Politics Thread - Europe Out or In..

this is harder than reading the works of TOLSTOY and umpteen books on the creation of the universe ...

 

And what generation do you belong to?

You remind me of someone?? who could it be.

 

No - if anything, we should be extremely grateful that our league is able to attract so many of the World's best players - it's a global success story, built at least in part by the vast array of nations represented. I think there is a place for a quota for English players, but I also think it should be quite small (2 or 3 per matchday squad maybe). Why should a poorer quality player be rewarded just because he's from here? One, there's plenty of teams out there in the football league (or, you know, English players could actually play abroad too), two, English players can benefit from learning from better players and three, if the argument is about the impact on the national team, back in the 70s & early 80s when English teams with British players dominated in Europe, it coincided with England's worst record at international level for not qualifying for competitions. Maybe there isn't a link there, or the impact was actually the opposite to what you assume.

Regarding the politics element, I'm staying well away from this thread - I'd just urge everyone to keep an open mind and actually read the pros and cons that will be publicised in the news and make a decision based on that (and I go somewhere comparatively unbiased like the BBC, rather than extremely biased newspapers). Don't say 'Out' just because you don't like foreigners and say 'Country's full' (haven't read through the whole thread, but I bet someone's written something like that) and also, don't say 'In' just because you think the alternative automatically makes you racist (ditto).

Right, I'm off now - see you on the Football related threads.

 

'and I go somewhere comparatively unbiased like the BBC'

£9 million from the EU tells you different.

 

**** me Nick, the one thing I couldn't call the BBC is unbiased..

But one things true and that was the basis of this thread at the beginning, its not being fully explained to people.

How many jobs 'could' be lost and why.

how has the recently done deal helped us to control immigration? its a major concern to me!

How will trade really be affected (not just made up stuff by people on here!)

Why do we need immigration for people to take low paid jobs? isn't the living wage supposed to go some way to addressing that, the workshy should be made to take those jobs.. some of them might even find some purpose to their lives.

What are we paying benefits to people who have never contributed to this country and for that matter to people who refuse to find work.

Why do we pay £110 billion pounds to be in the EU per parliament and whats the nett benefit. are we better off out and why?

I could go on and on..

Someone answer these basic questions.

 

BBC unbiased wowwwwwwww they have just been given £9 millions for the in vote.
To many in the BBC are cushty cushty.

 

Where do you get this from? the first statement is obviously incorrect as thats the whole point of leaving.. in fact thats what will happen if we stay in!

and B, have you just made this up in your head? show some evidence?

 

this is a big misfire .it has had the opposite effect on the opportunist scroungers/ peeps in Calais etc .they see it as a guarantee to come and earn a specific amount of money guaranteed, work minimum hours for maximum pay ...

 

Not if we ensure our people are doing the jobs first and those not entitled to be here are not let in.. (I make the difference between refugees and migrants here.. very different things.) and refugees should be supported until such time their own country is stable and then it should be time to go home.

Benefits should be stopped to those able to work who refuse to do so..

 

The BBC is largely unbiased and that is the whole point of the organisation.

The £9million is common for organisations to get money for regional, cultural and development projects.

Facts are facts and some people on here seem to confuse them for scaremongering and bullshit because it conflicts with their own opinions.

 

Over 100 universities have written to the times to express support for the in campaign, this says something about how the EU benefits higher education which greatly supports the economy.

Also the top 35 British compan support the in campaign

 

Where have I said that?? The facts are that the older we get the more we feel that we got it right based on our life experience. Having said that this decision is not about us it is about the people who will have to live with it and they are the younger generation. I don't decry age and experience just saying this decision is not about looking back to how life was but looking forward to how it will be and like it or not that will be lived in a time which are kids are shaping and . that is inevitable.

 

Or using that life experience to help others who don't have that experience and have actually lived through that history to know better.

As Redprintt has alluded many times, we all had the view of youth through socialist eyes when we were MTGs age, I used to subscribe to the garbage he repeats over and over, but then life experience opens your eyes to reality. Socialists always end up hurting the people they profess to protect. (militant unions who end up losing thousand of jobs and pouring money at everything until it becomes unsustainable)

So for me I can excuse MTG the ignorance of youth but you don't seem to have learnt much?

 

From your point if view and you are biased towards the same thinking as them!

Then it should be! thats everyday peoples taxes that could be far better spent.

You haven't come up with one proven fact yet? I have asked you to support with evidence.. you have systematically failed to do so! or does that bullshit confirm your own opinion (to you)

 

But these rules affecting radiation could of been a uk idea?
If you want to discuss safety measures the best example will be electricity. In the uk we earth our electricity making the flow safer if you just look at the European plug for example you can see for yourself safety is not as high as ours.
I'm not saying in or out just yet as I can see things from both sides the A400m argument was good in that Airbus is a Europe consortium and they could be arses and refuse to trade. But equally the chances are remote because every country wants something the other can offer so they trade off.
What you need to do is keep an open mind make your decision and the accept others, but using safety was poor and probably it's us making the Europeans come up to our standards. Just look at construction sites in uk then Europe and see the difference.

 

Because the truth is that the it is fearsome of what it would be outside of the eu

 

YES my point is those that are not willing /wont work /seeking soft touch are seeing it as a carrot on the end of the stick... bit like the euro person from a different country didn't like the idea of benefits being stopped /cut so he couldn't send it home ... live 20 to a house, cash in hand and draw benefits they send home ...gravy train ....