The EU: IN or OUT?

Chadsman

Ballard wrote: »

The second reason is that they want their democracy back but this is the first time that at least half of this number have voted and, quite frankly, it's likely to be their last.

Would these be the same people who read the Murdoch press?

masonic

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you were arguing with from my earlier post, since you seem to agree with much of it. There is a concensus that manmade global warming is taking place, but there is uncertainty over the precise effects, due to feedback mechanisms for example. The so-called deniers - or sceptics if you prefer - tend to seize on the fact that scientists are not in agreement as to the details of future warming to indicate that they are not agreed on man made global warming.

I wasn't really arguing. I quoted you as my post expanded on yours.

There is a difference between being undecided over the extent and specifics (or even what is the best action to take), and being an outright denier as you describe above. One of those positions can be arrived at rationally and the other cannot. Either of these positions could be labelled scepticism, so a rather succinct statement is easily misconstrued (and hence my post was, in part, a clarification).

You are probably right about there being a tendency towards gross overgeneralisation of the disagreement that exists in the scientific community on this issue. But the biggie for outright deniers is false equivalence when pitting scientific data against conspiracy theories, in part owing to journalistic "balance".

BananaRepublic

masonic wrote: »

I wasn't really arguing. I quoted you as my post expanded on yours.

There is a difference between being undecided over the extent and specifics (or even what is the best action to take), and being an outright denier as you describe above. One of those positions can be arrived at rationally and the other cannot. Either of these positions could be labelled scepticism, so a rather succinct statement is easily misconstrued (and hence my post was, in part, a clarification).

You are probably right about there being a tendency towards gross overgeneralisation of the disagreement that exists in the scientific community on this issue. But the biggie for outright deniers is false equivalence when pitting scientific data against conspiracy theories, in part owing to journalistic "balance".

Thanks for the clarification. As someone who once worked in scientific research, namely physics, I am dismayed at some of the sophistry employed to convince the ignorant that climate change is a conspiracy.

LHW99

Whether it is agreed that the major factor determining climate change is man-made activities or not, man-made activities are one thing we have control over.
Taking care of and having forethought about what we do to the environment can only be a good thing, to whatever degree it helps ameliorate the measured current climate variations.

Thrugelmir

Rollinghome wrote: »

Like most of the decisions he and Osborne made, they were for short-term tactical party political advantage to maintain power rather than for the benefit of Britain.

The pledge to reduce immigration was in two manifesto's, i.e. 2010 and 2015. Cameron must have believed that the EU poliocrats in their ivory tower would negotiate. They didn't. Problem was people aren't sheep, they can think for themselves. So they stuck their two fingers up at the elite. Both in Westminster and Brussels. Quality of life and culture far outweighs freedom of movement, trade and agricultural policy.

talexuser

atush wrote: »

But he did the decent thing.

Prime Ministers questions 9 March 2016:

"If the British people vote to leave the EU, will the prime minister resign?"

David Cameron: "NO!"

buglawton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The pledge to reduce immigration was in two manifesto's, i.e. 2010 and 2015. Cameron must have believed that the EU poliocrats in their ivory tower would negotiate. They didn't. Problem was people aren't sheep, they can think for themselves. So they stuck their two fingers up at the elite. Both in Westminster and Brussels. Quality of life and culture far outweighs freedom of movement, trade and agricultural policy.

But Thrug, did you just invent a new word? What's a poliocrat?

Glen_Clark

Ballard wrote: »

they want their democracy back

What democracy? Britain is the least democratic country in Europe because it doesn't elect its Head of State or House of Lords. Britain only elects one third of its constitution, and even then the Government takes power with a minority of the votes cast.
I only wish we were ruled from Brussels because they wouldn't have sent us into the illegal invasion of Iraq - the rest of Europe was against it!

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

What democracy? Britain is the least democratic country in Europe because it doesn't elect its Head of State or House of Lords. Britain only elects one third of its constitution, and even then the Government takes power with a minority of the votes cast.
I only wish we were ruled from Brussels because they wouldn't have sent us into the illegal invasion of Iraq - the rest of Europe was against it!

Now's the time to emigrate, while you still can.

By the way, Her Maj has no real power, it's ceremonial. And I speak as a republican. As for the House of Lords, I mostly agree. Our political framework does make it hard for one group to usurp power as per Hitler in pre-war Germany.

treemachine

atush wrote: »

And EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they take in benefits. According to the latest statistics available.

So? Benefits aren't the only thing that the taxpayer has to provide for EU migrants. By the time you include schools/ housing/ healthcare and transport etc you find EU migrants are a drain to the taxpayer.....