[Politics] Brexit

[Hampster Gull]

Actually i was not smart enough to draw conclusion to the world war comparison,no my last graph pointed to 1997,labour coming to power with the debt at an all time low and their policies (failing ones) on immigration.....all now rising again.

Ok, i read too much into that one, apologies. Are you saying though that the debt problem is due to immigration and labours excessive spending or immigration due to labours migration policies? Just trying to understand, interested to know

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Ok, i read too much into that one, apologies. Are you saying though that debt problem is immigration and labours excessive spending or immigration due to labours migration policies? Just trying to understand, interested to know

Edit: Apology accepted

Remember my father saying to me the day Blair came to power.....

Now to be fair to Labour they had some good work done,spent well on the NHS and Education,also Labour had newer threats and problems to deal with in the modern world mainly with global recession and radical extremist terrorists.

He said to me "the country will be ruined when Labour are voted out".

I don't agree totally with his statement but it's showing from 1997 and until now just what has happened under their control.

In answer to your question,both.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

It really sinks in why Labour have been so quiet on this referendum, they cocked this country up. I had to laugh when Red Ed stated yesterday that we needed to stay in the EU and control immigration.........jeez, your mob had 13 years, and what did you do, just opened the door, back and front.

Ironic..

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Ok, i read too much into that one

Actually i could use that for trumpeting Brexit

 

[Soulman]

France Announce Likely Exit From Europe Ahead of Brexit Vote.

A new survey has found that France are on the brink of leaving Europe, as anti-EU sentiment sweeps the continent ahead of a likely Brexit vote in the UK later this month.
“The EU was sold to the French people as a `partnership’ of equals with Germany. But it has been very clear since 2010 that this is not the case. Everybody could see that Germany decided everything in Greece,”
http://yournewswire.com/france-announce-likely-exit-from-europe-ahead-of-brexit-vote/

 

[Soulman]

Voters will stick two fingers up to those lecturing about Brexit’s dangers.
Crikey, a report from the Guardian......

I don’t know how many more people are going to lecture me to vote for the status quo. Stephen Hawking, actors I don’t care about, family and friends I do, George Osborne in a hi-vis jacket, some pale Lib Dem – all these people are pro-Europe. Remain is humane. Morally superior. All else is Farageland, old-fashioned, implicitly racist, desperately uncosmopolitan. Europe is a dream of weekends in Warsaw, festivals in Barcelona and stags in Amsterdam. It’s about being free and modern and connected. Mostly by cheap flights. What sort of person would want to not co-operate with this?

Quite a lot of us actually, because the dream of Europe is not the reality – Europe is not the EU, although these terms are often used interchangeably – and because all kinds of people are being totally excluded from this debate.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ll-stick-two-fingers-lecturing-brexit-dangers

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Like I said, you would have to believe that anyone could hear that "the EU is like Hitler" and be convinced on that basis. Nobody would be. What Boris was saying was much more nuanced than you are suggesting. Saying "The EU is like Hitler" would be completely inaffective. But the intelligent and thoughtful point that we have always traditionally been against the uniting of Europe under a single control structure, and that it is not by definition, a positive pursuit, is a perfectly valid point. But only to people exercising their intelligence. Anyone who reads only the headline, anyone who only sees EU = Hitler and does not exercise their intelligence, will have one response, like you, they will take offense to it.

You make your point quietly, and I will try to do the same. Many people, probably a majority, aren't much interested in politics. They won't think 'Ah, Boris mentions Hitler and that reminds me - as a nation we've always been against the idea of Europe being run under a single control structure.' It will be a bit more visceral than that. Most floating voters will be conscious that foreigners - Germans even - now have an involvement in the affairs of the UK. They understand that this works both ways but it's not something they particularly like, all things being equal. It is into this sentiment that Boris inserts himself, with all the skill of a good marketing man. 'Look what happened when some foreign Johnny last tried to have one over on us! Hitler!' He doesn't have to explain anything, he just has to make the association. People won't intellectualise the connection. They don't have to. The link has been made. It is how subliminal advertising works.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

On one hand Boris is described as a blundering accident prone buffoon saying and doing the wrong thing on occasion, on the other he is apparently a skilled manipulator of the masses well versed in the dark arts of politics. Can he be both?

