EU shock as 'out' vote sweeps 6% ahead!

originally posted by: eletheiaLOL!! A one world government .....

I guess that, because you're used to national parliaments, mostly populated by liairs, loud-mouths, scoffers and idiots you have a very low notion of them. Because you can't even control those beasts, you fear to be at the mersey of the even bigger beast of the EU - let alone the beast of the NWO.

I totally agree: if we don't change the system into a more logical, less "political" system, we are in trouble if we scale up more than we do now. Actually, you might even say that it's better to dissolve the UK too into smaller "nations".

If we DO change the system though, a NWO might be just fine and exactly what we need.

That is not the problem They unlike the EU politicians were voted for by the people of their country, their speciality is knowing what their people want/require.

Mm. You clearly either never read a newspaper or are yesting. Your parliament is divided into a number of fractions and, much like in the US, half of the population is constantly harrassed by the stupidity of the representatives of the other half. So, instead of a population that is 80 percent satisfied and acknlowledges that the remaining 20 percent of "hardship" is necessary to accomodate the general good, you have a population that is at most 50 percent satisfied and feel that the remaining 50 percent of "hardship" is unnecessary.

ONE SIZE CANT FIT ALL

How many sizes do you need? If we don't work towards unity, we will see division. If the UK leaves the EU, Scotland might leave the UK. But perhaps, the Northern part of Scotland feels neglected by the South and will demand independence, etc.

Yes, the current system is flawed. But we don't have many options left in a world that consists of nations that are totally dependent on each other. Either we unite - or we go to war.

And if we unite - which I prefer - I'd rather have real specialists in the lead than the blabbering fools we allow to lead us today.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

No-one denies there are problems here in the UK.
And our electoral and parliamentary systems are far from perfect.
In fact I firmly believe they've outlived their fit for purpose - the party political model is far too rigid.
It is riddled with career politicians who put self-advancement and personal gain before the wishes and best interests of the electorate.
And we have an elite that control almost every facet of our society - much the same as most countries.

Personally I think a move towards some sort of Direct Democracy and the abolishment of the party political system is well over due.

I also passionately believe in the increased devolution of power to all the regions in the UK within some sort of loose, federal British Union.

That would result in a massive move away from centralised government.

The EU, in its current manifestation, is all about granting increased power to the centralised government - I can't think of anything worse.

As for the 'specialists' you speak of - just what criteria determines qualification for this honorific?
Academic qualification?
Professional success?

If Barroso, Van Rompuy are examples of who you would deem 'specialist' well sorry, count me out.
Look at the academic qualifications of Cameron and Blair.

Sorry, they don't instil any sort of confidence in me.

And as for the vast majority of PPE type graduates, Professors etc that I've met - they live in a world so removed from the reality that I or anyone else I know live in - they are the last people on earth I would want in any public office.

The 'vision' you propose holds absolutely zero attraction to me - in fact I can't really think of many political models worse.

You're certainly not doing a good PR job for the EU.

Ill be voting to stay in the EU, Not because off any real loyalty to Brussel's, But Where does it end devolution goes to what level.
Segregation ? Restricted zones ? Citizenship passport issues ?

Take for instance where I live here in N, Ireland, The old Green & Orange Cultural differences between the Religion's,

If the Greens get their United Island then the Orange will be in a EU country by default .

I don't think that's going to go down to well.

Just my two bobs of my opinion.

Fox.

originally posted by: FreebornIt is riddled with career politicians who put self-advancement and personal gain before the wishes and best interests of the electorate.

We largely agree.

Personally I think a move towards some sort of Direct Democracy and the abolishment of the party political system is well over due.

Again, we agree. It would require a more civil and more educated population. Or if that's not acquirable we should build in some form of damping in the system. The damping should be bigger if the impact of the change would be bigger.

Our current system has this type of damping built-in - but the damping is way too big for many things. It can take decades to change a Law that "everybody'" thinks should be changed, due to party politics. OTOH we should not want to create a situation in which Laws are changed because the "gut feeling" of the population either, as that gut feeling can change overnight and back again the next day..

If a short visit to ATS teaches you anything it's that there are a lot of loudmouthed idiots amongst us. They should have their say and if they have arguments, these should be weighted fairly, but by Jove, let's not change one system in which the big mouths have it all into another in which the same applies..

I also passionately believe in the increased devolution of power to all the regions in the UK within some sort of loose, federal British Union.

This matches my current idea of how a NWO should be estalblished. You can leave most of the decisions about local issues to the local people, but a number of things should be decided by a central body of experts. They should decide wisely, and their decisions should be seen as correct by the overwhelming majority of the people.

