Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Interesting viewpoints - those not aligned to your views are 'sheeple', 'too stupid', 'gullible enough and/or stupid enough'.
It's understandable people have strong feelings on the subject, but insulting those who do not have the same views isn't the way forward, imho - it reminds me of the tactics of some of 'Yessers' in the Indy referendum...
Isn't it better to convince people with the arguments pro/con something, rather than being pejorative?
|
Could've been phrased better. The sheeple comment was referring to the alarming number of people who vote according to rosette colour rather than the population as a whole.
As far as the younger generation go I should probably stop reading and watching the content I do as it portrays many of those you would expect to be more educated and free-thinking as entitled morons with an intensely egocentric view of the world focused around their own tender feelings.
It was inappropriate to make such a gross generalisation.
Arguments for and against seem largely futile. I have to go along with Mr K on that. We have people who are incapable of making decisions based on basic policies in elections and vote by colour. Something like this we've no chance of anyone making a totally educated decision and many making one that involves no thought at all. The campaigns know this so, already, are doing their utmost to appeal to the basest emotions and lowest common denominators.
This referendum needs to wait until 2017, and boring as it is a decent and lengthy educational campaign, fact-heavy, needs to be run, not a rush to get it out of the way before the warmer weather kicks in and the scary migrant videos start flowing en masse again.
The evidence I'm seen is quite convincing that, all factors taken into account, there is only one decision to be made here. Much of what people may like about the EU can and should be campaigned for by UK politicians and delivered by UK politicians. If Labour are relying on the EU to preserve workers' rights they may want to question their own existence and purpose if they can't be an opposition. If Ken Clarke is so eager for the oldest Parliament in the world to become 'just a Council Chamber in Europe' he may want to rethink why he is part of an institution he considers such a waste of time.
Thanks for pulling me up on my rant and, rightly, holding me to account for it. You kindly gave me the opportunity to withdraw some content, clarify other content, and apologise for other sections.
---------- Post added at 00:35 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I think you overestimate how much people care about the EU either way. There is a small minority who love the EU, a bigger minority who detest the EU and a larger majority who are largely indifferent.
That last demographic will be the key to it and if they perceive any economic risk in leaving the EU they'll probably vote to stay. They'll look at their lives now and ask themselves if they're willing to gone down a unknown path or stick to the one we've got.
|
If Leave hadn't been so busy naval gazing and apparently in the case if grassroots out recruiting one of the most disliked politicians in the country, a man with a history of apparent anti-semetism, a liking for working for Iran and others, being something of a fan of organisations on the more Islamist side of the spectrum to come speak they may have made some progress.
It's actually really simple - the economic risk of staying in is huge. The economic risk for the UK as the EU continues political integration, and this will go apace when the UK vote to remain.
There is no reason at all for the member states to be in any way bothered by the protections we already have, there's no way that we're not going to be pushed to the sidelines, but paying the bills, obeying the directives, and increasingly seeing mission creep.
If you think the status quo will still be there in the case of a vote to remain the EU will rapidly begin attempts to either with carrot or stick more closer integrate the UK into the programme.
Anyone who thinks that the UK won't rapidly be pulled further into union and, at every step, Dave will avoid the transference of powers lock is likely wrong.
It's quite obvious how to do this - push the UK onto the naughty boy step, reserve all the 'good bits' to those without this special status. Ensure we get complete and utter excrement and point to that we wanted to be different.
End up with a 2 speed EU indeed. The UK, receiving the bare basics from the legally binding treaties and absolutely nothing else but paying in plenty, then the rest of the EU not on the naughty step.
Any possible reason to get more cash from the UK should be followed up - they aren't going anywhere so why not.
Endgame to annoy the UK enough, knowing that they have absolutely nothing to bargain with, to push us into dropping objections and beginning deeper integration.
Deeper integration of course to follow the style of the Lisbon Treaty, if it involves constitutional change perhaps try a couple of referenda in other countries, wait for them to be lost, then ignore them, rename the project, and allow the nation state politicians to completely ignore the will of their electorate. Maybe even get the UK Prime Minister apparently so embarrassed to be signing after denying the UK a referendum that he did so in a back room, not in the presentation.