UK to discuss EU withdrawal referendum

who the fug

ShooterSF wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, so what happens if, for example, the majority of the Irish population decides that homosexuality should be illegal because gays eat babies? Should the government decree that homosexuality is illegal, or should they dismiss these angry noises until such time as evidence is produced showing that gays do in fact eat babies?

I would hope that discussion and debate would change their mind. If not then yes. I'd leave the country and my faith in humanity would diminish a little further.I would at all opportunities vocalise my disgust at the countries treatment of human rights but I would want them to repeal it because the people copped on rather than never outlaw it and have a large percentage of the population dig their heels in to the point where we might never change their views. I wouldn't want to live in that Ireland either.

But if member states were constantly leaving and being readmitted, very little would get done – politicians’ time would be spent almost entirely renegotiating treaties at EU level.

That's more a problem with how the E.U works, not that I think there's an easy fix.

Batsy wrote: »

My policies on making Britain great again:

Leave the EU.

Tear up the Human Rights Act.

Give England its own parliament and situate it in Birmingham, near enough the centre of England.

Make St George's Day a national holiday.

Increase defence spending from 2.7% of GDP to 4.5% of GDP.

Increase the manpower of the RN, RAF and Army. The Army to be increased by 25% to 125,000 troops and the Territorial Army to be doubled in size.

Increase the amount of hardware of each service. Give the RAF more planes and the army more tanks, etc. The RN needs to be at least three times the size it is now with at least six giant aircraft carriers.

An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement will insure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people per year.

Regain control of the UK's borders. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only while entry for non-work related purposes (e.g., holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying a visa will be treated as a criminal offence.

Build more nuclear power stations and abandon plans to build more useless windmills.

Ban the takeover of major British companies, such as the takeover of Cadbury's by Kraft in 2010, and the creation of a new parliamentary committee that would be given powers to block the sale or merger of companies and to attach conditions, including requiring a UK Government “Golden Share".

The bit in bold is a good idea! Nice to find a common ground.

Where is the going to come from to pay for all this pie in orbit

ShooterSF

djpbarry wrote: »

No matter what the consequences? Let’s take a more extreme example – suppose the electorate decide that the punishment for homosexuality will be death. You think the government should sign away peoples’ lives and hope that everyone else eventually learns the error of their ways?

Ok... At a guess at that point I would weep for my belief that human beings are deep down good people and with it discard my belief that because of that democracy is the best system of rulership and would support a totalitarian eh liberal? movement. Of course as mentioned this is well into the hypothetical so perhaps emotion would get the better of me too...

marienbad

Batsy wrote: »

My policies on making Britain great again:

Leave the EU.

Tear up the Human Rights Act.

Give England its own parliament and situate it in Birmingham, near enough the centre of England.

Make St George's Day a national holiday.

Increase defence spending from 2.7% of GDP to 4.5% of GDP.

Increase the manpower of the RN, RAF and Army. The Army to be increased by 25% to 125,000 troops and the Territorial Army to be doubled in size.

Increase the amount of hardware of each service. Give the RAF more planes and the army more tanks, etc. The RN needs to be at least three times the size it is now with at least six giant aircraft carriers.

An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement will insure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people per year.

Regain control of the UK's borders. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only while entry for non-work related purposes (e.g., holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying a visa will be treated as a criminal offence.

Build more nuclear power stations and abandon plans to build more useless windmills.

Ban the takeover of major British companies, such as the takeover of Cadbury's by Kraft in 2010, and the creation of a new parliamentary committee that would be given powers to block the sale or merger of companies and to attach conditions, including requiring a UK Government “Golden Share".

Just out of curiosity Batsy what gives with all the defence spending ?
Six giant aircraft carriers ,defence spending of 4.5 % of GDP ! For what ?

oscarBravo

marienbad wrote: »

Just out of curiosity Batsy what gives with all the defence spending ?
Six giant aircraft carriers ,defence spending of 4.5 % of GDP ! For what ?

In case the EU invades? They are all forriners, after all - can't be trusted.

FreudianSlippers

Recolonisation methinks.

View

Batsy wrote: »

We mustn't let the stupid people decide, mustn't we?

Of course not, that's why we have elections where the people can decide who to vote for or not as the case may be. :rolleyes:

junder

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Recolonisation methinks.

Re claiming the occupied 26 county's

marienbad

junder wrote: »

Re claiming the occupied 26 county's

and the lost kingdom of Eleanor Aquitaine perhaps , after that an assault on Rockall, but would you really need 4 giant aircraft carriers for that ?

