rendelharris

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So are you of the opinion that our contribution to > the EU will be diverted to the NHS, education and > social services? You're more deluded than I > thought. When farage was asked about it this > morning he said that it was a "mistake". Didn't > take long to start lying did it, oops my mistake, > the fooker tells nothing but lies and peddles > hatred. I have a feeling that once the exit process is in full swing we're going to hear a lot of that ghastly American politician's phrase, "I misspoke."

Furlong Road, Islington. At least until autumn, when regrettably it seems it'll probably be somewhere more in the SW1 area. Surely even those who are pleased with the result must view the prospect of that crooked philandering unprincipled clown being PM with some trepidation? Oh, edit: before anyone says it's irresponsible to give out his address (which takes ten seconds to find on Google anyway) on a public forum, let's not forget the infamous 'phone call in which Boris agreed to give his mate Darius Guppy a journalist's address on condition that he wouldn't be killed, just "f*cked up a bit." That's our next prime minister presumptive.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Result of EDF Referendum Poll > > > Remain a member of the European Union 820 81% > > Leave the European Union 171 17% > > Unsure 26 2% > > > > Kind of highlights just how in touch and > representative The EDF is. > > DulwichFox How many members does this forum have, I wonder? Unless 1,116 represents 72% of users it highlights nothing other than the fact that those who bothered to vote in the poll aren't representative of the populace at large, you can't extrapolate anything more than that about forum users in general. From viewing and joining in the debate on here I'd say those who posted were split roughly down the middle, just like the national vote.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you can opt out of that by un-ticking the relevant > box on your profile OK - our pal LL hasn't though...

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: > > How on earth did you find this? it's really > interesting. I thought at first it was tenuous, > but there is no reason why it cannot be true? > thanks. Alice inspired me - realised I've listened to and played that song a thousand times but never really thought about who Mr.J might be!

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you'd get labelled a stalker if you asked Admin to > find out when she was online last ;-) Oddly you don't have to, all our histories show the last time we looked even if we don't comment - oh God, maybe I'm a stalker!

Otta Wrote: > > This whole pen thing is hilarious. > > Take your tin foil hats too. I do sometimes wish there was a like button function on this forum...

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Always thought mr Jimmy was Jimmy hendrix Interesting entry on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hutmaker

Interview with one of Robbie's friends on PM Radio 4 now (17.32)

Arrgh stop talking about it you swines, for some of us it's still five hours to P&P (polling then pint)! Making the old throat feel like sandpaper just thinking of it!

Edit: written while Loz was posting obviously, but worth restating the FACT that saying FACT in capital letters does not actually make the FACT, de facto, a FACT. > > DulwichFox Wrote: > > FACT > EU law is supreme over UK law. This stops the > British public from being able to vote out those > who make our laws Fact: EU law is made by negotiation amongst member states on a ten yearly basis, with our elected representatives having just as much say as anybody else. Sometimes (rarely) the UK may be outvoted, but complaining about that in a representative body is like complaining that your personal MP was outvoted by a majority of other MPs. > FACT > Our 'Supreme Court' is the European Court of > Justice. We?ve lost control of trade, human > rights, and migration Fact: Our elected governments helped to draft and agreed to European Law and the ECJ only rules on misapplication of that law. The ECJ does not rule on migration numbers. > FACT > The Eurozone has a permanent voting majority and > can always outvote the UK Fact: again, if you're part of any association you have to accept that your vote is only one amongst many. It's called democracy. This is why we need a government who will work with EU partners to achieve compromise instead of huffing that we don't get our own way all the time. > FACT > Losing control costs a fortune - if you vote > 'remain' you?ll be paying for euro bailouts Fact: the deal with the EU agreed in February was that the UK will not provide any money for Euro bailouts, either directly or indirectly. If any portion of EU capital is used in Euro bailouts the UK's stake in that capital must be returned to the UK.

And voters from the Goose Green centre (or at least us) have moved to the Baptist church on Arnott Road - maybe the baptists have put in a wholesale offer for hosting!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who thinks this country suffers 'slavery' > in any significant form has really no concept of > the horrors of slavery. Feeling a bit po-faced even as I type - but 13,000 victims is quite significant, I'd say. http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/slavery_in_the_uk/default.aspx

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rational and informative are big words Louisa, but > you are fun to do battle with and I don't think > I've ever seen you be rude to anyone. May I agree in that I don't agree with virtually anything Louisa has said on this issue but she has been nothing but courteous. Ah well, this time tomorrow it'll all be over and we can all celebrate/drown our sorrows as appropriate.

