If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

ash28 wrote: »

The graph was relevant in the context of 1973, the year you mentioned when you said women stayed at home and I assumed you meant women with children as a lot of people think women with children didn't work when quite a number of them did. It might be a historical article but the numbers for 1973 won't have changed.


The chart below is just an earlier version of the one you posted.....with a projection out to 2006.

Most reports published using stats tend to use the same source and just because they are old doesn't make them wrong.

Nobody is proving or disproving any point of course.

This all came from the point I made that the average per capita GDP of Italy, France and Germany was higher than the UK when the UK joined the EU and is now considerably lower.

Then our drunken friend made a wild assertion with no evidence that this was something to do with women working (she's above giving links apparently). To show whether or not that is the case you'd need to look at the change in working patterns between the sexes as well as a series of other quite complex things at play that change as women enter the workforce.

prosaver

wotsthat wrote: »

You should care if you want a leave result.

It's looking like the stay campaign is going to win so you need to persuade them rather than insult them.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink it,



Btw why do you think they have shyed away when i asked for solid uptodate facts .. shame really. .. i just seem them as trolls now , who have .... cant be arsed, not worh it bye

prosaver

Generali wrote: »

Nobody is proving or disproving any point of course.

This all came from the point I made that the average per capita GDP of Italy, France and Germany was higher than the UK when the UK joined the EU and is now considerably lower.

Then our drunken friend made a wild assertion with no evidence that this was something to do with women working (she's above giving links apparently). To show whether or not that is the case you'd need to look at the change in working patterns between the sexes as well as a series of other quite complex things at play that change as women enter the workforce.

see, trying to insult me again, anyway Im not a she funny tho)
Seriously do you think a women has a choice when married not to work? forget all the graphs and stuff

prosaver

why dont you read this
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-you-right-now.html

Generali

prosaver wrote: »

see, trying to insult me again, anyway Im not a she funny tho)
Seriously do you think a women has a choice when married not to work? forget all the graphs and stuff

I had no way to know. I will use an accurate pronoun in future.

I know plenty of stay at home parents, both men and women, many of whom have suspended highly successful careers to do become a full-time parent. The key to being able to make the choice, as with so many in life, is that financial success gives you freedoms.

Mrs Generali was a SAHM for many years.

prosaver

Generali wrote: »

I had no way to know. I will use an accurate pronoun in future.

I know plenty of stay at home parents, both men and women, many of whom have suspended highly successful careers to do become a full-time parent. The key to being able to make the choice, as with so many in life, is that financial success gives you freedoms.

Mrs Generali was a SAHM for many years.

thank you,
I feel this is getting us nowere Im just trying to say this is our last chance to get away from the EU and people have to do more research in why they are voting the way they are.
Im not 100% sure I dont anyone is.
well Ive got 2 months to look things up,
be careful of the media

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

And the source of this is?

ONS.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/womeninthelabourmarket/2013-09-25

See, not only can I find my own sources, I can find other people's as well.:)

Rinoa

Where have I heard this before?

People in Switzerland vote on Sunday on whether to automatically expel foreigners who commit minor crimes.
The proposal has been put forward by the right-wing Swiss People's Party.
The vote comes as unease grows among Swiss people at rising immigration and the social problems which, the People's Party says, come with it.
But opponents say the law will create a two-tier justice system which will unfairly target foreigners who live permanently and legally in Switzerland.
More than five million people are entitled to vote - not including the two million or so foreign nationals living there.
If adopted, the proposal known as the "Enforcement Initiative" would strengthen moves adopted in 2010 to deport foreigners convicted of murder or sexual violence.

The Swiss People's Party is now seeking automatic deportation with no right of appeal if a foreigner commits two minor offences within 10 years such as speeding or arguing with a police officer.

Supporters of the proposals say it will make Switzerland a safer place, and point to statistics indicating that foreigners make up a disproportionately large part of the prison population.

Opinion polls suggest the vote will be close.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35680760

michaels

I know the debate on here is rather sterile because at least among the posters I appear to be the only undecided but I liked this piece from IDS (I know)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35681525

I liked it because it contained some positive campaigning, generally all we get from the out camp is the threat of immigrants takig over the country and from the in camp the risk of economic meltdown. Surely both sides can articulate a positive view of the future?

Angela Eagle had a lot to say about import issues to the decision such as internal tory party politics (wry smile smilie). Why is it poiticians, even when debating matters likely to have a profound national impact for years to come, can not see beyond the ends of their noses and narrow party point scoring. With this decision I care not at all where parties or individual party members stand.

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

I know the debate on here is rather sterile because at least among the posters I appear to be the only undecided but I liked this piece from IDS (I know)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35681525

I liked it because it contained some positive campaigning, generally all we get from the out camp is the threat of immigrants takig over the country and from the in camp the risk of economic meltdown. Surely both sides can articulate a positive view of the future?

Angela Eagle had a lot to say about import issues to the decision such as internal tory party politics (wry smile smilie). Why is it poiticians, even when debating matters likely to have a profound national impact for years to come, can not see beyond the ends of their noses and narrow party point scoring. With this decision I care not at all where parties or individual party members stand.

whilst most people say they want positive campaigning, it does seem, that in practice, negative stuff wins the votes.