Calling any Brits out there.

Post by **JIkj fjds j** » Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:28 am

Avatar wrote:Interesting point that it is the legacy of imperial colonialism. With 53 member countries it's pretty extensive. And I certainly haven't seen anything suggesting that it is used against those countries?

--A

The exchange rate is better within the Commonwealth countries than between others. Good for business'.

Post by **peter** » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:00 pm

True, we joined later [and paid the price] but IIRC Churchill himself was a great believer in it's establishment on the basis of putting Germany on a leash. He also made the observation somewhere down the line that were Germany and France ever to settle their differences and combine forces, no other country in Europe would stand against them. An EU without Britain would not be exactly that - but it would be one step closer. A case of keep your friends close......

[nb. I'm not predicting 'Armageddon' if we leave - but I do think we enjoy the bennefits of greater security within the EU than without, even given that it is from being a NATO member whence our greatest protection derives.]

{edit; Caught by the 'Imp of the next page post' again; I was refering to Murrin's last post. Sorry guys!}

Post by **JIkj fjds j** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:06 pm

peter wrote:Rune is correct in his assessment of the beginnings of the EU as a trading partnership, but it misses the underlying point that it's purpose was as a preventative of further European wars - wars to which an unshackled Europe is particularly prone.

It!!! misses the point! AND underlined, to boot!! Well, I never.

However that may be, Wednesday's Sun newspaper ran a frontpage story about the Queen on Brexit ... a good example of the so called Butterfly Effect. Which only goes to show how careful one must be when making off the cuff comments on any given subject matter.

And the Disclaimer.

Post by **wayfriend** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:21 pm

This explains it all, wot.

Post by **JIkj fjds j** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:36 pm

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:02 pm

The Sun's almost as bad as the Daily Mail, FYI.

Post by **peter** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:40 pm

Well who would have thought Van der Graff Generator would make an appearance in a thread on the forthcoming referendum, but as the only likely purchaseor of their 1970 album H to He; who am the only one, I think I win all arguments hands down!

Post by **wayfriend** » Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:59 pm

I dub thee ...

Sir Winzimall.

Post by **peter** » Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:54 am

My step-daughter, when asked how she would vote in the referendum, said she would probably not vote as she did not feel sufficiently sure which way to go, or indeed qualified to make the decision. I think this is a mistake. Firstly, by as many people as possible voting we improve the chances of collectively making the correct decision by virtue of 'the wisdom off crowds' phenomena. Secondly, it seems to me that if you can really not see the difference between the two arguments, then the clever money is probably to stay with the situation you know (ie to vote to stay in) rather than to change the status-quo (which is not so bad after all) for a situation which the outers have been unable to convince you will be better.

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:47 am

What on earth makes you think that crowds are wise?

--A

Post by **peter** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:00 am

Well, they can guess the number of jelly-beans in a jar!

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:28 am

I would venture to suggest that estimating volume is an understanding with limited practical application.

Has history recorded any case in which the majority was right straight off the bat?

--A

Post by **peter** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:03 am

Mmmm.........fair point. But at least, the more people that vote, the less we'll have to complain about the result. If say only 30% of eligible voters actually vote, we could face a situation where the future of the country is decided by only 16% of the adult populace.
Also, do you agree that in a case of retaining the status quo ot not, the onus is on those who wish to change to convince us of their case. In the event of them not being able to decisively do so, the logical course is to retain the status quo as a known situation (given that it is not a clearly bad or evil one, eg the Nazis or whatever) rather than change to one whose proponents have been unable to convince you of its benefits.

Post by **peter** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:26 pm

[sorry for the double post; didn't want to risk loosing the above to a '404' by editing.]

I recieved a H M Government booklet today outlining why the government reccomends we vote to stay in the EU. Is it the position of Government to takes sides in this issue or should it restrict itself to carrying out the will of the people. Both the in and out positions already have campaigns in support of them led by 'heavyweight' politicians, so surely this should be a situation where each man or woman chooses their side and campaigns on their behalf. We already know that numbers of government ministers are not pro remaining in the EU, so on what basis is this booklet reflective of 'the governments' position. Cameron has himself given his ministers the freedom to campaign as they see fit, so it doesn't make any sense to me to say the government has a position, even if it should - which I think is debateable.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:00 pm

I don't really see an issue with the elected government having an official position on the issue, especially when the MPs are free to express their personal views.

Post by **peter** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:14 pm

But can the government have a position on the issue when it is made up of members, each of which hold their own position, and often at odds with the stated 'government position'?

Post by **Avatar** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:59 am

If a corporation can have a position on something, so too should the government be able to, surely?

In a court certainly the onus is on the party who believes the additional thing to convince others of it. However, people are unlikely to think of this in the same way.

People are not by default going to vote for the status quo unless convinced otherwise. They will by default vote along their emotional or political or intellectual lines.

--A

Post by **peter** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:55 am

Yes but when the leader of the government has already publicly stated that it's members can lobby along their own lines, and half of them have done so, but not in the same direction as the 'government position'......whence comes this 'position? Is it just Cameron's position? Saying he happened to be 'anti', would it still be the government's position? I suppose it's just a consensus thing - but given the things above its a rather meaningless one.

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:44 am

The government and the party are technically 2 different entities though.

Anyway, it's still meaningless.

--A

Post by **peter** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:27 am

The problem of how to get people out to vote though. Saying all eligible voters were taken to be as for remaining in the EU unless they declared their desire to leave by voting to do so. Contentious I know but it would galvanise the out vote for sure!

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Calling any Brits out there.