Don't know if I'm one of the nutters Jeremy (I say no, Mrs.H says yes) but I took the OP to mean groups of parents walking three abreast. Of course I understand a parent with two small children wanting to hold their hands (though it's a good example of politeness for the kids to step to one side to let oncoming pedestrians through) - it's when one gets three parents all with buggies walking abreast and taking the width of the pavement, forcing one into the road, that it gets rather annoying.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa, I personally have issues with the CFP. > For one, through constant political bartering, > caps are not set low enough in Europe. This is > the fault of member nations (including the UK) who > are constantly fighting for over-fishing rather > than setting the caps at their intended > appropriate conservation levels. If anything, I > think the decision on cap levels should be made > entirely by scientists and removed from political > influence. > > > With that said, I also think the UK lost more than > it gained initially in the 1970s when joining the > CFP as it controlled more valuable fishing water > than other member nations. However, by then the > fishing industry was already in terminal decline. > Over fishing for almost a hundred years had > already significantly decimated the fishing > population. > > Leaving the EU will not and cannot restore fishing > to its former importance in those parts of the > country. In fact, without EU subsidies, fishing > is no longer a viable industry within Europe > generally as most fleets run at a loss (and that's > with the caps set too high!). > > I think this is 100% an area for reform regarding > better conservation efforts but the economic value > of fishing for the UK doesn't warrant a Leave vote > at all. Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry combined > only account for 0.07% of UK GDP. That is > hundredths of a percent! I agree with all of this - I would just add that the deleterious effect on small fishing communities has been exacerbated by the use of massive factory trawlers which have centralised fishing to a handful of ports. This is something the UK government could have addressed through licensing and grants, the EU wouldn't have interfered - once they've given the UK our quota it's up to us who's licensed to catch it. One of those many areas where superficially the EU seems to be to blame but on closer examination it's national government incompetence and/or willingness to please big business over the needs of the small producers.

Castillo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly Rook what's the point in an elected uk > government if they have to impose rulings by an EU > hierarchy we didn't vote for or want EU elections, May 2014. As I said above, by all means campaign to have the UK government as the top tier of our system if that's what you want, but let's drop this nonsense that there's a faceless unelected EU monster that imposes laws on us without our having a say. Everything the EU decides is either decreed by the European Parliament, for which we vote, or agreed between governments, for which we vote.

Rook Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- So you have a situation > where people in the UK want (and vote, and elect) > a government on the key issues, only for the EU to > veto or overule or disallow it. How is that > democratic? The people in the UK also voted for the European Parliament, which holds primacy in certain Europewide issues. Saying that's undemocratic is like saying it's undemocratic for the national government to be able to overrule a county council, I voted for my county council on key local issues, what right does national government have to overrule it? All democratic systems have tiers stretching from local to national and beyond. Now, you may wish to make national government the point at which it stops, and that's a perfectly valid opinion, but you can't call something for which you have a free vote undemocratic, it simply isn't.

You're very probably right Louisa, it will entirely depend on the colour of government we get I think; if the Tories get in again in 2020 there will almost certainly be enough backbenchers agitating for another vote to make it happen (or indeed if the vote is really close - most commentators seem to think Cameron needs at least a 7.5% win to hold his place). I wonder how long the EU will put up with continuous referenda before saying they've had enough and applying the boot themselves? From their point of view the turmoil and uncertainty we're causing can't be very satisfactory.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > many problems are solved with chocolate. :-)

The EU's a front for dem Papes taking over? Well thanks for the tipoff, I shall visit my man in Jermyn Street and order a brand new tinfoil topper first thing tomorrow.

Yes - it's clearly not ideal when considering the amount of track capacity, you're right, but the fact remains that the EU do not block nationalised railways, and other countries - France being the prime example - manage to maintain them efficiently and conform to EU law at the same time. The trouble with the UK is that instead of being clever, like France and Germany, we've fought against EU law even though we've signed up to it and thrown in a particular (usually Tory) brand of privatising incompetence against it. The EU is not the reason we have denationalised railways, that was the Thatcher government. Now, back to that chocolate thing...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Me too- on a very serious note the influence of > the RC church is a massive worry - although the > influence of the catholic church is mercifully on > the wane in Poland (for a start). Wow. This debate has really brought the whackadoodles out, hasn't it! Vote out or the nuns will take over! The two largest players in the EU apart from ourselves, France and Germany, are entirely secular and have the primacy of secular law enshrined in their constitution, as does the EU. This is the most vermillion of red herrings.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EU law protects the rights of open access > operators to operate outside of government > control. Example:Grand Central Railway, a > subsidiary of Arriva UK trains- owned by Deutsche > Bahn since 2010. > http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/16/cho > colate.war/ > ffs Umm, your link is to a row about what constitutes chocolate. FFS indeed.

uncleglen Wrote: > Given that EU law would prevent the > re-nationalisation of the railways, which, given > the finite nature of fossil fuels and the > congestion on the roads, (not to mention the > pollution generated which the EU fine us for every > year,) is the only sensible way forward in > transportation- then EU law is a stupid ass and we > should get out now. That's simply not true, I'm afraid, much as Farage loves to say it. EU law requires non-restrictive competitive access to freight routes, it in no way proscribes nationalisation of railways. The First EU rail directive states: "Member States may exclude from the scope of this Directive railway undertakings whose activity is limited to the provision of solely urban, suburban or regional services." It's not the EU that stands in the way of railway renationalisation, it's the interests of private capital (I'm looking at you, Branson) and the conservative economic policies of successive governments. Look up the SNCF, with government backing (and it must be admitted a certain amount of cunning Gallic footwork worthy of Serge Blanco) they've retained predominant government control over the French rail network. It's a lack of UK government will and supine bowing to private capital that have landed our railways in the mess they're in today, not EU regulation.