Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Archive of "Just now in Crete" plus Cretan Adventures.
Loretta9

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Loretta9 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:35 pm

Kilkis: I have made it clear from the start that I also make up my own mind on what I beleive and hold as valuable as matters of principle. My decision to vote "out" has nothing to do with Cameron. I have always detested that man. You and others on here have failed to grasp what I have said, in fact that is why I wrote as I did with numbered seperate points ... (1) ... (2). But still you did not get it.
So I say again .. what part of the Brussels deal, daily proffered by Cameron, did Cameron get?? I know he got nothing. But I dont care of he got everything. I want to know why "remain" voters are so supportive of a "remain" campaign headed by an absolute liar.
Now if you "remainers" want to ask me a question on the "out" campaign I will answer it. But you know what they say... if you hold to truth in your beleifs you can answer anything. All I have heard from the "remain" camp is waffle, fluster and bluff.
Mouche ... I commend your originality. .. "all liars" .... tell me please a comment from the "out" campaigners which is a lie?? Not a news report, an actual lie?
To all of you "remainers" > tell me when you voted "in" .. did I miss something in the distant past? Show methe ballot paper which said .. EU Federal Nations States and 6 Presidents ??? Was it not .. someting about Common Market ???? I am open to be educated.

Ann McCallum
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Agia

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Ann McCallum » Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:23 pm


moved 2 crete
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Kolimbari, Chania

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby moved 2 crete » Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:35 pm

Istronian wrote:
moved 2 crete wrote: we look at it purely from our perspective as Living full time in or adopted country Crete/ Greece so self preservation is our objective, .....


I am quite keen on self preservation as well!

However, I think of earlier generations who gave their lives in two world wars so that Great Britain would not be governed from abroad. My grandfathers and my father put their lives on the line for the freedoms we have today and I cannot betray their memory by giving everything they fought for away.
I am at a total loss to understand how Cameron can attend the Cenotaph memorial services and visit the war graves in Normandy and then go against everything they stood for. “At the setting of the sun we will remember them” What a joke!

His concentration on the economic benefits just shows to me that he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Kilkis wrote: I don't want a communist style command and control economy as the UK is developing. Warwick


....... but this is exactly what the EU has become, it is even structured just like the failed Russian communist system

Ian

IstronianI think the answer to no more wars has been answered before, Ted Heath wanted us in to unite Europe and safeguard the Europeans from another war, I was 7 years old before I met my father, he fought for our freedom along with all the other brave men, then was demobbed and met the child he left when he went to war.........
Dave H

nigeljackson5
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:40 am
Location: Kalo Chorio

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby nigeljackson5 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:08 pm

Ok L9, I was waiting for some one else to answer, but none forthcoming as yet, so I will
I just wish you would offer me the same courtesy, and answer/refute, my questions/statements
Points 1, 2 & 6 are factually correct
It would be very difficult for a Prime Minister, who believd our future lies within the EU not to be the campaign leader
Point 3. Incorrect. Cameron said that if he didn't secure a deal at his meeting in Brussels, he could campaign to leave the EU
Points 4, 5 & 8 are emotive responses/rhetoric, and depend on an individuals perspective, so will leave that up to individuals to make up their own minds
Point 7. Incorrect. A lie can only be a lie if the person knowingly, believes it to so be. Cameron thinks that he got a reasonable deal. Therefore it follows that, he is not, in this instance lying, but stating his belief that the deal was a good one for the UK
I find it extremely difficult to defend Cameron, as it is my opinion, that along with Gideon, he has hurt the working class in our country, and can never forgive them for this. This is a personal opinion though
I personally agree with most people that the deal, is not a "game changer" and amounts to very little
Having said, and not seeing any evidence from the leave side about our" new bright future", I still believe we are better off remaining in the EU
I now await responses to my previous contributions to the debate, but don't really expect any

Loretta9

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Loretta9 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:18 pm

I am trying to find something of substance in your response.
Are you saying that Cameron has/is NOT promoting the so-called deal as a success an achievement - a DEAL. He is a LIAR because he uses semantics and selected words to pass it over as a deal. The choice of such semantics means he has knowledge aforethought. You can not and need not the use of semantics unless you are intending to deceive. Otherwise, you would talk straight and open... like Nigel Farage. Its OK to NOT agree with Farage and to tell him he is wrong or even prove he is wrong - Farage will say .. "OK but that's the truth as I see it, then vote for remain".

nigeljackson5
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:40 am
Location: Kalo Chorio

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby nigeljackson5 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:43 pm

L9, I really think you need to read and digest my response to your points, as I don't think they could be any clearer
You asked for a comprehensive reply,and got one, but are still not satisfied. Obviously that is your view, but I confess I don't think anything would be satisfactory to you
I, after reading your last post several times, can't make head nor tail of it
Emotive rhetoric is all very well if it can be substantiated, but somehow I doubt that you can.
Any chance of answering my previous contributions, that were not in reply to your points
I await for these to be demolished, with bated breath. If not I will assume that you are in total agreement

moved 2 crete
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Kolimbari, Chania

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby moved 2 crete » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:58 pm

For the benefit of loretta9 here is the link to the history of our involvement in the EU,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26515129

read and digest..............
Dave H

Loretta9

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Loretta9 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:31 pm

Rather patronising. I am fully aware of the history of the EU. Do you want a debate or a history lesson?