That would result in a massive move away from centralised government.

The definition of what is important for all -and hence should be decided on centrally - is most important here. Do we leave, say, reduction of pollution to the decentralised, possibly fiercely competing 'micro-states', or do we decide that that is way over our heads and should be decided on by our (wise..) world leaders? If these wise world leaders would indeed been seen as wise - the best we have, the best minds, the most honest, objective ones - than it might work. And how does one handle that ONE state that neglects the central rules?

A better world depends on a better human being. I'm an anarchist, hence must believe we eventually will evolve into such a better human being, which allows for anarchy to be established without chaos. I may well be too romantic, too idealistic. But anarchy is my target - and if I can help to advance the people just one inch on a road of a thousand miles, I would be proud.

The EU, in its current manifestation, is all about granting increased power to the centralised government - I can't think of anything worse.

Not really, but it is the idea in many people's heads. Especially local politicians (national politicians) want to paint that bleak and grim picture of a huge all consuming behemoth - of course: they fear loss of power..

As for the 'specialists' you speak of - just what criteria determines qualification for this honorific?
Academic qualification?
Professional success?

Dedication, the will to live a life in service of the people, wisdom, and yes, academic knowledge might help - but sometimes a peasant has more wisdom that a Pope. Stamina, intelligence and a fixed income that is sufficient to live a good life, no more. Abstinence of all functions, committees other than their work for us all. Roughly along those lines.

Even if we randomly choose people to represent us - we could not do much worse that we do now..

You're certainly not doing a good PR job for the EU.

I did not plan on doing a PR job for the EU. But given a choice between "out" (hence; giving up hope that we can unite the world as one, as we aren't even capable of unitiing the EU) or "in" (hence: trying to improve the system from within, striving for a united world eventually) - I choose "in".

originally posted by: Freeborn

Excellent post!!

The EU, in its current manifestation, is all about granting increased power to the centralised government - I can't think of anything worse.

Couldn't agree more .... a very frightening prospect!!

As for the 'specialists' you speak of - just what criteria determines qualification for this honorific?
Academic qualification?
Professional success?

As I have said before *one size cant fit all*

Sometimes it is better/more beneficial to be *street wise* than *academic*

If Barroso, Van Rompuy are examples of who you would deem 'specialist' well sorry, count me out.
Look at the academic qualifications of Cameron and Blair.
Sorry, they don't instil any sort of confidence in me.

And Cameron thinks he can obtain a satisfactory deal from the EU to

satisfy the IN vote?

Not a chance in hell after the derisory deal the government is satisfied

with the tax from google .... I'll be voting out.

And as for the vast majority of PPE type graduates, Professors etc that I've met - they live in a world so removed from the reality that I or anyone else I know live in - they are the last people on earth I would want in any public office.
The 'vision' you propose holds absolutely zero attraction to me - in fact I can't really think of many political models worse.

You're certainly not doing a good PR job for the EU.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Freeborn

Couldn't agree more .... a very frightening prospect!!

Ah. Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Sometimes it is better/more beneficial to be *street wise* than *academic*

Sometimes the other way 'round. I consider it best if both aspects are used (or more).

As in "in", "in", "in", I guess?

to leave the eu based on a bunch of failed politicians claims 'it might be alright' while, ignoring the cold hard facts that both switzerland and norway, pay more daily into the eurozone and, take a greater number of immigrants to trade with europe while staying outside the eu.
having won over the bnp crowd by blaming all on immigrants, to turn and say by leaving we have to accept more, is gonna lose votes.
also the daily mail sucks.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

China trades with the EU. How many immigrants do they take?

Typical euro trash falshoods.

If the EU is so great, why do all you pro euro nuts have to keep peddling lies and half truths?


A bit of an explanation of the Swiss and Norwegian relationships with the EU is here.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

ForteanOrg:

If that were true, you'd hardly need a referendum. The other choice is "remain in the EU".

You have no idea at all about Britain, you don't know what you are talking about. Hardly need a referendum? Of course we need a referendum, we have to undo the political damage done by our own people in parliament, who did what they did without the consent of the people. A referendum was a;ways going to be on the cards.
The EU now needs Britain to fully surrender political control, but knows the British people won't accept that, which is why it has taken so long for the referendum to come about, which was why Ireland was given the choice for EU first, and failed itself. The next litmus test was Scotland devolving from the UK, but again it failed itself. The UK won't, it will leave the EU, and good riddance!
They left the UK alone while they built an EU edifice that they want people to feel is too-big-to-fail, or too damaging to leave, but the UK is going to leave. The referendum is not about economics or multi-ethnic diversity (very damaging that), it is about the British people choosing self-sovereignty and self-determination over throwing those two priceless positions for the EU. It is a no-brainer...we are leaving. You are talking utter double-dutch!

