EU referendum

[EalingBlue2]

Agree, surely that has to involve PR so that all of us can believe our vote really counts. I accept that means we will have to live with permanent coalition governments which, for sone [the two major UK parties] may just be a step too far.

I agree 100% that the voting system needs reform , I also love compulsory voting too (you can spoil your paper) as it does involve a greater % in thinking about things

 

[EalingBlue2]

IF and I accept its a BIG IF, we vote to leave there is a huge possibility we will be asked the question again BUT only if the EU come to the UK with a significant offer for reforming itself which will put the UK into a much stronger negotiating position than Cameron enjoyed earlier this term. Whoever the PM is at that time will have a major dilemma, especially if it's Boris. As I posted earlier I think we are in a terrible position because regardless of whether we're in or out after the 23rd we are to all intents and purposes a busted flush.

It is interesting to note that Cameron has changed his stance significantly. He is now saying we have a strong economy and are in a healthy enough state to survive should we vote to leave. I do find that to be a bit well.... I won't use the word disingenuous but let's say strange.

Cameron will swing with whatever his latest focus group or internal poll tells him to

 

[ChicagoBlue]

(I) think a global currency and tax regime to be inevitable in my lifetime.

Are you a vampire? ;-)

There is a de facto global currency called the dollar. Oil is valued in it and China's currency is (kinda still) pegged to it. If you think we have global halves and have nots now, wait until you have one currency and one tax system!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You base that assumption that change is always good - it sometimes is and it often isn't. People who voted for Mandela voted for change but so did people who voted for Hitler and both Martin Luther King and the KKK did too.

No, I don't believe change is always good,but change is always an unknown and fear of the unknown is always the argument against it...even when it is fairly well known what the outcome might be.

As for the comment "both Martin Luther King and the KKK did too," I have no idea what you mean. However, going to extremes to make a point usually doesn't bode well for the person trying to make the point.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Democracy is going to be the end of western liberal society as democracy is going to bankrupt our world as we know it, democracy is short term and deeply damaging to the planet and the future. That said I wouldn't swap it as the alternative is worse, I just wish we could work out how to fix democracy before it kills itself

Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But then what does he know, right?!

Social democracy is the future of government. The question is when, if ever, will people start to understand that a system where we all prosper is always preferable to a system where a few prosper by leveraging their influence over others. Will we ever become that self-actualized, given the pervasive levels of greed capitalism has created and promoted? One can hope, but can one ever really expect?

 

[steviemc]

If there was a region that was 90% male probably an even higher % white , a very high % teen to 60 and 99% city fans you would have a great point that place only exists virtually though but if you want to ban posts from non British EU citizens unless they have passed a skills test them work on it with @Ric

I advocate democracy but I think it will cause the death of itself!

Ok...back up your reply. What European parliament legislation has been 'specifically' produced to benefit the female, (city or non-city supporters) and those between the ages of 61 to 110, and/or non-whites? Please be specific. I'd like you to tell me what legislation has been introduced/passed that couldn't have been passed in local government.

This should be either be enlightening...or bullshit ;-)

 

[steviemc]

Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But then what does he know, right?!

Social democracy is the future of government. The question is when, if ever, will people start to understand that a system where we all prosper is always preferable to a system where a few prosper by leveraging their influence over others. Will we ever become that self-actualized, given the pervasive levels of greed capitalism has created and promoted? One can hope, but can one ever really expect?

That ain't ever gonna happen I'm afraid. Human genetics gives us a tendency to gain at the expense of others. That said, attempted democracy is by far the safest option for a stable society. It will never ever be perfect, and the idea that people claim to be 'left' of 'right' on a political spectrum is more damaging than anything. The mere idea that politicians are expected to 'toe the party line' on issues that absolutely go against their own principles is one of the many abhorrent aspects of party politics.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Ok...back up your reply. What European parliament legislation has been 'specifically' produced to benefit the female, (city or non-city supporters) and those between the ages of 61 to 110, and/or non-whites? Please be specific. I'd like you to tell me what legislation has been introduced/passed that couldn't have been passed in local government.

This should be either be enlightening...or bullshit ;-)

????? What has a democratic poll on the cellar got to do with the above? I am not sure what tangent this has gone off on unless I completely misunderstood your comment I replied to as I was talking about the Cellar.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But then what does he know, right?!

Social democracy is the future of government. The question is when, if ever, will people start to understand that a system where we all prosper is always preferable to a system where a few prosper by leveraging their influence over others. Will we ever become that self-actualized, given the pervasive levels of greed capitalism has created and promoted? One can hope, but can one ever really expect?

