beureacrcay in the UK too. Overall I?d prefer less than more though (sorry, there?s me ?thinking? again). Thanks for the first two results of your google search about ?EU law banning nationalisation? (I checked, your two links are literally the first two results of that search ? but ?copy and paste? instead of ?thinking? is your preference, right?). In anycase, now im just being mean ? the fact is that certain industries CANNOT be nationalised under EU law, just as I said. There are of course ways around the laws in how certain industries (and parts of industries) are treated ? your links do not invalidate what I said. But I?ll concede that?s it?s a much more nuanced discussion that what has been laid out by either of us here?.. > > > 4. One size does not fit all: > > No but by working together, everyone benefits. > It's not one-sided, you can negotiate trade deals > in exchange for debt relief for example. It's like > having 27 neighbours, some very rich, some very > poor but the poor ones will do all the work the > rich ones don't want (like coming round and > picking your fruit and veg, doing the DIY and > washing the car) and the rich ones will give a few > handouts in exchange for having a nice place to go > on holiday rather than a third world shithole! > (basic analogy but it kind of works) So you agree with the premise that one size doesn?t fit all. Tehn you make a point about pooled resources which I argued in moe lines that you deleted would normally involve the UK being the giver rather than receiver of those pooled resources. But to be fair, I did forget in exchange for ?a few handouts? we get a nice place to go on holiday apparently?!!!! Because no one from outside the EU ever holidays in, Europe right?? > > > 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal > and > > Spain all voted-in governments in the last few > > years who?s plans/election promises have been > > over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a > > government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but > the > > EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and > imposed > > onerous austerity. > > As mentioned, the public don't have a clue. And if > someone said to you, do you vote to live on ?50 or > a week or just keep spending willy-nilly, you'll > go with option 2 - except that Mastercard won't > let you do that. The politicians can promise tax > cuts and end to austerity but they can't actually > make it happen, they've just promised whatever > random bollocks sounds good to the voters. > We are a sovereign nation, recognised by all other > nations, with our own flag and currency and > monarchy. AND, we have a pooled sovereignty with > the European Union (Scotland and England have a > pooled sovereignty as well). There are numerous > different types of sovereignty but take your pick, > we were sovereign before any Brexit vote came > long. Just that people had no idea what it meant > and many still don't. ?There are numerous different types of sovereignty but take your pick? ? Ummmmm?.I did....thanks. It is different to yours, no one has all the answers as I said above. You made your choice based on what you think (see?..its not just ,me who ?thinks?) > > 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of > the > > comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us > > that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off > from > > the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are > > they seriously saying that if we are not in the > > EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will > still > > trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate > on > > things like security (do we not share > intelligence > > with the USA because they?re not in the EU?), > > we?ll still welcome folk from all over the > world > > to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself > how > > is it that other developed economies like > > Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all > > manage to play their part on the world stage > > without being part of the club? > > By taking YEARS (decades sometimes) to come to > trade deals, visa requirements, tariffs and by > having it simplified for them by the existence of > the EU, negotiating on behalf of 28 countries > using common standards and imports. It costs the > same to bring your produce into Germany as it does > to Greece as it does to the UK in terms of tariffs > and standards. If you as an individual try and > negotaite a deal on something, you've got a lot > less clout than if you're negotiating on behalf of > 28 people. Try buying one car and getting a deal > vs saying "right I own a business and we want 28 > cars, what sort of deal can we agree on?" Change takes time. As I said, the transition will have its challenges. I believe in the longer term case of some of things I?ve have listed above. I?ve cleary said the short term friction is a price I judged to be worth paying. Your opinion no doubt differs. But again?its still your opinion?.. > > 7. Losing workers? rights: > > That's Government. Free from all those pesky > things about maternity leave, sick leave, parental > rights, overtime, etc > https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resour > ces/working-hours-holiday-leave/working-hours/inde > x_en.htm > They can basically just overturn it and we'll be > back to a low-wage economy with no safeguards or > checks. Or do you think the Tories will just be > like "oh yes, we'll be nice to you little > minions..."? Because only the EU has those pesky things right??? No other developed country in the world has them do they? IM sorry, I hate to use the phrase, but this line or argument is ?project fear? at its worst?.. > > > 8. Its not about the individuals: > > Fair point, at least you're not hanging on > Farage's every word so credit for that! We AGREE?HURRAH! > > Either way I just hope the majority > > of people are considering all the issues and > not > > getting caught up in the mud-slinging and > insults > > of this terrible campaign. > > Well the problem is that (as shown above by the > rebuttal of pretty much all your points) Serioulsy?????..you use the word ?rebuttal? as if you think you?ve ?refuted? all my points. Far from it my friend, as my counter-rebuttal will attest...neither of us are going to 'win' this debate, because there is no 'answer'...... This remains a complicated issue, and believing that you can wrap everything up in a nice little unambiguous package, with 100% clarity is the height of non-thinking dogma. My reasons are my reasons, they are not perfect, and they are not certain. Just the same as your reasons are neither perfect or certain. We discuss and debate and maybe we all learn something new. Unfort it seems that people?s willingness to learn something new on either side is about 3.5 years in the rearview mirror?..

