Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm always interested when the focus is on personalities rather than policy.

Why not stick to policies not personalities?

There you go......

"The European single currency is bound to fail, economically, politically and indeed socially, though the timing, occasion and full consequences are all necessarily still unclear."........

"If the Europeans truly wish to improve their NATO contribution they can show it simply enough. They can establish professional armed forces, like those of the UK. And they can acquire more advanced technology. Indeed, unless that happens soon the gulf between the European and US capabilities will yawn so wide that it will not be possible to share the same battlefield. Alas, I do not think that sharing battlefields with our American friends - but rather disputing global primacy with them - is what European defence plans are truly about"
 
I'm always interested when the focus is on personalities rather than policy.

Why not stick to policies not personalities?

It's easier to discredit people than facts. I really think Blair is a tit, but can't find the hole in the argument that you posted.

Likewise, even folk like Farage and Trump - two more that I find despicable - make a smart point once in a while and to disagree with them purely on the basis of their identity is ridiculous.
 
I'm always interested when the focus is on personalities rather than policy.

Why not stick to policies not personalities?

Ok then. I think that the opinions and proposals regarding the Brexit process held by someone who lied over Iraq in order to get us into that war, who presided over a government that illegally rendered people into Libya at the request of the Libyan intelligence services, who signed deals allowing terrorists to be given a free pass in the courts, who presided over a massive expansion in PFI that has resulted in our hospitals and schools having a millstone of debt around their necks for years to come, who brought in tuition fees and got rid of grants, who wanted to lock up people without being charged for three months, who ignored appeals for a new inquiry into Hillsborough and who oversaw an era of press corruption the scale of which this country has never seen, are bad.
 
Ok then. I think that the opinions and proposals regarding the Brexit process held by someone who lied over Iraq in order to get us into that war, who presided over a government that illegally rendered people into Libya at the request of the Libyan intelligence services, who signed deals allowing terrorists to be given a free pass in the courts, who presided over a massive expansion in PFI that has resulted in our hospitals and schools having a millstone of debt around their necks for years to come, who brought in tuition fees and got rid of grants, who wanted to lock up people without being charged for three months, who ignored appeals for a new inquiry into Hillsborough and who oversaw an era of press corruption the scale of which this country has never seen, are bad.

... and how does all that mean he's not allowed to be right on anything ever again?

The words make sense, even if the person does not.
 
It's easier to discredit people than facts. I really think Blair is a tit, but can't find the hole in the argument that you posted.

Likewise, even folk like Farage and Trump - two more that I find despicable - make a smart point once in a while and to disagree with them purely on the basis of their identity is ridiculous.

Indeed. I said Trump's position on TTP is something I completely agree with the other day. Doesn't mean I think he's brilliant all of a sudden.

Same with Blair. You can agree with him without thinking he's the greatest person ever.
 
... and how does all that mean he's not allowed to be right on anything ever again?

The words make sense, even if the person does not.

His words didn't make sense, though. He wants us to keep our options open over whether or not to leave the EU by deciding to remain in the EU.
 
His words didn't make sense, though. He wants us to keep our options open over whether or not to leave the EU by deciding to remain in the EU.

He didn't say that. He basically said we could decide not to leave if at some point during negotiations the cons obviously outweight the pros, and called for either parliament or the people to sensibly look at and, if need be, veto the terms of exit.
 
... and how does all that mean he's not allowed to be right on anything ever again?

The words make sense, even if the person does not.

So let's address his words then....

"Attempting to secure access to the single market will be the defining negotiation. “Either you get maximum access to the single market – in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European Court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’ Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

He assumes that if we are not in the single Market then "the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring"..... Why? Based on What ? A one sided view ?, what other alternatives does he discuss, WTO, a new UK specific deal ?. He has no more of a view on what might happen than anyone else on here. His words are soundbites and no more grounded in logic than his invasion of Iraq.....
 
So let's address his words then....

"Attempting to secure access to the single market will be the defining negotiation. “Either you get maximum access to the single market – in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European Court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’ Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

He assumes that if we are not in the single Market then "the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring"..... Why? Based on What ? A one sided view ?, what other alternatives does he discuss, WTO, a new UK specific deal ?. He has no more of a view on what might happen than anyone else on here. His words are soundbites and no more grounded in logic than his invasion of Iraq.....

But that view is grounded in logic. Nearly every forecast is predicting economic pain for years to come and that's the only thing we can sensibly go on. You might shrug off those forecasts, but you don't have anything to counter them with, because there simply doesn't exist a study or report that paints a good picture economically for Brexit.

