• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Hotshot-Tottenham said:
Deluded, or lied to?

Come on, this image is everywhere.

stream_img.jpg
Click to expand...

who knows how many it was but some people DID believe it
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think Cameron (or anyone) could have got more - although I did at the time.

Clearly the EU thought this was a battle for the 4th Reich ever closer union and had to try and keep the UK as close to that as possible. They obviously didn't for a second think that leave was a possibility. It shows in their belligerence at those discussions.

For that reason, I don't believe anyone could ever have gotten more. What we needed was a two-fold referendum. One initially, followed by negotiations and then a further referendum once concessions were sorted.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Cameron's timing on this was awful. He chose to unilaterally announce that he would seeking to renegotiate our terms, he set a deadline on those negotiations that suited his domestic needs but did not take into consideration European priorities. He then held the referendum when Europe's stock was low and when his popularity as Prime Minister was on the wane. He also had not done much to build alliances in Europe during his time as Prime Minister. It was always going to be difficult to get a decent deal in those circumstance.

I think that it would have been possible to get a better deal if we had taken longer over it and had a more constructive approach. That would have meant that it would have not been concluded until after the French and German elections but the economy probably would have picked up further by then and the agreement with Turkey to stem the flow of Syrian refugees should have been showing that it was working.
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
Of course it does.

We knew what we were into. Whether one liked it or not was a different matter.

Leaving is a gamble. A step into the unknown. Out of the frying pan, one might say.
Click to expand...
I'm not denying it was a gamble, but if you think that taking a gamble is always worse than not, I think you've misunderstood the meaning of gambling.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover said:
This is a question for Milo, I consider you one of the most intelligent on here and a very classy person with integrity.

Have you been surprised at the reaction of the remain camp? I have been disgusted personally and I think it will take a long time to lose that feeling.

Should remain had one, I would have had a little moan and then got on with things, just moaning every time something like us not being able to deport a terrorist(saying well i never voted to be part of europe).

I have been seriously shocked at the lack of class coming from that side. Not you, who despite disagreeing with on lots of points, I hold you in high regard.
Click to expand...

Not really. It was a close vote and the remain camp started back peddling on their promises as soon as the result was in. I think that it would have been the same if the result was the other way around, in fact Farage admitted as much in May

Farage said:
In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way
Click to expand...
 
thfcsteff said:
...a potential 'second' referendum. Ridiculous. It would, in fact, make a mockery of our democracy. I agree with all who say the vote was the vote and it is as simple as that.
Click to expand...

But what do you think if (as some say) the referendum was technically an advisory non-binding referendum for MPs "to consider", not a mandate to act on the outcome.

Also Farage said he would ask for a second referendum if he lost by a narrow margin, i.e. that Remain needed to win by two thirds to end it and avoid a second referendum.

Surely if the referendum was advisory and not binding, and did not have a clear majority e.g. 60:40, it should not stand as unavoidable law.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm not denying it was a gamble, but I'd you think that taking a gamble is always worse than not, I think you've misunderstood the meaning of gambling.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

I understand that.

There's a gambling and there's gambling.

You gamble a tenner, £50 - whatever - on a punt.

You don't take a punt on something like this. That's reckless.

If you're going to all out push for something that will change millions of people's lives (possibly for the worse, short to mid-term at the least), and make some pretty spurious claims whilst you're at it, you'd better have a plan.

You don't gamble with people's livelihoods because you fancy a run at being PM.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
The problem was (imo) that Cameron himself did not believe we would vote to leave. If you go into a negotiation not believing in the one bit of leverage you might have, that will be evident and immediately weakens your hand.
Of course the fact that it all has to be played out so publicly does not help either.
Click to expand...
He and every other European leader, political commentator, bookie, pollster, etc.

I really don't think we can blame him for not believing leave had a chance.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
I understand that.

There's a gambling and there's gambling.

You gamble a tenner, £50 - whatever - on a punt.

You don't take a punt on something like this. That's reckless.

If you're going to all out push for something that will change millions of people's lives (possibly for the worse, short to mid-term at the least), and make some pretty spurious claims whilst you're at it, you'd better have a plan.

You don't gamble with people's livelihoods because you fancy a run at being PM.
Click to expand...
Everyone's appetite for risk is different. I'm perfectly comfortable with this level of risk.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
milo said:
Cameron's timing on this was awful. He chose to unilaterally announce that he would seeking to renegotiate our terms, he set a deadline on those negotiations that suited his domestic needs but did not take into consideration European priorities. He then held the referendum when Europe's stock was low and when his popularity as Prime Minister was on the wane. He also had not done much to build alliances in Europe during his time as Prime Minister. It was always going to be difficult to get a decent deal in those circumstance.

I think that it would have been possible to get a better deal if we had taken longer over it and had a more constructive approach. That would have meant that it would have not been concluded until after the French and German elections but the economy probably would have picked up further by then and the agreement with Turkey to stem the flow of Syrian refugees should have been showing that it was working.
Click to expand...
He still would have been going in to bat empty handed.

There is nothing we could have offered in return for our demands that we could sensibly give. Our only chip was the threat of leaving and the EU were too arrogant to believe that could ever happen.

The timing could have been better but we'd have got the same short shrift.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
Deluded, or lied to?

Come on, this image is everywhere.

stream_img.jpg
Click to expand...

Am I correct in thinking that the £350m is effectively our money but the EU decide where it's spent? I.e. That most of the £350m is actually allocated by te EU to all these projects that you see with "funded by the EU" billboards".
If so and the money goes to the NHS the building projects dry up.
 
glasgowspur said:
Am I correct in thinking that the £350m is effectively our money but the EU decide where it's spent? I.e. That most of the £350m is actually allocated by te EU to all these projects that you see with "funded by the EU" billboards".
If so and the money goes to the NHS the building projects dry up.
Click to expand...
It's the gross figure given to the EU before anything spent on us or the rebate - essentially £18b per annum.

A more accurate figure would be £18b less £5b rebate, less £4.5b spent on the UK. So a net figure of £163m a week.

That amount actually could be spent on the NHS with no ill effect other than feeding an addiction to cash, but there are far better things to do with it than throw it away.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
scaramanga said:
It's the gross figure given to the EU before anything spent on us or the rebate - essentially £18b per annum.

A more accurate figure would be £18b less £5b rebate, less £4.5b spent on the UK. So a net figure of £163m a week.

That amount actually could be spent on the NHS with no ill effect other than feeding an addiction to cash, but there are far better things to do with it than throw it away.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for clearing that up
 
Grays_1890 said:
Anyone that questions us allowing free movement of people wanna watch the national side......
Click to expand...

The is a chain of thought that if we had a quota system then more English players would get a chance and improve the national side. Personally I want England and Belgium to get knocked out and our yids to get a rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back