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact that you would repost all of that from > 2016 despite the last 3 years doesn?t really show > you in a good light tho. At least actual racists > have their racism for voting leave > > The thing about leave voters is they continue to > project this air of ?noble cause? that just > doesn?t exist anywhere else really. Sovereignty. > Immigration. Blah blah blah > > Why don?t the Irish, the French, the Portuguese > (etc etc) care about these mighty principles in > the same way? Why don?t they come up with the same > ?solution?? I posted that becuase Alan medic asked about the original reasons why someone might have voted leave. Of course things have evolved in 3 years since. I've said on here multiple times that the govt has totally f'd up the negotiations and leave process. And we're I n a bad situation. That doesn't change the fact that there were fair reasons at the time of the vote as I've outlined. As for the rest of Europe. I don't think theEU love is a strong as you thinks it is... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/26/eurosceptic-parties-reshape-eu-politics-strongest-showing-european/amp/ But anyway, I'm sure you'll find a way to belittle and dismiss anything I've said. Because that's much easier than actually having an original thought isn't it?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact that you would repost all of that from > 2016 despite the last 3 years doesn?t really show > you in a good light tho. At least actual racists > have their racism for voting leave > > The thing about leave voters is they continue to > project this air of ?noble cause? that just > doesn?t exist anywhere else really. Sovereignty. > Immigration. Blah blah blah > > Why don?t the Irish, the French, the Portuguese > (etc etc) care about these mighty principles in > the same way? Why don?t they come up with the same > ?solution?? Seriously. Sephiroth. F#ck off. All you want to do is sh-t on anyone who doesn't agree with you. You're a small minded embarrassment. Take a leaf out of someone like Diablo Rouge' book. Who clearly disagree violent with me, but can still be a normal person and engage with someone who disagree with them.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm glad you added that caveat at the end...:) Ha. Sure. No argument is bulletpRoof. Remain or leave or anything......

No heads up at all unless I missed it?

It's in no way bulletproof . It's raw thoughts from 2016. But it shows I had thoughts, and you could vote for leave and not be a racist twat

What started out as jotting down some quick thoughts, has turned into an essay, this will take you 5 mins if you get started, sorry! 8 REASONS I'M VOTING TO LEAVE So this EU debate has been a shambles on both sides. One of the worst public campaigns I?m old enough to remember. Poor presentation of facts, and mud-slinging all round. The Leave camp in particular is tarred with the brush of Farage?s banner of brown immigrant faces, and accusations of bigotry, which are frustrating for those of us that try to look at this from a more informed viewpoint. I will be voting to Leave. And shock, horror, I?m not racist/bigot/xenophobe/little Englander just pining for the ?way things used to be? (I actually don?t even know how things used to be here, because I?m an immigrant myself), and I don?t think a foreigner has stolen my job. There?s no doubt that there are those sort of people supporting the Leave campaign, but to tar all those considering Leaving with the same brush is displaying almost as much ignorance of the issues as the racists themselves. As the campaigning started, I was in a genuinely neutral position, and wanted to find out more before coming down on either side. Please vote whichever way you like, but at least understand that there are real reasons for voting to Leave other than bigotry. So, for those that are perhaps interested in how I reached my decision, a few comments on the debate as I see it?. 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How can I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say we would be worse off under a Brexit scenario? Well, having had some time on my hands of late, I?ve taken it upon myself to read a number of the economic reports published on the issue from cover to cover (e.g. PwC report, IMF report) and yes, they all basically say we would be ?worse off? under Brexit. However, digging a little deeper, most economists are referring to the next 3-4 years, when the uncertainty generated by Brexit would likely cause a slowdown, perhaps even a recession. But as we look out further, towards 2025-2030 most forecasts have a Brexit scenario seeing the UK GDP/Capita somewhere between 0.5% and 4% lower than under a Remain scenario. Now for me, I?m making the decision for the long term, not the next 3-4 years, and as far as I?m concerned a differential of a few percent on a 15 year forecast is well within rounding error. So the simple conclusion for me is that 15 years out, there is very little to separate the economic outlooks under each scenario. Of course, if you?re not prepared to wear a slowdown for the next few years then vote the other way, but for the benefits in other areas, I think it?s a price worth paying. As an aside, I would flag that most economists? forecasts for Brexit assume we would lose trade with the EU, and not gain at all outside the EU, which is probably an overly pessimist assumption, so I think there is some upside to many Brexit economic forecasts. All that being said, to be clear, the economic argument is the weakest that Brexit has, and I wont deny that, but I think that longer term Brexit will actually be beneficial for the UK overall, as discussed below. 