If he is the second I would think the more people bring up/complain about the Hitler comment the happier he would be. Reinforces the link.

 

[dingodan]

You make your point quietly, and I will try to do the same. Many people, probably a majority, aren't much interested in politics. They won't think 'Ah, Boris mentions Hitler and that reminds me - as a nation we've always been against the idea of Europe being run under a single control structure.' It will be a bit more visceral than that. Most floating voters will be conscious that foreigners - Germans even - now have an involvement in the affairs of the UK. They understand that this works both ways but it's not something they particularly like, all things being equal. It is into this sentiment that Boris inserts himself, with all the skill of a good marketing man. 'Look what happened when some foreign Johnny last tried to have one over on us! Hitler!' He doesn't have to explain anything, he just has to make the association. People won't intellectualise the connection. They don't have to. The link has been made. It is how subliminal advertising works.

This is what happens when a man speaks, and then the media report on it. Boris didn't speak with the intention of his words being boiled down to a headline, although naturally that is to be expected. He didn't speak hoping that people would hear only a snippet and not listen to all of what he was saying. When a person speaks they generally want to, and open themselves up to, being listened to in full.

How a person takes what Boris said really depends on them. It depends whether they walk past a newspapaer, see the headline, and then consider themselves informed, or whether they see that something has been said and make the effort to hear or read it in it's full context and then make a judgement. But that decision is on people themselves. Again, what Boris said is only ever going to be considered a reasonable point when people are willing to listen properly to it. For anyone who listens only to a soundbite of what he said, it does nothing but sound a like offensive hyperbole.

The idea that Boris wanted people to think he was speaking offensively and hyperbolically really doesn't make sense. Like most normal human beings, Boris would want people to take his words in full and in context, not in part and out of context. Nobody speaks to have people do that. But, again, it's peoples responsibility to choose if they are to listen thoughtfully and thoroughly to something or to listen selectively and lazily.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

He did not make the comments without thought. You read them without thought.

Ha, Oh yeah didn't realise I could read with my eyes closed and listen with ear plugs in, but if that defects from the discussion about Boris a highly educated person using one the 20th Century death pots in his comparisons (a comparison that Livingstone resigned over), rather than just making his point in a reasoned way, far dos, Perhaps I should go to Eaton or Oxford and learn to read proper.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Ha, Oh yeah didn't realise I could read with my eyes closed and listen with ear plugs in, but if that defects from the discussion about Boris a highly educated person using one the 20th Century death pots in his comparisons (a comparison that Livingstone resigned over), rather than just making his point in a reasoned way, far dos, Perhaps I should go to Eaton or Oxford and learn to read proper.

I agree, its disingenuous

 

[Lincoln Imp]

This is what happens when a man speaks, and then the media report on it. Boris didn't speak with the intention of his words being boiled down to a headline, although naturally that is to be expected. He didn't speak hoping that people would hear only a snippet and not listen to all of what he was saying. When a person speaks they generally want to, and open themselves up to, being listened to in full.

How a person takes what Boris said really depends on them. It depends whether they walk past a newspapaer, see the headline, and then consider themselves informed, or whether they see that something has been said and make the effort to hear or read it in it's full context and then make a judgement. But that decision is on people themselves. Again, what Boris said is only ever going to be considered a reasonable point when people are willing to listen properly to it. For anyone who listens only to a soundbite of what he said, it does nothing but sound a like offensive hyperbole.

The idea that Boris wanted people to think he was speaking offensively and hyperbolically really doesn't make sense. Like most normal human beings, Boris would want people to take his words in full and in context, not in part and out of context. Nobody speaks to have people do that. But, again, it's peoples responsibility to choose if they are to listen thoughtfully and thoroughly to something or to listen selectively and lazily.

