Thousands demonstrate in London against leaving the EU

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, OJAS said:

I neither know nor care what you mean by "soft power", thank you, Mr Know-It-All, since I have absolutely zero time for your sneering, patronising and condescending attitude towards each and everyone of us who has the temerity to disagree with your point of view as regards UK membership of the EU.

 

Since you clearly have zero tolerance of all us Brexiteers, I can only assume that you are ardently in favour of us being "educated in the error of our voting ways", along the lines of "attitude adjustment" as currently practised by the military here against the red shirts. Since you clearly share 100% with your yellow-shirted cousins here a total disdain for democracy, I can only assume that you are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them in seeking to have your respective agendas foisted on the UK and Thailand in contradiction of majority verdicts delivered at the ballot box in either case.

 

 

Entirely incorrect but nice polemic!

 

My problem is that there seems to be an extreme lack of balance in typical Brexiteer viewpoints. Sensible people recognise pros and cons. If you don't see any pros then it is down to your own ignorance. I do understand why Brexiteers ( and Trumpeteers) voted the way they did. I am not a yellow shirt or a red shirt. What colour represents ambivalence?

 

I have already accepted that Brexit won the referendum. I'm not going to change my views though.

 

Soft power is non military power. Maybe commercial, financial, community pressure. European sanctions ARE applying real pressure on Putin. Sometimes, sabre rattling is not the best way.

 

BTW, I am arrogant and may appear condescending. I do not sneer; far too vulgar ?

[Grouse]

11 minutes ago, stander said:

The UK's entrepreneurs may be holding their breath ahead of the triggering of Article 50 on Wednesday, but James Dyson has said he is "enormously optimistic" about it.

In an interview with the BBC today, Dyson, who was one of the business world's most prominent Brexiteers, said it won't be a disaster if the UK ends negotiations without a trade deal with the EU.

"We pay the WTO tariff going into Europe because we manufacture in the Far East," he said. http://www.cityam.com/261756/james-dyson-wto-rules-after-brexit-bring-em

Why doesn't Dyson manufacture his volume products in the UK instead of China?

 

Neither Dyson nor Bamford like EU workers' rights ......

Edited March 27, 2017 by Grouse

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Grouse has yet to explain anything!

I have bought some new crayons and will respond to you shortly. OK?

[transam]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Why doesn't Dyson manufacture his volume products in the UK instead of China?

 

Neither Dyson nor Bamford like EU workers rights ......

He has to pay them farang living wages....?

[OJAS]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

You do not consider that, during the 1970's, the original (ever closer union) intent of the EEC>EU was hidden from the British public before entry in 1973 and before the (confirmation) referendum of 1975. There was no internet and the small print was intentionally well hidden anyway. This information was not formally disclosed until the turn of the century. If the Heath government had not lied, and if this information had been freely available at the time, then UK voters would not have approved joining in the first place and we would not be having this debate at all. 

I'm not so sure that much was hidden from us during the 1970's prior to UK entry. On the other hand, much was hidden from the great British public by the Major and Blair governments during the 1990's and 2000's, when moves towards closer EU integration really picked up apace culminating with the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. The most fertile seeds of the current ills of the EU were sown during those 2 particular decades IMHO.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Are they all Tory supporting companies? Tesco, for one, donates to both leading parties.

There you go - the cynicism of Tesco knows no bounds.

And a perfect example, as if there weren't too many already, of why another rejection of independence for Scots simply means agreeing to another 30 years of different flavours of the same sh!t sandwich.

Edited March 27, 2017 by RuamRudy

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I have bought some new crayons and will respond to you shortly. OK?

 

Can't wait! Oh, hang on, I already did that! A Christmas present maybe?

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, OJAS said:

So by the same token would you not agree that people over 65 should no longer have to pay taxes if they were denied the vote?

I did not mention cutting them off from salaries and pensions, but I guess if they receive those, they would also pay taxes of their earnings?

[Grouse]

25 minutes ago, transam said:

He has to pay them farang living wages....?

I note that the Dyson plant is in Malaysia. My error.

 

1.7 Billion t/o

 

[chrissables]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I note that the Dyson plant is in Malaysia. My error.