2. Immigration: Aha! You cry. This is where you catch me out as the racist I really am!!! Well, my thoughts here are simple, I hope the UK will still continue to welcome people from all over the world, of all races and religions. But the ability to control these numbers for the sake of being able to PLAN public infrastructure surely is crucial. With an aging population, having more migrants strengthens our economy, so I?m all for immigration. But being able to plan the numbers and communicate this information to those departments that invest in our schools, hospitals, roads, housing etc etc so the appropriate forward planning can be done surely makes sense. Also, going back to the economic reports which I mentioned earlier, how is it actually possible for economists to accurately make longer term GDP forecasts when there is very little visibility on the size of the population? Finally, a controlled immigration system is not just about attracting doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if we need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for example, then a sensible Home Office will ensure visas are issued to the people the UK requires to do this. 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the European Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The European Council and the European Commission make most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not elected bodies. So for example, if you think the British government should support British steel works or that the railways should be nationalised again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally bans countries from nationalising certain industries. 4. One size does not fit all: The German economy and the Greek economy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. For years, the Germans saved their money, balanced their books, and grew their economy. And for years, the Greeks borrowed money, ran deficits, and their economy has shrunk. Now the Germans must extend the Greeks credit to keep the country functioning, and the Greeks have to go on paying that debt forever unless they want to leave. If the Greeks were independent, their problems would be none of Germany's business. You can see why they're enraged by each other. But the two economies are yoked together, despite their mismatched sizes and fiscal policies. The UK as a large, strong economy is more toward the German end of the spectrum. 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal and Spain all voted-in governments in the last few years who?s plans/election promises have been over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but the EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and imposed onerous austerity. Doesn?t sound democratic to me. Furthermore, while there is uncertainty of Leaving, I think there is also uncertainty of staying in. Who knows what the EU will decide to impose next. Say, Italy defaults, then the EU ask for another few billion in contributions, there is very little the UK can do about it, other than comply. At least by Leaving, our uncertainty is our own, not the uncertainty of 27 other countries as well. The counter argument to this would be the strength in combining resources, well, I take the view that the UK is one of the stronger parties in the EU, so will more often than not be the giver, rather than the receiver of the benefits of the pooled resources of the EU. 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of the comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off from the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are they seriously saying that if we are not in the EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will still trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate on things like security (do we not share intelligence with the USA because they?re not in the EU?), we?ll still welcome folk from all over the world to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself how is it that other developed economies like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all manage to play their part on the world stage without being part of the club? 7. Losing workers? rights: So apparently if we leave the EU all those workers rights which we cherish (like annual leave, paid maternity leave, unions etc) are at risk. Yes, many of the workers rights in UK law were originally driven by the adherence to the Social Chapter of the EU Maastricht treaty, but they are now written into UK law, the law will not disappear if we Leave. I personally just can?t see any reasonable government trying to repeal these sorts of basic rights without risking a huge backlash at the following election. It just seems rather far fetched to me that any government could get voted in again after repealing paid maternity leave, for example. The question I ask to people who may be worried about this issue, is ?Would you be less worried if left-wing Jeremy Corbyn was the Prime Minister today?? If the answer is ?yes? then I think you might be conflating two separate issues of long term EU membership with who?s in government right now. 8. Its not about the individuals: My decision has absolutely nothing to do with liking or disliking Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else. It?s got nothing to do with whether I like this Tory Government or think they?re Tory scum. Because this decision has very little to do with the politicians of the moment, and much more to do with the next 20-30+ years for the UK. Farage will be a humorous footnote in Wikipedia by the time we reflect on this decision in 30 years, no matter which way we vote. So to quote from an article I?ve read. ?Yes, leaving the EU might hurt economically in the short term. But in the long term, something more important is at stake: whether our democracy should be real. The UK recently devolved power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and it continues to devolve power to its larger cities and regions. There is broad agreement that this has been a good thing. This is the best argument for Brexit: We should extend that devolution of power to our entire nation, too? And by devolving power, this doesn?t mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland no longer ?talk? to each other, just as the UK would still be an active member of the European continent, even if not in the European Union. Neither Leave nor Remain are perfect. Each has its respective positives and negatives. Leaving is not the ?silver bullet?, but on balance it?s where I?m leaning. If you want to Remain, that?s cool, I respect that view and see how that makes sense to some people. Either way I just hope the majority of people are considering all the issues and not getting caught up in the mud-slinging and insults of this terrible campaign.