Churchill had it right democracy is becoming increasingly dreadful but it's still the best. I admire your belief that one day social democracy will rule but a large part of the country are still sheep to their rich masters and fall for the political , nationalist and religious nonsense used by the 1% to control them. If the poorest had rational sense they would combine with poor immigrants and the middle class to push for fairness but the 1% throw s nationalist or immigrant carrot at them and they fall for it hook line and sinker. 90% who vote Tory do it entirely against their self interest but have been convinced it is right for them

 

[EalingBlue2]

No, I don't believe change is always good,but change is always an unknown and fear of the unknown is always the argument against it...even when it is fairly well known what the outcome might be.

As for the comment "both Martin Luther King and the KKK did too," I have no idea what you mean. However, going to extremes to make a point usually doesn't bode well for the person trying to make the point.

The point was simple and extremes usually are the only things people understand on here but fair enough that doesn't necessarily apply in this case. You seemed to be supporting the bravery and importance of change and I was merely saying change can be a huge force for good but equally a catalyst for catastrophe

 

[EalingBlue2]

Are you a vampire? ;-)

There is a de facto global currency called the dollar. Oil is valued in it and China's currency is (kinda still) pegged to it. If you think we have global halves and have nots now, wait until you have one currency and one tax system!

I suck the life out of people do yes ! That I think will happen and then comes the real revolution

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Agreed, he told us that himself. Do you think for one moment he would have called a referendum if he had any intention of trying to remain in N.10at the next election.

Quite frankly, like the rest of tenure in office I don't he gives a fuck, him ans Osborne are just playing at it. When it all goes tits up, they'll shrug their shoulders and fuck of to several high paid city non exec directorships and take their places in Brussels.

He wont have any say in the rest of his tenure.

 

[cibaman]

IF and I accept its a BIG IF, we vote to leave there is a huge possibility we will be asked the question again BUT only if the EU come to the UK with a significant offer for reforming itself which will put the UK into a much stronger negotiating position than Cameron enjoyed earlier this term. Whoever the PM is at that time will have a major dilemma, especially if it's Boris. As I posted earlier I think we are in a terrible position because regardless of whether we're in or out after the 23rd we are to all intents and purposes a busted flush.

It is interesting to note that Cameron has changed his stance significantly. He is now saying we have a strong economy and are in a healthy enough state to survive should we vote to leave. I do find that to be a bit well.... I won't use the word disingenuous but let's say strange.

Would the PM have any choice? There is a huge pro EU majority of MPs in parliament. Something like 450- 500 out of 650 MPs. If the EU did make a significant offer, couldn't parliament vote through a second referendum with or without the PM's agreement?

 

[BigJoe#1]

Would the PM have any choice? There is a huge pro EU majority of MPs in parliament. Something like 450- 500 out of 650 MPs. If the EU did make a significant offer, couldn't parliament vote through a second referendum with or without the PM's agreement?

I guess the only choice a P M would have would be to back a referendum ir resign? Poor Boris eh? Or maybe Poor Gideon eh?

 

[Monkfish]

A bit sideshow Bob, but if we did leave the eu will the value of UK footballers go even more through the roof?
Apologies for mentioning football in here, just curious

 

[CityStu]

A bit sideshow Bob, but if we did leave the eu will the value of UK footballers go even more through the roof?
Apologies for mentioning football in here, just curious

Maybe initially, but eventually the opposite. Assuming work permit regulations stay the same, which I'd suggest is unlikely.

 

[cibaman]

I guess the only choice a P M would have would be to back a referendum ir resign? Poor Boris eh? Or maybe Poor Gideon eh?

If Leave win it wouldn't be Osborne. It would be a Brexiter, most likely Johnson.

 

[BigJoe#1]

If Leave win it wouldn't be Osborne. It would be a Brexiter, most likely Johnson.

Agreed, I wonder how either could govern successfully if there was a very fine margin either way? Almost impossible I might suggest.

 

[hgblue]

Would the PM have any choice? There is a huge pro EU majority of MPs in parliament. Something like 450- 500 out of 650 MPs. If the EU did make a significant offer, couldn't parliament vote through a second referendum with or without the PM's agreement?

Just thinking about this logically, every single referendum result that has gone against the EU has either been a) ignored or b) put back to the people to 'think again'. I think we'd all agree that they couldn't simply ignore a leave vote because all hell would break loose. So what would the response of the EU be to potentially losing one of it's biggest net contributors, one of the biggest economies on the planet, and it's largest export market? Would it be a c'est la vie approach of well they've voted to leave so we respect the outcome, or do they enter in to serious negotiations to address the concerns of the Brits and accept that we don't see things the same way? I'd say past experience would suggest we'll be ask to think again, but this can't happen without major concessions and this time the British PM won't have to go around kissing the arse of the Polish president to get them, because he'll have a much stronger hand to play with the very real threat of Britain leaving the EU if he doesn't get what he wants.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Agreed, I wonder how either could govern successfully if there was a very fine margin either way? Almost impossible I might suggest.

Probably why Cameron is softening his language towards brexit(ers). He realises we will vote remain but not with a convincing enough majority for him to have a real mandate to govern if he nails his colours too hard to the mast.