Thank you for your response. I fear we disagree: Boris, I suspect, knew precisely the incendiary effect the H word would have. As did Ken earlier.

 

[The Clamp]

So then it was Labour that let in all the foreign Johnnies? Or it was the EU bods that let them in? IT'S CONFUSING.

 

[dingodan]

Ha, Oh yeah didn't realise I could read with my eyes closed and listen with ear plugs in, but if that defects from the discussion about Boris a highly educated person using one the 20th Century death pots in his comparisons (a comparison that Livingstone resigned over), rather than just making his point in a reasoned way, far dos, Perhaps I should go to Eaton or Oxford and learn to read proper.

We rejected and fought against the idea of a united centralized European state in the 30's. It wasn't primarily an idea based on "unity", it was an idea based on power, and the notion that an elite should mould and rule Europe as they saw fit, thinking that they would know better than the people of Europe how things ought to be accross the entire continent. These notions are the same notions which motivate those running the EU today. It's a point that needs to be made, and making that point is not what you are suggesting it is, and I don't think it should be silenced for being somehow politically incorrect.

It's also worth noting that in the 1930's, just like a unified European state ruled from a centralized authority, political correctness was also something embraced by those who sought to rule over Europe, and it too was something we were fighting against. Because open discussion and debate is also something we believe in and have always traditionally fought in defense of.

 

[jakarta]

Death Pots? Eaton? Are you ENREST in disguise?

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

We rejected and fought against the idea of a united centralized European state in the 30's. It wasn't primarily an idea based on "unity", it was an idea based on power, and the notion that an elite should mould and rule a Europe as they saw fit, thinking that they would know better than the people of Europe how things ought to be accross the entire continent. These notions are the same notions which motivate those running the EU today. It's a point that needs to be made, and making that point is not what you are suggesting it is, and I don't think it should be silenced for being somehow politically incorrect.

It's also worth noting that in the 1930's, just like a unified European state ruled from a centralized authority, political correctness was also something embraced by those who sought to rule over Europe, and it too was something we were fighting against. Because open discussion and debate is also something we believe in and have always traditionally fought in defense of.

See Boris could learn from you, no mention of any 20th century death pots.

From his ready booky thing he wrote (cor wish I could read and write) on Churchill, that came out the other year

“It was his (Churchill’s) idea to bring those countries together, to bind them together so indissolubly that they could never go to war again - and who can deny, today, that this idea has been a spectacular success? Together with Nato the European Community, now Union, has helped to deliver a period of peace and prosperity for its people as long as any since the days of the Antonine emperors.”

 

[Wrong-Direction]

 

[Hampster Gull]

All this Hitler stuff got me doing a quick search and i found this

"Hitler offered something to everyone: work to the unemployed; prosperity to failed business people; profits to industry; expansion to the Army; social harmony and an end of class distinctions to idealistic young students; and restoration of German glory to those in despair. He promised to bring order amid chaos; a feeling of unity to all and the chance to belong. He would make Germany strong again; end payment of war reparations to the Allies; tear up the treaty of Versailles; stamp out corruption; keep down Marxism; and deal harshly with the Jews."

Many parallels to the OUT campaign

 

[Soulman]

All this Hitler stuff got me doing a quick search and i found this

"Hitler offered something to everyone: work to the unemployed; prosperity to failed business people; profits to industry; expansion to the Army; social harmony and an end of class distinctions to idealistic young students; and restoration of German glory to those in despair. He promised to bring order amid chaos; a feeling of unity to all and the chance to belong. He would make Germany strong again; end payment of war reparations to the Allies; tear up the treaty of Versailles; stamp out corruption; keep down Marxism; and deal harshly with the Jews.

Many parallels to the OUT campaign

Oh dear, how desperate is this post.........seriously, are you really serious, if you are not then put a smiley in.

 

[drew]

Surely the one graph you are actually missing is the one showing GDP. You also fail to mention the global recession, now there's a surprise!