EU referendum deal (title edited)

[EalingBlue2]

Stop killing babies? Have more children? Stop contracepting yourselves into this mess? Stop lying to one another about the cause?

It's much cheaper to bring babies in at 23 than to bring them up, house them and educate them when they have no tax paying or productive capacity. More babies especially if not in the wealthier classes can for the first 16-25 years actually exacerbate the issue.

We have thus outsourced the bringing up babies part , education part etc to other countries because it much cheaper to have someone else do it and take them at 23 when their first costly non productive part of life is over.

 

[purplenose]

Strictly speaking that would be true of me jumping off a 100 foot cliff into the sea, personally I wouldn't do it though unless I was very clear about what the outcome would be and that benefits would flow.

I think the out campaign is very effective but is based on fundamental untruths and a misunderstanding or more likely deliberate misrepresentation of what the problems are. The yes campaign is a debacle and As they have no more interest in discussing or understanding the real issues they just hope it will go away and try to be flippant or use fear to win.

Both are very bad for Britain and such a level of discourse will ensure sadly a bad outcome either way. Unless that is call me, calls the EU's bluff and pulls off a significant improvement in the UK agreement with Europe.

Your first paragraph covers it...the vast majority will leap off that cliff if Cameron, Corbyn, Facebook, Mums.net, or the BBC tell them too.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Your first paragraph covers it...the vast majority will leap off that cliff if Cameron, Corbyn, Facebook, Mums.net, or the BBC tell them too.

Or if the Mail , express or Nigel farage told them they would believe that the EU causes cancer, is run by Martians and all support Scunthorpe United ! That's the problem

 

[purplenose]

Or if the Mail , express or Nigel farage told them they would believe that the EU causes cancer, is run by Martians and all support Scunthorpe United ! That's the problem

True of course...ironic that your chances of surviving cancer in this country is lower than in the rest of the EU, but thats off topic and needs discussing with Dave....or perhaps not because he and is chums dont like to talk about that.

 

[CityStu]

It's much cheaper to bring babies in at 23 than to bring them up, house them and educate them when they have no tax paying or productive capacity. More babies especially if not in the wealthier classes can for the first 16-25 years actually exacerbate the issue.

We have thus outsourced the bringing up babies part , education part etc to other countries because it much cheaper to have someone else do it and take them at 23 when their first costly non productive part of life is over.

Not really, because most immigrants arrive at their prime reproductive age so we get kids into the system regardless. In fact, given the difference in birth rates, I'd imagine we get more children in schools through immigration than if immigration had to be covered by the existing population having offspring.

 

[Scottyboi]

Europeans aren't having enough kids so I agree with the immigration otherwise who is going to fund all these pensions.

And it is nice the idea of being able to move through most of europe freely, but due to our shit stirring in the M.E it's now become problem.

If it was possible to remain in Europe but heavily amend the rules I would stay in, but we cannot trust any government to follow up on any false promises they will make to sway vote.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Europeans aren't having enough kids so I agree with the immigration otherwise who is going to fund all these pensions.

And it is nice the idea of being able to move through most of europe freely, but due to our shit stirring in the M.E it's now become problem.

If it was possible to remain in Europe but heavily amend the rules I would stay in, but we cannot trust any government to follow up on any false promises they will make to sway vote.

It's a Ponzi scheme though

We keep living longer so need to accept a real structural change in what we expect to get from government and also the standard of living we expect to have. We don't want to do that because it's hard so we have to grow the economy and tax take enough to keep paying the bills. We can't do that from productivity or innovation or new natural resources so the only way we can do it is by population growth of younger tax paying working people. We don't have that internally so we rely on immigration. Trouble is that means more older people and therefore the need for more immigration because we still don't want to make the hard calls. Even though it is done to help pay for them the older people don't like the change.....