Your entire notion of "sovereignty" is a thing of the past: no nation, nowhere, can be really "sovereign" - unless of course, you would love the UK to turn into some kind of North Korea.

I would suggest you stay away from that Dutch weed you sell, it obviously isn't good for your thought processes. How on earth does Britain choosing self-sovereignty and self-determination equate to turning into a North Korea? How?

Sovereignty is not a thing of the past, that is just your puerile opinion, sovereignty is now and the future, because you don't throwaway your history, you keep it, you nurture it, you cherish it. You talk of sovereignty as a thing of the past and spit on the British and allied forces who sacrificed their live liberating Scandinavia from the Nazis. In their memory alone, you keep the sovereignty they fought to maintain for us. Who are you to suggest throwing it away?

I think anybody can see the bad consequences: loss of income, loss of influence, no cheap access to the largest market in the world, internal unrest (Scotland, for example).

No. What anybody can see is the utter nonsensical drivel you are writing. Your mindset is coming across as totally ignorant and uninformed. When Britain leaves the EU, it will lose income in one area and regain it in another. Do you think the EU is going to give up its billions worth of exports to Britain? No they are not.
Scotland. by the way is no internal problem. Scots have their differences with the English, but that is a historical and cultural issue which both sides play. We are not rivals, we are partners in agitation. I personally, being half-Scottish, would have love to have seen Scotland leave the UK, and I say the same for all Britain's nations. The English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish should each have their own independent and sovereign parliaments, but also, each cultural nation of the British Isles should send an equal number of delegates to form a British parliament which would create a genuine and real Union...a true United Kingdom. A kingdom made of 4 cultural nations that genuinely want to be united together. The first of its kind in history.

The rest of your post is total tripe!

originally posted by: elysiumfire
They left the UK alone while they built an EU edifice that they want people to feel is too-big-to-fail, or too damaging to leave, but the UK is going to leave. The referendum is not about economics or multi-ethnic diversity (very damaging that), it is about the British people choosing self-sovereignty and self-determination over throwing those two priceless positions for the EU. It is a no-brainer...we are leaving.

LOL!! ....*to big to fail* Isn't that what they said about the Bank's

just before they collapsed?

Left alone diversity would happen naturally over a long period of

time, its not something that can foisted or forced on people.

No. What anybody can see is the utter nonsensical drivel you are writing. Your mindset is coming across as totally ignorant and uninformed. When Britain leaves the EU, it will lose income in one area and regain it in another. Do you think the EU is going to give up its billions worth of exports to Britain? No they are not.

No body or collectively country likes to be told how to spend

their own money?

In this case we pay to be a member and get a pittance back!! Just think

how our ailing schools and health service etc. would improve if we spent

all that money WHERE WE WANT TO.

a reply to: eletheia

Just think how our ailing schools and health service etc. would improve if we spent all that money WHERE WE WANT TO.

Maybe not the time and place to discuss this but do you honestly think THIS government would redirect the money it currently pays to the EU to the NHS, which it is currently privatising through the back door, or the education system?

Bear in mind we are talking about people who are obsessed with generating profit - by their very nature neither the UK NHS or education systems can possibly run at a profit.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Maybe not the time and place to discuss this but do you honestly think THIS government would redirect the money it currently pays to the EU to the NHS, which it is currently privatising through the back door, or the education system?

Any government voted in by the people of this country is preferable to being

dictated to by a 'body' hundreds of miles away who have never balanced their

own accounts since the conception of the EU. They have introduced various

very stupid laws ... They are a bloated entity which devours money with no

conception of budgeting (that is only for the stupid plebs they rule over) The

un necessary monthly treks between Strasbourg and Brussels is a derisable

expense, just a jolly for the over paid, over indulged, self important politicians.


In 2013 the UK paid £8.6 BILLION into the EU budget than it got back ...

just think what we could have done with that!!?

We are supposed to be grateful for the subsidies we get from the EU, when in

truth we pay in approx. two thirds more than we get back in subsidies.


When people I know complain about the government we have, I discover invariably

that they were apathetic and did not vote?? What does that tell you? We end up

with the government we deserve ..... as every one gets a vote the ensuing

government is the choice of the majority? there will never be a situation where

every body will be satisfied.


The ugly truth of the PFI debts, introduced by the labour party, between

1997 and 2008 - 90% of all hospital construction funding was under PFI agreement.

www.newstatesman.com...


Despite having our own laws and courts .... our courts can be over ruled by Brussels?

How does that make ANY sense???