View

Batsy wrote: »

The same people then who so confidently declared that Britain will be better off adopting the euro

Sterling has lost 18.3% of its value against the Euro since the Euro was launched (1 Sterling bought you 1.41 Euro back then, it buys you 1.14 Euro now).

By way of contrast, the currencies of the (then) other non-Eurozone EU member states - Denmark and Sweden - have maintained their value wrt the Euro. Even the Russian Ruble has only lost 15% of its value against the Euro in that time period!

So, like it or not, the "same people" who made those declarations were right - in that, the "average citizen" with any money in their pocket in the UK, would have been better off had the UK adopted the Euro.

djpbarry

View wrote: »

Sterling has lost 18.3% of its value against the Euro since the Euro was launched (1 Sterling bought you 1.41 Euro back then, it buys you 1.14 Euro now).

Wasn't it about 1.60 when the Euro was launched (in physical form in Jan 2002)?

getz

View wrote: »

Sterling has lost 18.3% of its value against the Euro since the Euro was launched (1 Sterling bought you 1.41 Euro back then, it buys you 1.14 Euro now).

By way of contrast, the currencies of the (then) other non-Eurozone EU member states - Denmark and Sweden - have maintained their value wrt the Euro. Even the Russian Ruble has only lost 15% of its value against the Euro in that time period!

So, like it or not, the "same people" who made those declarations were right - in that, the "average citizen" with any money in their pocket in the UK, would have been better off had the UK adopted the Euro.

why ,a pint of beer [real ail] costs me £1 10 in fleetwood, a cup of coffie 50p and a bacon butty £1,ireland has gone very expensive,not value for money, last year what i paid in ireland for one meal would have fed me for a week in the UK,

oscarBravo

getz wrote: »

why ,a pint of beer [real ail] costs me £1 10 in fleetwood, a cup of coffie 50p and a bacon butty £1,ireland has gone very expensive,not value for money, last year what i paid in ireland for one meal would have fed me for a week in the UK,

And Portugal's prices are lower than those in the UK. What's it got to do with the Euro?

getz

oscarBravo wrote: »

And Portugal's prices are lower than those in the UK. What's it got to do with the Euro?

because the euro is on the point of collapse and it is being kept alive by countries [even the UK] pumping money in

oscarBravo

getz wrote: »

because the euro is on the point of collapse and it is being kept alive by countries [even the UK] pumping money in

Non sequitur. How does that explain the disparity of pricing between Ireland and Portugal, which share a currency?

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

why ,a pint of beer [real ail] costs me £1 10 in fleetwood, a cup of coffie 50p and a bacon butty £1,ireland has gone very expensive...

You can increase all of those prices by about 300-400% for central London.

****ing euro.

Musiconomist

Batsy wrote: »

My policies on making Britain great again:

Give England its own parliament and situate it in Birmingham, near enough the centre of England.

Make St George's Day a national holiday.

Increase defence spending from 2.7% of GDP to 4.5% of GDP.

Increase the manpower of the RN, RAF and Army. The Army to be increased by 25% to 125,000 troops and the Territorial Army to be doubled in size.

Increase the amount of hardware of each service. Give the RAF more planes and the army more tanks, etc. The RN needs to be at least three times the size it is now with at least six giant aircraft carriers.

An immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement will insure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people per year.

Build more nuclear power stations and abandon plans to build more useless windmills.
“Golden Share".

Firstly, Great Britain refers to the geographical land, not it's esteem.

Why put a parliament in Birmingham? What difference does it make where it is located? I'd have thought London would be obvious.

Why discontinue building windmills in favour of nuclear power? I know wind turbine energy is expensive, but it is the cleanest source of fuel available. I prefer to look at windmills over nuclear power plants.

Why expand the military? Who do you think will attack Britain or is it to maintain political clout?

I fully support you in regards to increased bank holidays

djpbarry

Musiconomist wrote: »

I know wind turbine energy is expensive...

Actually onshore wind is one of the cheapest means of producing electricity, but that’s for another forum.

Not sure which one...

Batsy

marienbad wrote: »

and the lost kingdom of Eleanor Aquitaine perhaps , after that an assault on Rockall, but would you really need 4 giant aircraft carriers for that ?

We need to take back all the lands in what is now France that the French stole off the Angevin Empire.

The French stole that land off the Angevin Empire.

Batsy

Musiconomist wrote: »

Why put a parliament in Birmingham? What difference does it make where it is located? I'd have thought London would be obvious.

Birmingham is in the middle of England. It'll be easier for the people in Northern England to go there than it would be if it was way down in London.