Loretta9

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Loretta9 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:55 pm

NJ5 > I suggest you research into Camerons so-called deal. In short every aspect of the "deal" is conditional and will have to comply to such complicated composite ingredients which will take many years and then only if the EC decide to oblige him. Look at the Full Facts website, an independent organisation, respect by all sides for producing the facts to the issues involved in the EU Brexit campaign.
Just tell me what Cameron achieved. Not the woolly, deliberate worded in semantics crap.
All you have to do is state categorically anything substantive he got. Just list them. If he got anything it would be easy to list.
If I was you and I saw a real deal, I would, as a "remain" voter be plastering the "deal" all over the internet. Its a given. None of you "remain" voters have ever mentioned the "deal" - conspicuous absence, tells me everything.

nigeljackson5
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:40 am
Location: Kalo Chorio

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby nigeljackson5 » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:14 pm

Suggest you read my post, yet again L9, and you may eventually see, that I say that nothing "game changing" was achieved in his renegotiation, in my opinion. He is convinced otherwise, and is quite entitled to state what he thinks has been gained, to his little heart's content
As to your point about Farage accepting other peoples views, would highly suggest the following people, within his own Party, would certainly not agree with you
1. Suzanne Evans...sacked as Vice Chairman & since March suspended from the party. Arguably UKIP's greatest asset
2. Patrick O'Flynn sacked from his post in I believe, but not quite sure, Communications or Finance
3. Douglas Carswell...the only elected MP, and called an "irrelevance" by him, something which the Fuhrer, oops apologies for the slip, I meant Farage, spectacularly failed to achieve
He also was widely reported to be furious, that the 7 elected members of the Welsh assembly, chose a leader that he did not endorse
Democracy eh, what a bitch !

Istronian
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:38 am
Location: I live in Hope!

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Istronian » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:22 pm

I have just watched the ITV debate and the last Question Time on Youtube and learnt nothing new. In fact I could have scripted most of the answers.

On both there was a discussion on the figure given as the cost of membership shown on the leave bus but no one mentioned VAT.
I seem to remember from one of Warwick’s posts and I may be wrong, that the government only collects VAT on behalf of the EU and only keeps around 20% of it and the rest is sent directly to Brussels. This must be an incredible amount of cash which, in the event of a leave vote, could be spent in the UK.

If I am right why is this cash not included in the cost of membership?

Ian

moved 2 crete
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Kolimbari, Chania

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby moved 2 crete » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:40 pm

Not patronising Loretta9, just fact, a referendum was held, I seem to remember you that do not remember one, or words to that effect, I for one found the facts very informative, you how ever do not, you were the one asking for facts and now seem to know them all, If not happy with the result................
Dave H

Kilkis
Posts: 11647
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Kilkis » Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:04 pm

Why, if I vote remain, am I characterised as supporting the remain campaign? I do not support the remain campaign in any way. It is full of lies, misinformation, distortions and total guesses. Neither do I support the leave campaign. It is full of lies,misinformation, distortions and total guesses.

You asked for an example of a lie by the leave campaign. £350 per day. Don't take my word for it. Check full facts. They confirm it is untrue. The true figure is £250 per day. The rebate is deducted before the UK pays.

Warwick

Istronian
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:38 am
Location: I live in Hope!

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Istronian » Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:14 pm

Istronian wrote: Just think what would happen if taxation was the same throughout Europe? Your UK tax free allowance is greater than the average earnings in many of the current, and proposed, members. Do you think this UK current allowance will be universal throughout the zone? If it is many countries citizens will pay no tax at all so others (us) will have to pay more to sustain the revenue flow. Sorry but your tax free income will be lowered to a European average yet, somehow, we are supposed to be better off by staying in? Ian


"The controversial system, which is described in EU documents as the “harmonisation of European taxation”, was put forward by the EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee last week.
The group’s explanatory statement reads: “Building economic and monetary union must be achieved through a harmonisation of European taxation. Fair and effective corporate taxation must become the cornerstone of the single market.
“If we are to have a reliable single market, the Member States must come to an agreement on tax matters. A coordinated and harmonised approach to the implementation of tax systems is vital in order to guarantee the proper functioning of the single market and the success of the capital markets union.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/678829 ... pean-union

............and you want to sign up to this!

You can knock the Express if you like but it is about the only paper advocating out and looks for news that other ignore because it does not fit their arguments.

Ian

Loretta9

Re: Referendum (2) SPLIT from "Too good to be true?" post

Postby Loretta9 » Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:51 am

I accept one does not have to align with a campaign to be an "out" or "remain" voter. Though I would suspect that the way one votes would align with the part of the argument/camp coinciding with your choice of vote. I do not align with a particular camp as I have wanted "out" of the EU many years before Cameron and Boris Johnson hit the trail. You don't need them, any politician or journalist, for that matter, to show the obvious anti-democratic functionings of the EU/EC.
I am not into point scoring. I simply asked about Camerons little "DEAL" from Brussels. I mentioned his use of semantics in the context of, not just the meaning of words but also the intended deceit by such use. If I buy a car and the Dealer wants £1000 for it, we reach a deal then finalise the contract by exchange of money for the car. My discourse to a third party would be .. "I got a deal on the car with EU Car dealers, £900 for the car, fully serviced with papers".
I would not say .. "I have been meeting with EU Dealers and gained special conditions which allow for us/me to use a car providing we together meet those conditions over time. I anticipate at some time in the future I will be driving said car in the uK"... I would expect the "third party" to say ... "for fuff sake, did you buy the car or not".
Most of us do know "they are all liars" to quote a recent input. But my point was/is - do you support Camerons "deal" and where is the "deal" you support. In supporting it you align with a liar, in not supporting it you, as a "remain" voter have some serious problems with your campaign leader. That's all I will say on this matter. I can see humility is not a trait with some "remain" supporters.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests