EU referendum

EU referendum

  • In

    Votes: 503 47.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 547 52.1%

  • Total voters
    1,050
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you didn't answer the question really did you. Could be a politician.

Yes I did. I can't be held to account for your paucity of ambition.

Our political masters do this, they lower the bar of our expectations all the time, so that problems which could be solved with the political will seem insurmountable.

If you want to see what can be achieved look to wartime, look to the post war Labour government performing huge things when we were utterly broke.

We live in momentous times governed by small men.
 
Yes I did. I can't be held to account for your paucity of ambition.

Our political masters do this, they lower the bar of our expectations all the time, so that problems which could be solved with the political will seem insurmountable.

If you want to see what can be achieved look to wartime, look to the post war Labour government performing huge things when we were utterly broke.

We live in momentous times governed by small men.

You didn't answer them adequately and the one you did state yes to in my opinion the answer is no. How can we have adequate control of our borders when we have been unable to get net migration figures down.
 
You seem to be a very balanced person Tim and the points made above are valid.

It's a common belief (and correct in my book) that the majority of European Givernmants don't take a blind bit if notice about what the EU tells them to do and carry on in their own sweet way.... but the UK, follow everything to the absolute letter

Yes there is a wide variation in Countries attitudes to implementation. Some wait until the European Commission launch enforcement measures that can take several years.

I used to meet with a lot of Member States to discuss changes / easements to the European Working time Directive we were seeking.

For example, Spain was slow to implement the Directive (or support our planned. Changes) despite a European court of Justice Judgment "enforcing" more rest breaks and shorter working hours in the case of a Spanish doctor.
 
You didn't answer them adequately and the one you did state yes to in my opinion the answer is no. How can we have adequate control of our borders when we have been unable to get net migration figures down.

You assume getting net migration figures down is desirable. I don't.

The migration figures will ebb and flow, you can't have a common market with the free flow of goods, services and capital without also having a free flow of labour.

As for schools, hospitals, houses, what's stopping us building them? Absolutely nothing.
 
You assume getting net migration figures down is desirable. I don't.

The migration figures will ebb and flow, you can't have a common market with the free flow of goods, services and capital without also having a free flow of labour.

As for schools, hospitals, houses, what's stopping us building them? Absolutely nothing.

Money is stopping us building them. Do you think there is no correlation between the incredible growth in our national debt in the past ten years and the growth in immigration. You will say not but I would strongly disagree. You think 300,000 people coming to this country each year is a good thing? Again I would strongly disagree.
 
Money is stopping us building them. Do you think there is no correlation between the incredible growth in our national debt in the past ten years and the growth in immigration. You will say not but I would strongly disagree. You think 300,000 people coming to this country each year is a good thing? Again I would strongly disagree.

You can disagree all you like but all the evidence shows that immigrants add to our GDP and do not drain it.

As for "Money is stopping us building them" Oh please, give me a break.

We choose not to build social housing because that distorts the market and the market is god....

"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

 
You can disagree all you like but all the evidence shows that immigrants add to our GDP and do not drain it.

As for "Money is stopping us building them" Oh please, give me a break.

We choose not to build social housing because that distorts the market and the market is god....

"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

You quote an article from the guardian as an answer. !!! I have given up arguing with left wingers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.