Brexit

Herzlos

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Cameron has announced that 16 / 17 year olds will not be allowed to vote.

So we get ranting racist loonies like the guy above, who are probably retired or near it, affecting the future of teenagers that they won't be around themselves to see.

1,000,0000 British resident who hail from the EU will be similarly disenfranchised. So we get ranting racist loonies, like the guy above, who are doubtless a drain on the state, but a gainfully employed man or woman who has been here for years gets no say.

Brits in the EU also get no say, but Commonwealth citizens who have just arrived do.

It's hard to keep believing the Tories want us to stay in. Cameron is making every bit as big a mess of this at the outset as he did with Scotland.

You mean, politicians are trying to exclude as many people as possible who will likely vote the way they don't want? Doesn't that usually happen?

Generali

I'm wee'd off that I can't vote. It's blooming handy having a passport that gets me into 30 odd countries in the express queue.

purch

Normally they are fast asleep and don't even bother to check it

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

Not sure that is true but if it were, then it would show how stupid a lot of labour supporter are.

Actually it shows that Labour supporters placed the interests of the Union above party interest and suffered accordingly. Cameron was on the right side of the argument ie the winning side and then used it to his advantage by pandering to English nationalism the following morning and during the following months and in the election. He is not a unifying PM; the cards fell in his favour and he took advantage.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Actually it shows that Labour supporters placed the interests of the Union above party interest and suffered accordingly. Cameron was on the right side of the argument ie the winning side and then used it to his advantage by pandering to English nationalism the following morning and during the following months and in the election. He is not a unifying PM; the cards fell in his favour and he took advantage.

So to clarify, you believe that when Labour stand up for their Unionist principles they do so despite any electoral disadvantage from standing on a platform with the Tories.

When the Conservative Party stand up for their Unionist principles they do so as a cynical exercise in Nationalism.

I invite fellow posters to guess which way Moby voted at the last election.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

So to clarify, you believe that when Labour stand up for their Unionist principles they do so despite any electoral disadvantage from standing on a platform with the Tories.

When the Conservative Party stand up for their Unionist principles they do so as a cynical exercise in Nationalism.

I invite fellow posters to guess which way Moby voted at the last election.

That will be a Yes Generali........ as Labour clearly had a lot more to lose by standing on the same platform. The SNP hammered this point home during the campaign. I repeat..... Cameron was advised to take a back seat and he did....Darling ran the campaign and Brown came in at the end. To talk of tory principles when it comes to the Union is risible. They clearly exploited division within the Union to great effect during the election campaign. Their policy towards the economy, EVEL and Europe is moving us nearer the break up of the Union. Cameron in Downing Street suits the SNP perfectly because now they can point the finger of blame so much easier!

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Actually it shows that Labour supporters placed the interests of the Union above party interest and suffered accordingly. Cameron was on the right side of the argument ie the winning side and then used it to his advantage by pandering to English nationalism the following morning and during the following months and in the election. He is not a unifying PM; the cards fell in his favour and he took advantage.

Seems you're confusing yourself

first you say Labour has a backlash from their own supporters for doing the right thing

Labour led the 'Better Together' campaign and have just suffered the backlash in the general election because they appeared on the same platform as the tories. A huge error in hindsight on their part.

now you tell us labour supporters are placing the union above party benefit

which is it then?

but is doesn't matter because you know that everything tories do is vile and everything labour do is in the interest of the nation

(just like the SNP but substitute labour)

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

In the original referendum to decide whether to remain or leave the EEC the vote was about 6:4 to remain in. I'd expect that margin again.

That means 50% more vote stay than go. Like the Scottish Referendum it sounds tighter than it is. The Scottish referendum really was a huge No win. About 20% more voted No than Yes. I also can't imagine that Cameron would be dumb enough to let the Stay! voted be phrased in the negative. The Yes! side probably starts with a few %age points just for Behavioural Reasons.

The original EEC referendum (and the Scottish one) were about a future that voters were all uncertain about. The difference with this EU referendum is that it is informed by experience. I doubt anyone will vote to stay in because the EEC/EU has been a resounding success. They may however vote to leave because of perceptions that it is responsible for all or any of the ills of the country. It will probably be determined by the way the campaigns are funded but propaganda that for example the lack of affordability of housing or lack of well paid jobs is due to the EU might move a lot of votes. It does not matter if it is not true.

As we saw in Scotland, at one point the polls were close and a lot of the Yes votes were a protest at the English trying to tell the Scots which way to vote. I would hope that major employers threatening to relocate to Europe might convince people, but who is to say that will not be seen as business trying to manipulate the outcome.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

The original EEC referendum (and the Scottish one) were about a future that voters were all uncertain about. ....

The future's always uncertain. And the end is always near. (Let it roll, baby roll:).)

I'm not convinced that it will be any different. Although I do suspect, assuming that we do get a successful 'renegotiation', that this time round we might have a PM that actually campaigns in favour of a yes vote, as opposed to leaving it to the leader of the opposition.:)

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

Seems you're confusing yourself

first you say Labour has a backlash from their own supporters for doing the right thing



now you tell us labour supporters are placing the union above party benefit

which is it then?

but is doesn't matter because you know that everything tories do is vile and everything labour do is in the interest of the nation

(just like the SNP but substitute labour)

No I think you are confused or are just being your usual contrary self. Something for you to ruminate on Clapton:_ Confucius says when we see persons of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see persons of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.