Agreed. Ridiculous. We enjoyed while nervously hoping the kids don't wake up

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- > > Other than to say, let's all remember this is a > > forecast....it is not a fact. > > Yeah but you watch the weather forecast and plan > activities, clothing etc around that because you > know it'll be broadly factual. > > You might watch the stock market and know that > most of the stuff going on there is again > reasonably forecast able (if you know what you're > looking for). > > Many games and sports you can sort of forecast the > tactics if you're a keen follower of said sport > and know the broad brush strokes of how it's > played. Obviously there's a bit more luck involved > but you can broadly expect a forecast in the right > ball park from a decent sports pundit. > > But here it's just Project Fear? Here it's only a > forecast and can safely be ignored because if you > believe hard enough it'll surely all be alright? > > Weird. FFS. For you and Jenny's benefit, let me walk you very slowly through what has actually been said, instead of what you guys think people said..... In reference to the Yellowhammer papers, Sephiroth said: Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just last week on this very thread Lou was > accusing me and others of doom mongering and we > weren?t basing anything on facts. And yet here we > are And in reponse to that, Keano77 wrote: > How are these facts? They are planning assumptions - short term possible downsides. and in response to that I said: >Come on Keano77, you know the rules mate..."facts" are anything bad that might happen post-brexit; "lies" are anything good that might happen..... YES.....it was a tongue in cheek comment. But it was directed at Sephiroth's referencing of forecasts as facts (which he/she has a history of doing on this thread). Thats it. How you can both extrapolate from that I am 'dismissing' the value of using forecasts is beyond me. For reference, I make financial and economic forecasts for a living, and have made a pretty successful career out of it. So I am intimately aware of the use of forecast to plan for all sort of different scenarios and outcomes. And this is the entire point. Of course it is valuable to stress test the possible outcomes so that one is prepared - that is just prudent risk management. At the end of the day, I said it wasn't a FACT in response to a comment suggesting it was. You guys seemingly agree with that. Please dont extrapolate any more meaning that this. end of.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >You've got some balls. > > Thank you. > > We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though. > I regarded the flow of comments, from everyone, as > being part of a complete debate. So I read the > article that Keano77 linked to about the Singapore > Model, with approval, as being a reinforcement of > his belief that we should not take the > Yellowhammer warnings too seriously. The message > seemed to be 'Look at this positive vision for the > future of the UK - that's what I believe in - > rather than the Yellowhammer warnings'. You, on > the other hand, did not see it that way. You > wanted to agree with Keano77 when he said he did > not regard the Yellowhammer warnings as > significant, while being careful not to express > approval for the 'Singapore Model', which he cited > to reinforce his argument. Fair enough. I > misunderstood you. I can see your point of view, I > would imagine you could also appreciate mine. This > isn't really a cause for outrage, is it? Ahhh, sigh. Jenny, I'm not outraged. I'm just frustrated...I can appreciate that you want to have a robust debate about these issues, but I still don't think you're really reading whats written, and are more reading what you think I meant. I did not agree with keano that yellow hammer warnings were not significant. I agreed with keano that the yellow hammer warnings are not fact. The point that keano, and myself, were making is that a few regular offenders on here seem to take FORECASTS which agree with their pre-existing views and try to dress them up as FACT. When they are clearly not. I have made absolutely no representation as the validity or otherwise of the yellowhammer papers. Other than to say, let's all remember this is a forecast....it is not a fact.