Why discontinue building windmills in favour of nuclear power?

Because nuclear power is much more effective in producing energy than windmills. If Britain starts to rely on renewable sources to produce energy our lights will go off and we'll be living by candlelight within ten years.

Why expand the military?

Because it's too small.

Batsy

oscarBravo wrote: »

In case the EU invades? They are all forriners, after all - can't be trusted.

I don't think we can trust people like the French and Germans. I'm more prepared to trust the Commonwealth nations.

marienbad

Batsy wrote: »

We need to take back all the lands in what is now France that the French stole off the Angevin Empire.

The French stole that land off the Angevin Empire.

But you are beginning to sound more like those extreme Islamic groups laying claim to the Iberian peninsula along with all of the Balkans.

How about the USA ? do you lay claim to that also ?:)

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

We need to take back all the lands in what is now France that the French stole off the Angevin Empire.

The French stole that land off the Angevin Empire.

Eh, the Angevins were French?

Batsy wrote: »

Because it's too small.

The Ministry of Defence already consumes £35 billion of our taxes – that’s way too much as it is, thanks.

greendom

Batsy wrote: »

We need to take back all the lands in what is now France that the French stole off the Angevin Empire.

The French stole that land off the Angevin Empire.

Yes Angevin - typically British name that :rolleyes:

Batsy

marienbad wrote: »

How about the USA ? do you lay claim to that also ?:)

Just the 13 original colonies.

Batsy

greendom wrote: »

Yes Angevin - typically British name that :rolleyes:

The Angevin Empire wasn't a British, or an English, Empire. It was an empire ruled by the Plantagenets, the descendants of the Normans who invaded England in 1066 and made England a part of the Angevin Empire.

The French ruler of the Angevin Empire had different titles in each of the lands he ruled. He was, in Normandy, the Duke of Normandy. In England he was the King of England. But this territory was not England's. England was merely a part of the same territory that the northern and western parts of what is now France were a part of.

Then, during the reign of Richard the Lionheart and his successor King John, the imperialist French king with his armies invaded huge swathes of the Angevin Empire, including Normandy, and made them part of France. The only part of Normandy which he didn't get was the Channel Islands, which today are a British Crown Dependency.

Naturally and understandably, the Kings of England wanted their ancestral lands back, and so fought France during the Hundred Years' War to get the lands back. The French won.

By rights, northern and western France should be a part of the UK.

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, the Angevins were French?

They certainly were.

The Ministry of Defence already consumes £35 billion of our taxes – that’s way too much as it is, thanks.

No, it isn't. Defence spending needs to be increased to at least 4% of GDP. The current 2.7% of GDP that we spend on defence is not enough. Even Algeria spends a higher percentage of its wealth on defence than Britain does: 3.8%.

marienbad

Batsy wrote: »

They certainly were.




No, it isn't. Defence spending needs to be increased to at least 4% of GDP. The current 2.7% of GDP that we spend on defence is not enough. Even Algeria spends a higher percentage of its wealth on defence than Britain does: 3.8%.

But for what purpose Batsy, ( other than reclaiming the 13 colonies and half of France ).

Why would you need such a bloated defence spend ?

ShooterSF

Shouldn't you be giving England back to the French then with so many Norman ancestors?

Also what benefits have Algeria seen from a higher spend on defence that you would hope to emulate in England?

greendom

So you don't trust the French or Germans, yet you share the same ancestors ? Do you not trust the British either ?

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

By rights, northern and western France should be a part of the UK.

And much of middle and eastern England should be returned to Denmark?

Batsy wrote: »

No, it isn't. Defence spending needs to be increased to at least 4% of GDP. The current 2.7% of GDP that we spend on defence is not enough. Even Algeria spends a higher percentage of its wealth on defence than Britain does: 3.8%.

And how’s that working out for Algeria?

Batsy

marienbad wrote: »

Why would you need such a bloated defence spend ?

4.5% is not bloated. It's about right. Who knows what threats may unexpectedly appear at any time.

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

And much of middle and eastern England should be returned to Denmark

No, it shouldn't.

The Danes invaded England and ruled vast swathes of it - the Danelaw. We got that territory back.

The French invaded vast swathes of the Angevin Empire. We should get that territory back. It was the French who were the invaders and land-grabbers.

marienbad

Batsy wrote: »

No, it shouldn't.

The Danes invaded England and ruled vast swathes of it - the Danelaw. We got that territory back.