Trouble is people can see some of the problems this brings especially those people who don't like change, politicians don't want to be the ones who ruin standards of living, old people don't want to be blamed , they after all worked all their life till retirement with an expectation based on a social contract. Younger people don't want to give up nice cars, holidays etc to pay for something that's not an issue for 50 years . So everyone looks for something to blame. The party of old people blames the EU, the party of the right blames the poor and those on welfare, the party of the left blames big business and bankers, the environmentalists blame everyone. Big business blames restrictions and laws. Everyone blames everyone because no one wants to actually deal with the problem because it's a Ponzi scheme. As long as we can keep the music playing we don't need to get off it's best not to notice as if we can keep the scheme going long enough it is someone else's problem.

The demographic time bomb dwarfs the GFC and will bring down many nations - Japan will be first to go without huge net immigration . Greece went first because it was a Ponzi scheme on steroids.

So whoopy doo about this vote about whether people want to sit in deck Chair row 2 or deck chair row 3

 

[TCIB]

Just so you know a lot of flooding in the north is due to lack of dredging.
The dredging stopped after an EU directive was applied.
It was applied with the reasoning some areas want to flood and it is good for the land.
How about they pay for the fucking repairs then. I wish these people would die badly i really do they cause so much shit.

Fuck the EU, as it stands it does not seem to benefit us that much at all.
Not when i know we put 100M+ a day or week, either one is to much.
We have many needs here that could use that money.

 

[roaminblue]

Just so you know a lot of flooding in the north is due to lack of dredging.
The dredging stopped after an EU directive was applied.
It was applied with the reasoning some areas want to flood and it is good for the land.
How about they pay for the fucking repairs then. I wish these people would die badly i really do they cause so much shit.

Fuck the EU, as it stands it does not seem to benefit us that much at all.
Not when i know we put 100M+ a day or week, either one is to much.
We have many needs here that could use that money.

I'm gonna preface this comment by telling you it's not a dig.

But your comment is case in point as to why this topic is so difficult, and probably why more thought should have gone into whether or not we should have a referendum.

Your mind is made up on this subject, right? You'll be voting out and perhaps there isn't much that would change your mind? In fact people trying to lay the "in" camps argument at your feet probably just make you more firm in your views?

Answer honestly, I may be incorrect but I'd argue I'm probably correct on quite a few from both camps.

Now, because of this entrenched view point you are always going to find media and articles that suit your view, and give positive affirmation to your view point. To you, outlets that are anti eu shout loudest.

The truth is, that what if eu legislation doesn't say that? The media you read may say the eu directives say that, but what if it doesn't? The press print lies or misinformation all the time. The fall out? A small retraction buried on p19. Mean while the result the paper wanted is achieved. There message is put across.

I can garuantee if you Google around you'll find articles saying that what you stated (eu directives are to blame for floods) is incorrect. I haven't looked, but I guarantee it.

The media, particularly those who seem to be most anti eu are an absolute virus on society. Constantly spreading misinformation. Seriously, the mail, the express, the sun etc are utter dross.

Of course if it's not the eu, who do we blame? Our own government for not spending enough? Or is it easier to lay the blame elsewhere?

 

[the god Gerry Gow]

The problem with this debate is a lot are already entrenched and see "the other sides" arguments as lies and scaremongering.

Both camps have an issue whereby if they say something it could as easily confirm others views as change them.

I confess I'm an outer and see most info posted from people I regard as inners as bullshit.

The fear factor will be a big player in this referendum and sadly it will be one that wins out as the public vote stay in

 

[TCIB]

You can't guarantee that at all because you are wrong. If you want to assume i am a simpleton who gets my politics from news papers you are dead wrong.

This is an EU directive and it was enforced, it is no coincidence since then flood damage in the uk has risen. and areas that were dredged are now flooding.
We had this directive foisted upon us in 2000 and increased flood reports are consistent with the dredging being stopped by the EU.

Basically you are talking nonsense.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...e-authorities-wont-tell-you-about-the-floods/

I am also not here to debate or chat about this, i have the info i need to decide and it may even be from the awesome brilliant news outlets you use and not the front page of the sun.
This is a fact, i am stating it.