Bear in mind we are talking about people who are obsessed with generating profit - by their very nature neither the UK NHS or education systems can possibly run at a profit.

There is no need for profit.... just the necessity to be debt free. Get rid of the overpaid

management and bring back the *matron* LOL!!

a reply to: eletheia

Look at my previous posts in this thread - I'm no fan of the EU - all I'm saying is that I very much doubt any money currently paid into the EU would not be redirected towards the NHS or our education system if we elect to come out of the EU.

I have absolutely no doubt it will somehow eventually fall into the hands of the same elite who are currently bleeding this country dry and have been doing so for generations.

A vote for coming out of the EU will NOT be a great cure all for the UK's problems - far from it.

For me its comes down to how i see the UK in the future not the day after the Referendum. I have confidence the UK has what it takes to be a Important and Successful Independent Nation on the World Stage. The Goal of the EU is Assimilation on all fronts, something i don't agree with.

Security and World Problems i.e Climate Change can be fought on a International Level.

1. Vote Leave = A Self Govering Nation.

or

2. Vote Remain = A Region of the EU.

I'll be voting Leave.

It's about time. Le Pen and Farage were right, have been right, and will BE right.

Time for the UK to claim it's land back, and I say this as an American sitting and watching this travesty

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
It's about time. Le Pen and Farage were right, have been right, and will BE right.
Time for the UK to claim it's land back, and I say this as an American sitting and watching this travesty

David Cameron continues to patronise the public in the UK with his pathetic

attempts for staying in the EU ....

He thinks the people are gullible, he is depending on them being gullible.....

and IF he gets an *in* vote ..... THEY ARE GULLIBLE!!

a reply to: eletheia

Unfortunately lots of people are gullible and will vote to stay in.

It's not just David Cameron's lies and deceit we have to contend with but also Project Fear constantly scaring people into thinking that we would lose millions of jobs, billions of investment, have no trade and have security issues, all of which are just plain WRONG, and in some cases are the opposite to reality.

We even see that on this website which is quite surprising to me considering Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are funding the IN campaign.

a reply to: 83Liberty

A Brief Synopsis

The year 1707 England and Scotland united with one parliament.
Throughout the 17th and 18th century, Britain's overseas trade expanded
and her worldwide empire grew. There were a series of wars with other
European countries, notably France, for far flung colonies in America and
India
Britain emerged victorious in every case, mainly thanks to her superb Navy.

However in 1776 the North American colonies declared their independence.
This setback only temporarily interrupted British economic expansion, which
had throughout this period been accompanied by scientific and technological
advances.
By 1789 these combined with economic growth sprouted the *Industrial
Revolution* The political landscape, hitherto dominated by aristocracy begins
to change ....The 'great reform bill' of 1832 is the start of democratisation
which leads to ALL British adults having the vote.

The Napoleonic wars saw great British victories against the French,
notably Trafalgar and Waterloo.
Britain ended the wars as one of the leading powers of Europe her
Navies in complete control of the seas and a larger overseas Empire
than before.
Britain adopted a policy of isolation toward her European neighbours for
many years. Rising tensions on the continent forced Britain to ally herself
with France and Russia against Germany and Austria.

Britain is now in an armament race with Germany and the two powers
build up fleets facing one another, when the German army invades
Belgium, forcing Britain into WW1.

At home further political and social reform. The House of Commons has
become the seat for legislation, Trade Unions have been legalised and
education has become freely available, conditions in the workplace have
continued to improve and the first pensions have been introduced.

1939 ... WW11 again with Germany sees the inspirational leadership
of PM Winston Churchill. The total mobilisation of economy and society for
war. Post war years sees the set up of a comprehensive welfare state, with
the assistance of the USA Britain's economy slowly recovers.

The 1960's to 70's saw Britain become a cultural trendsetter and in 1979
a new government set about tackling a range of long term issues to make
Britain more competitive.
In 1982 a short sharp war with Argentina to retake the Falklands shows
Britain is *still in charge* In 1986 the London stock exchange was
liberalised which led to London again becoming one of the worlds leading
financial centres

Two world wars with Germany!! and they couldn't conquer Britain.

Britain as small island has come through all the above, they have been

at the head of the industrial and social revolutions.

They are a David to all Goliaths.

They have no need to be anyone's poodle!!

a reply to: eletheia

You should watch David Davies' inspirational speech here from 1hr 22mins onwards. He touches on some similar points to you.

Funny how none of these Out campaign meeting never get reported in the MSM.

And back to the OP there is now a 9% lead in the polls as David Cameron's draft (or shall I say daft) EU deal gives a boost to the Leave campaign...

yougov.co.uk...