The French invaded vast swathes of the Angevin Empire. We should get that territory back. It was the French who were the invaders and land-grabbers.

so what were the original colonists in the USA ? and should the N.Ireland revert to the republic ?

Batsy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Shouldn't you be giving England back to the French then with so many Norman ancestors?

No. England didn't become a part of France (the Normans weren't French). It became a part of the Angevin Empire ruled by the Plantagenets. The French came along and then annexed vast swathes of the Angevin Empire - all of it, in fact, apart from England and the Channel Islands.

Also what benefits have Algeria seen from a higher spend on defence that you would hope to emulate in England?

They'll be getting more benefits that they would be doing if their defence spending was a poxy 2.7%. And if countries such as Algeria spend 3.8% of their GDP on defence I don't think it's too wrong to say that Britain's defence spending as a percentage of GDP should be much higher that 3.8%.

Batsy

marienbad wrote: »

so what were the original colonists in the USA ? and should the N.Ireland revert to the republic ?

Britain ruled all of what is now the eastern seabord of the United States until that land was stolen from us. Eventually that territory became the first 13 states of the United States. They should give that land back to us.

I also don't think it's too much to ask the Americans to give Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California back to Mexico and make Texas, Hawaii and Vermont the free and independent nations they once were.

marienbad

Batsy wrote: »

Britain ruled all of what is now the eastern seabord of the United States until that land was stolen from us. Eventually that territory became the first 13 states of the United States. They should give that land back to us.

I also don't think it's too much to ask the Americans to give Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California back to Mexico and make Texas, Hawaii and Vermont the free and independent nations they once were.

And what about N.Ireland and the original native americans ?

djpbarry

Batsy wrote: »

No, it shouldn't.

The Danes invaded England and ruled vast swathes of it - the Danelaw. We got that territory back.

And yet, at the time of the Norman invasion, England was ruled by what was essentially a Danish king. Shouldn’t all the descendents of the Danish invaders who remain be sent back where they came from? Not to mention all the Angles, Jutes and Saxons.

Batsy wrote: »

The French invaded vast swathes of the Angevin Empire.

Whereas we all know that Britain/England never invaded anywhere.

Batsy wrote: »

They'll be getting more benefits that they would be doing if their defence spending was a poxy 2.7%. And if countries such as Algeria spend 3.8% of their GDP on defence I don't think it's too wrong to say that Britain's defence spending as a percentage of GDP should be much higher that 3.8%.

Let’s push it all the way up to about 20%. Then Britain can rival the mighty Eritrea!

Batsy wrote: »

Britain ruled all of what is now the eastern seabord of the United States until that land was stolen from us.

Eh, no, they didn’t really. The US was colonised by people fleeing persecution in Britain. No taxation without representation and all that – remember?

And where does the EU fit into all this?

can we get back on topic please rather than discussing uk land stolen or otherwise

View

bluewolf wrote: »

can we get back on topic please rather than discussing uk land stolen or otherwise

I don't follow the relevance of it either I confess but I think the EU may be to blame for it somehow...

Dr Galen

Batsy wrote: »

Just the 13 original colonies.

The British invented Battlestar Galactica now too?

jeez I'm confused

@Batsy

There is only so much more of this borderline nonsense that we are going to tolerate, and tbh, I'm not convinced that you are being serious in many of your posts. It appears to me that your sole intention is to rile other posters. Call it upsetting the natives, that should be an analogy that you understand....

Either things improve or your ability to post on the Politics forum will...

Cheers

DrG

Dr Galen

Sorry Bluewolf, I was typing that while you were posting. Either way both comments stand equally.

Cheers

DrG

FreudianSlippers

Dr Galen wrote: »

The British invented Battlestar Galactica now too?

jeez I'm confused

@Batsy

There is only so much more of this borderline nonsense that we are going to tolerate, and tbh, I'm not convinced that you are being serious in many of your posts. It appears to me that your sole intention is to rile other posters. Call it upsetting the natives, that should be an analogy that you understand....

Either things improve or your ability to post on the Politics forum will...

Cheers

DrG

Is it questioning mod direction to point out that it was only the 12 colonies? :P

Edit: forgot about Earth! THIRTEEN!

Dr Galen

Technically you are right, there were 12 colonies, and 13 tribes, the 13th headed to "Earth", but we digress

FreudianSlippers

Dr Galen wrote: »

Technically you are right, there were 12 colonies, and 13 tribes, the 13th headed to "Earth", but we digress

Either way they aint British

walrusgumble

Batsy wrote: »

I don't think we can trust people like the French and Germans. I'm more prepared to trust the Commonwealth nations.