 

[roaminblue]

You can't guarantee that at all because you are wrong. If you want to assume i am a simpleton who gets my politics from news papers you are dead wrong.

This is an EU directive and it was enforced, it is no coincidence since then flood damage in the uk has risen. and areas that were dredged are now flooding.
We had this directive foisted upon us in 2000 and increased flood reports are consistent with the dredging being stopped by the EU.

Basically you are talking nonsense.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...e-authorities-wont-tell-you-about-the-floods/

Kinda just reinforcing my point there, mate.

Look, honestly wasn't a dig at you, and apologies if I've caused offence. I wasn't saying you specifically use those sites, but plenty do and they shout a lot louder than other news sites, no?

So you're saying that there are zero articles to be found on Google that say the opposite? That defend the eu's point of view (I.e. that the directive doesn't prohibit dredging)?

Edit: lol, and come on mate. That site is not really impartial

 

[roaminblue]

The problem with this debate is a lot are already entrenched and see "the other sides" arguments as lies and scaremongering.

Both camps have an issue whereby if they say something it could as easily confirm others views as change them.

I confess I'm an outer and see most info posted from people I regard as inners as bullshit.

The fear factor will be a big player in this referendum and sadly it will be one that wins out as the public vote stay in

Agreed, and this can't be a surprise, humans have been doing that since time immemorial.

Honestly, I don't think a knee jerkey referendum is the way to deal with this issue

 

[roaminblue]

I am also not here to debate or chat about this, i have the info i need to decide and it may even be from the awesome brilliant news outlets you use and not the front page of the sun.
This is a fact, i am stating it.

Haha, come on, you're basically just admitting you won't consider your opinion no matter what evidence is put in front of you? So there's literally zero chance you're incorrect.

Honestly, sums up the mentality of someone who'd use "notalotofpeopleknowthat" as a reputable source.

I think that one was a dig...maybe..but merely in jest ;-)

 

[TCIB]

Kinda just reinforcing my point there, mate.

Look, honestly wasn't a dig at you, and apologies if I've caused offence. I wasn't saying you specifically use those sites, but plenty do and they shout a lot louder than other news sites, no?

So you're saying that there are zero articles to be found on Google that say the opposite? That defend the eu's point of view (I.e. that the directive doesn't prohibit dredging)?

Edit: lol, and come on mate. That site is not really impartial

All stats of increased flooding in certain areas are directly related to dredging being stopped. I am not to sure what is so hard to understand here.

Who are you to decide what is a reputable source, it totally goes against your view so ofc it is to be dismissed.


I have seen all the evidence for and against the dredging and have been talking to my father for years about it.
If you have new evidence to show the dredging is not responsible i am happy to see it. It does not exist though because as i say i do read up on issues.
If i had a less than rounded view i would be open to debate on the issue. The facts are the dredging or lack of has a huge hand in flooding as increased reports suggest.

You find me one credible report showing the lack of dredging is not to blame and i will change my view, how about that.

As it stands i am not sure where debate on facts would get us. However you pigeon hole me if it helps you deal with opposing views better.


Edit: i should noite dredging is not banned it's self. The act of dredging has been made untenable though. The dredgings are considered hazardous waste so can't be left on the bank at all.
Basically the effort and cost to sort the dredgings prohibit it as a feasible option. The cost is to high.

 

[roaminblue]

All stats of increased flooding in certain areas are directly related to dredging being stopped. I am not to sure what is so hard to understand here.

Who are you to decide what is a reputable source, it totally goes against your view so ofc it is to be dismissed.


I have seen all the evidence for and against the dredging and have been talking to my father for years about it.
If you have new evidence to show the dredging is not responsible i am happy to see it. It does not exist though because as i say i do read up on issues.
If i had a less than rounded view i would be open to debate on the issue. The facts are the dredging or lack of has a huge hand in flooding as increased reports suggest.

You find me one credible report showing the lack of dredging is not to blame and i will change my view, how about that.

As it stands i am not sure where debate on facts would get us. However you pigeon hole me if it helps you deal with opposing views better.

We're getting wires crossed. I'm not suggesting dredging isn't the issue with floods, I have every faith in your belief that it is.

I'm saying I question whether it was eu directive that forced dredging to be stopped. Which is what you said in your first post. I then said I am willing to be there are articles online which show that eu water directive does allow for dredging, and perhaps, just perhaps they aren't the bogeyman that the media sometimes likes to portray.

My question was always framed in terms of whether or not it's eu directive preventing dredging or whether they are a suitable patsy

I think that was pretty clear, as well.

 

[TCIB]

Gotcha, no they made it untenable as a method as they could not outright ban it. They have said that no dredgings can be put anywhere but directly into a hazardous waste processing system. They knew the cost of this and it would meet their aims of stopping dredging as an effective flood defense method.
They do have a tolerance level of nasties in the waste but that then requires testing by approved companies and is expensive and time consuming.

The reason was they simply put nature above the needs of those living in certain areas. I found it all a bit underhand.
Nature does indeed need protecting, this felt like a rushed idea with no real thought for the repercussions though.
They wanted the land to be less under the influence of man with no thought for the consequences it seems.

 

[roaminblue]

Gotcha, no they made it untenable as a method as they could not outright ban it. They have said that no dredgings can be put anywhere but directly into a hazardous waste processing system. They knew the cost of this and it would meet their aims of stopping dredging as an effective flood defense method.
The reason was they simply put nature above the needs of those living in certain areas. I found it all a bit underhand.
They wanted the land to be less under the influence of man with no thought for the consequences it seems.

But if the council had done that, could the floods have been avoided? Curtailed?

You see there trying to create a process, I assume, that is designed to be better on the environment? I assume that, as you said "hazardous waste disposal".

But that's not forcing people not to dredge, you could even argue that they just want to ensure waste is disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner. The aim may not be nefarious, or a "let's screw over brits", let's not forget Belgium is relatively flood prone itself.

But my point being is that overall it's not been a ban on dredging, which already demonstrates that people will take snippets and turn it into fact (again not you personally, I'm thinking more of the propaganda outlets).

This whole subject is impossible for people to debate without getting sucked into misinformation.

I'm a relatively smart guy, I'm sure you are too, but you can see how divisive and blurred everything about this debate is.

And we're supposed to have a referendum??? How, none of us are equipped to vote!

 

[TCIB]

No there is no actual ban on dredging and tbh i really dunno what the papers have said, I read the atlantic, huff post, spectator etc.
I fully believe they will sensationalize it which will not help as you allude to.

My thought with this was i would have preferred them to say "ok we can't outright ban it but please we ask you to pay more attention to your wildlife. Infrastructure is being laid down at an increased rate with little or no thought to the flora and fauna and waterways". Then explain the alternatives to dredging and fund them heavily.
When you look at the directive it seems clear people have sat in an office and thought "ok we can't ban it so how do we force this on people".
The red tape added to anyone wanting to dredge made it for all intents and purposes a no go.

I will admit i have deep skepticism of the benefit to us to being in the EU on the whole.
Mainly i feel imposed upon by people i did not vote to speak for me, i dislike that idea immensely.

If somebody was going to stick a tag on myself as to why i want out it would be the despicable way they abandoned democracy.
With that i mean telling Ireland to make sure they voted yes after they had voted no. That killed any chance of me viewing the EU as for the people.

 

[TCIB]

I can see how the media do not help at all yeah. They have their own agenda's and loyalties which in it's self is pretty poor if not new.
You could have a course on how to navigate the online media and the largest part of the course would be "how to spot objectivity" hehe.

I would have preferred them to ban it out right in a way rather than the red tape option, it feels underhand in a way.

I am sure they mean well, the lack of foresight though forces me to think "how much did they really look into this".