 

1.7 Billion t/o

 

Yes in Malaysia, but why so expensive here in Thailand i wonder. I thought ASEAN lowered taxes. A bit like in the EU, in UK we paid a lot more alcohol than abroad with our lower taxes. I have no idea who to blame, probably the UK government!

[elliss]

22 hours ago, Grouse said:

Jesus! You really are upset!

 

My views on Europe are entirely correct

 

I did not realise the numpties out number the wise in the UK. I should have seen it with all the dumbing down. Embarrassing! 

       Numpties   allowed  to vote  ,   whatever  next ??.   Democracy ,  dream on .

          TM , this lady is for turning ,  as we  all  know .

[OJAS]

37 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I did not mention cutting them off from salaries and pensions, but I guess if they receive those, they would also pay taxes of their earnings?

Why should they still have to pay taxes on their income (in whatever form it takes) if they no longer had the vote? Sounds to me like those who favour disenfranchising the over-65's (who are presumably considerably younger in the main) want to have their cake and eat it in this regard!

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Why should they still have to pay taxes on their income (in whatever form it takes) if they no longer had the vote? Sounds to me like those who favour disenfranchising the over-65's (who are presumably considerably younger in the main) want to have their cake and eat it in this regard!

It's all irony ?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Why should they still have to pay taxes on their income (in whatever form it takes) if they no longer had the vote? Sounds to me like those who favour disenfranchising the over-65's (who are presumably considerably younger in the main) want to have their cake and eat it in this regard!

I'm guessing the elderly still use the common infrastructure and the services society provides. That is where the tax money normally goes.

[OJAS]

45 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Yes in Malaysia, but why so expensive here in Thailand i wonder. I thought ASEAN lowered taxes. A bit like in the EU, in UK we paid a lot more alcohol than abroad with our lower taxes. I have no idea who to blame, probably the UK government!

While ASEAN and the EU may share an inability to influence taxes in their respective member countries, one thing that they don't seem to have in common is a disproportionately cumbersome bureaucracy to run matters. Long may ASEAN IMHO not have its own separate parliament or commission to concoct shedloads of mainly pointless and petty directives and regulations!

 

ASEAN appears to me to be basically modelled on the relatively non-interventionist EEC which the UK joined in 1972 - and for which I voted Remain in the 1975 referendum. If only the EU were prepared to turn back the clock to those relatively good old days - but that, of course, will now be far too much to expect.

Edited March 27, 2017 by OJAS

[OJAS]

10 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm guessing the elderly still use the common infrastructure and the services society provides. That is where the tax money normally goes.

As do the youngsters who don't pay taxes, of course.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, OJAS said:

As do the youngsters who don't pay taxes, of course.

True that.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, elliss said:

On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Grouse said:

Jesus! You really are upset!

 

My views on Europe are entirely correct

 

I did not realise the numpties out number the wise in the UK. I should have seen it with all the dumbing down. Embarrassing! 

       Numpties   allowed  to vote  ,   whatever  next ??.   Democracy ,  dream on .

          TM , this lady is for turning ,  as we  all  know .

 

His views on Europe are entirely bonkers. Between that fact and the arrogant and infantile way that they are voiced are the reasons why most brexit supporters have given up debating with him.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

His views on Europe are entirely bonkers. Between that fact and the arrogant and infantile way that they are voiced are the reasons why most brexit supporters have given up debating with him.

I wouldn't rate your chat here as debate! Some others make cogent points but you just spew bile.

 

Do me a favour and ignore me.

 

Thanks ?

[elliss]

3 hours ago, OJAS said:

As do the youngsters who don't pay taxes, of course.

FYI ,   it  was the older  generation  , previously known  as working class, { uneducated of course }

        who paid taxes into the system , and funded further and higher Education options .

            Now  we   have  the  arrogant  grouser ,  rid  us of  him ASAP .... PLEASE .

Edited March 27, 2017 by elliss

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

19 hours ago, pitrevie said:

It would be amazing if the EU today wasn't vastly different from the original organisation. If it wasn't I daresay that people would have been complaining that it hadn't moved with the times. However go back and read the original intent of the founders and its quite clear what they intended the organisation to become. People who trot out that excuse as a reason to get out obviously never had that much interest but apparently every time we had some major treaty revision they demanded a referendum. The same people also have no interest in a referendum when the final Brexit deal is worked out such is the hypocrisy.