Commonwealth nations eh?

We previously had British Premier telling his people there was oil , sorry WMD, in them mountains.

Zimbabwe, ha, less said the better

Pakistan, consistently killing eachother, jailing lawyers etc

You really mean, I would prefer to deal with the big Commonwealth nations (such as Canada and Australia) because, in reality, it will be the UK that will dominate the discussions and how things go - which would be fair enough, but don't come here with that tosh

marienbad

walrusgumble wrote: »

Commonwealth nations eh?

We previously had British Premier telling his people there was oil , sorry WMD, in them mountains.

Zimbabwe, ha, less said the better

Pakistan, consistently killing eachother, jailing lawyers etc

You really mean, I would prefer to deal with the big Commonwealth nations (such as Canada and Australia) because, in reality, it will be the UK that will dominate the discussions and how things go - which would be fair enough, but don't come here with that tosh

No, I suspect he means the white commonwealth nations.

Musiconomist

Batsy wrote: »

The Angevin Empire wasn't a British, or an English, Empire. It was an empire ruled by the Plantagenets, the descendants of the Normans who invaded England in 1066 and made England a part of the Angevin Empire.

The French ruler of the Angevin Empire had different titles in each of the lands he ruled. He was, in Normandy, the Duke of Normandy. In England he was the King of England. But this territory was not England's. England was merely a part of the same territory that the northern and western parts of what is now France were a part of.

Then, during the reign of Richard the Lionheart and his successor King John, the imperialist French king with his armies invaded huge swathes of the Angevin Empire, including Normandy, and made them part of France. The only part of Normandy which he didn't get was the Channel Islands, which today are a British Crown Dependency.

Naturally and understandably, the Kings of England wanted their ancestral lands back, and so fought France during the Hundred Years' War to get the lands back. The French won.

By rights, northern and western France should be a part of the UK.

Your logic is ridiculous.

So, the French should give back their land, because Britain was there first. Does that mean that Norman descendants should give back their land to Celts?

Doesnt that also mean that Northern Ireland should be given back to R of Ireland? If you're going to use the argument that NI people want to stay in Britain, that will defeat your argument for France giving land back to Britain.


I was marginally interested in your opinion until you said that the USA should give back it's colonies. That's a laugh.

Batsy

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, at the time of the Norman invasion, England was ruled by what was essentially a Danish king. Whereas we all know that Britain/England never invaded anywhere.

At the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066 England was ruled by King Harold II, an Anglo-Saxon king.

Let’s push it all the way up to about 20%. Then Britain can rival the mighty Eritrea!

20% is pushing it a bit. 4.5% to 5.5% will suffice.

The US was colonised by people fleeing persecution in Britain.

Not all of them were fleeing persecution. And even if they were, so what? The places that they fled to were BRITISH territories.

No taxation without representation and all that – remember?

Most people in Britain were taxed but weren't represented in parliament. The American colonists were treated no differently.

Batsy

Musiconomist wrote: »

Your logic is ridiculous.

So, the French should give back their land, because Britain was there first. Does that mean that Norman descendants should give back their land to Celts?

Britain wasn't there first. All those lands in what is now France belonged to the Angevins, not the British (or, to be precise, the English).

England just happened to be a part of the Angevin Empire - it didn't rule it - and became a part of it due to Normandy, another part of the Angevin Empire, invading and subjugating England.

Those territories in what is now France didn't belong to the English. They belonged to the Angevins. And the French had no right taking them and making them a part of their country.

Eventually, the only parts of the Angevin Empire that the French didn't steal were England and the island areas of Normandy (the Channel Islands).

That's why the Kings of England fought France during the Hundred Years' War to take back their ancestral lands that the French stole off their ancestors (King John and Richard the Lionheart). John and the Lionheart ruled the Angevin Empire, but it was not England ruling it. They just had different titles in each of the Angevin territories. For example, they were both the King of England but also the Duke of Normandy and would have titles in each of the other Angevin areas.

Batsy

marienbad wrote: »

No, I suspect he means the white commonwealth nations.

No. I mean all Commonwealth nations.

Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is no longer a member of the Commonwealth. It left in 2003 when the Commonwealth heads of government refused to lift the country's suspension on the grounds of alleged human rights violations and deliberate misgovernment.

Pakistan was suspended between 1999 and 2004 following a military coup by Pervez Musharraf.

Pakistan was suspended for a second time, far more briefly, for six months from 22 November 2007, when Musharraf called a state of emergency.

I would more readily trust ANY Commonwealth country than I would certain countries in the EU.