Nothing he said was wrong. I think I said this the other day - if you honestly think Brexit will result in sunshine and buttercups for the UK economy over the next decade, you are quite frankly not coming to that conclusion either honestly, or with any evidence whatsoever.

I thought you admitted this the other day? You didn't vote to leave due to the economy. Nobody did. They literally couldn't have done, because there's no evidence to show we'd be better off beyond pie in the sky politician quotes with no substance.
 
He didn't say that. He basically said we could decide not to leave if at some point during negotiations the cons obviously outweight the pros, and called for either parliament or the people to sensibly look at and, if need be, veto the terms of exit.

What pro's, what con's, he has only raised economic issues....what about Political and Accountable Democracy issues...this is a man who has even admitted he would not have allowed us to have a vote about remaining because he thought he would lose the argument.......I am struggling to even understand how this lying charlatan is even given air time.......
 
What pro's, what con's, he has only raised economic issues....what about Political and Accountable Democracy issues...this is a man who has even admitted he would not have allowed us to have a vote about remaining because he thought he would lose the argument.......I am struggling to even understand how this lying charlatan is even given air time.......

"Only"?

We erm... we differ wildly on what's important to look at with this issue I'm afraid.
 
He didn't say that. He basically said we could decide not to leave if at some point during negotiations the cons obviously outweight the pros, and called for either parliament or the people to sensibly look at and, if need be, veto the terms of exit.

There was nothing he said that would suggest he thought the pro-Brexit points actually existed, never mind that he would weigh up the pros and cons:

Tony Blair believes that Brexit can be halted. “It can be stopped if the British people decide that, having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis doesn’t stack up. And that can happen in one of two ways. I’m not saying it will [be stopped], by the way, but it could. I’m just saying: until you see what it means, how do you know?”

Attempting to secure access to the single market will be the defining negotiation. “Either you get maximum access to the single market – in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European Court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’ Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

But, I suggest, the Remain side made numberless dire economic forecasts during the long, dispiriting referendum campaign and they were ignored. The public understands well enough the risks of Brexit.

“But this is what I keep saying to people. This is like agreeing to a house swap without having seen the other house . . . You’ve got to understand, this has been driven essentially ideologically. You’ve got a very powerful cartel of the media on the right who provided the platform for the Brexiteers who allied themselves with the people in the Tory party who saw a chance to run with this. And, OK, they ended up in circumstances where there was a very brutal but not particularly enlightening campaign. They won that campaign.”

He pauses to reach for his coffee cup.

“But in the end, for a large number of the people, even those who voted Leave, they will look at this in a practical way, not an ideological way. And all I’m saying is: what shows you how ideological this is is that when I say, ‘Well, let’s just keep our options open,’ it’s condemned as treason. Why wouldn’t you keep your options open? Why wouldn’t you say, ‘We took this decision, we took it before we saw what its consequences are; now we see its consequences, we’re not so sure’?

“I think, in the end, it’s going to be about parliament and the country scrutinising the deal. So, for example, the deal that was done with Nissan” – to persuade the Japanese carmaker to expand its production in Sunderland after Brexit – “I don’t know what the terms of that deal are, but we should know. Because that will tell us a lot about what they’re prepared to concede in order to keep access to the single market.”
 
Can I ask you an honest question?

Do you think if there was to be another referendum now, bearing in mind where we are at as a nation since the first one, that a leave vote would win again?

Right now, Leave would win - it'd be seen as the elites trying to overturn the electoral will. They'd probably win by a bigger amount.

Two years from now, Remain would probably win around 60/40, because the evidence against it - in my view for those of you who take issue with how I say these things - will be overwhelming.
 
So let's address his words then....

"Attempting to secure access to the single market will be the defining negotiation. “Either you get maximum access to the single market – in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European Court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’ Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

He assumes that if we are not in the single Market then "the economic pain may be very great, because beyond doubt if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring"..... Why? Based on What ? A one sided view ?, what other alternatives does he discuss, WTO, a new UK specific deal ?. He has no more of a view on what might happen than anyone else on here. His words are soundbites and no more grounded in logic than his invasion of Iraq.....

"The economic pain". Seriously his pious ego holds no bounds, as if he would feel the economic pain he has been complicit in creating along with this veiled blackmail of a threat for future pain. That is the reason to ignore what this bellend says, it's all hollow, vacuous, insincere guff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top