And the remoaners bleat on and on when both sides agreed and it was as plain as night from day there would be one vote, only one vote, and the result was final... They should have got out of bed on 23rd June 2016..

 

Yes I know fine well what the Treaty of Rome says, but it is not as plain as night from day what they intended. The Lisbon treaty changed the game after the EU Constitution was thrown out, it was recovered and repackaged like processed cheese and sold as a new product. Maastricht was another that introduced the Euro as a further step not in the ToR.

You have been hoodwinked by Brussels/Strasbourg spin. You need to look into the history a bit closer.

March if you want, Wednesday we are OUT!

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/26/2017 at 8:10 PM, RuamRudy said:

A deliberate (and clearly successful) attempt to mislead the public through sophistry - why else would it be used other than to lure people into thinking that the answer to the problems in the NHS was to leave the EU. The irony is that leaving the EU has made the future of the NHS more precarious than ever, as our vulturous government is lining it up to sell off to the highest bidder. Well done, you Brexiter geniuses.

You know better than this. Sophistry was used by BOTH sides. The press and media used  "quotes" that they didn't get and twisted answers to questions that were posed to obtain a specific reply that suited what the particular interviewer wanted to report. It's called interviewing technique. I guess you have no knowledge of the media or how it works.

The Leave bus was no less misleading than the doom and gloom from the remain campaign, maybe they should have looked for a more positive rhetoric?

The NHS was a noble socialist objective and people don't want to lose it, but it is now a political landmine. Would staying in the EU have helped fund it?

 

[juice777]

If there was a second referendum, majority will definitely vote to stay, but who cares Brits deserve to suffer for their horrible treatment to other nations they colonized.

Haha and what guilt free country are you from then?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[englishinsiam]

The Uk will thrive outside the EU. In fact in 5 years the EU won't exist.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[pitrevie]

4 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

And the remoaners bleat on and on when both sides agreed and it was as plain as night from day there would be one vote, only one vote, and the result was final... They should have got out of bed on 23rd June 2016..

 

Yes I know fine well what the Treaty of Rome says, but it is not as plain as night from day what they intended. The Lisbon treaty changed the game after the EU Constitution was thrown out, it was recovered and repackaged like processed cheese and sold as a new product. Maastricht was another that introduced the Euro as a further step not in the ToR.

You have been hoodwinked by Brussels/Strasbourg spin. You need to look into the history a bit closer.

March if you want, Wednesday we are OUT!

Well once again I have to start correcting you and your last sentence really does speak volumes to your understanding of what was intended for the EU.

How many times does it have to be stated to Brexiters, on Wednesday we are going to notify the EU of our intent to leave, we are not out we are just invoking Article 50.

That has been in the news for the last almost 12 months and you still don't understand the process and yet you will have us believe that you somehow understood what the EU was all about re the various treaties.

My guess is that you paid as much attention to the original application to join the EEC as you have shown to our intention to leave.

Edited March 28, 2017 by pitrevie
correction

[brewsterbudgen]

Well once again I have to start correcting you and your last sentence really does speak volumes to your understanding of what was intended for the EU.
How many times does it have to be stated to Brexiters, on Wednesday we are going to notify the EU of our intent to leave, we are not out we are just invoking Article 50.
That has been in the news for the last almost 12 months and you still don't understand the process and yet you will have us believe that you somehow understood what the EU was all about re the various treaties.
My guess is that you paid as much attention to the original application to join the EEC as you have shown to our intention to leave.

One of the common features of the Leave campaign was their, possibly deliberate in some cases, misunderstanding and blatant misrepresentation of the facts about the EU. Common to their points on this thread too!

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

One of the common features of the Leave campaign was their, possibly deliberate in some cases, misunderstanding and blatant misrepresentation of the facts about the EU. Common to their points on this thread too!

What facts are those then?

[pitrevie]

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What facts are those then?

We are leaving on Wednesday. (I will add to make clear this is something often stated by Brexiters and is NOT a fact)

Edited March 28, 2017 by pitrevie
Making it clear that my remark was meant as sarcasm

[brewsterbudgen]

We are leaving on Wednesday.

Another incorrect fact [emoji19]

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

We are leaving on Wednesday.

 

I won't argue with that but it might take a couple of years to complete the departure.