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

[peebee]

Getting back on track, this sounds very much like dodgy Dave and the remain crew rhetoric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UbT0g9A8c

[Carolina]

Mature debate goes with mature language Loretta9. It's not a free-for -all/anything-goes forum.

A note to all - from this Friday 24th June this subject will likely be well and truly closed on this forum. That doesn't mean that there may not be an OUT vote, but if there is .. it very well may not come to anything:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu- ... xit-2016-6

[moved 2 crete]

Thank God Carolina has got this nonsense to come to an end and called a halt to this subject on the 24th, many thanks Carolina, The subject had degenerated into a slanging match, as far as Brexit is concerned Carolinas link buts a different slant on this debate.

[Kilkis]

Getting back on track, this sounds very much like dodgy Dave and the remain crew rhetoric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UbT0g9A8c

So Norwegian citizens were told a "lot of lies" about what would happen if they didn't join the EU. They ignored the "lies" and voted not to join. The horrendous predictions didn't occur. Roughly that summarises the video. What the video didn't mention was that they avoided the horrendous consequences by signing an agreement that is arguably worse than being a full member. Would the vote leave campaigners on here be happy with this deal? Large swathes of EU legislation still implemented. Still a massive per capita net contribution to the EU budget. Free movement of people. No significant influence over EU legislation. For example, recently the EU wanted to introduce legislation that would mean that financial services organisations could only offer services in the Eurozone if they were based in the Eurozone. The UK, as a full member of the EU, managed to block that legislation, even though the UK is not part of the Eurozone. If the UK were no longer a full member, the EU would be free to implement it. How much of UK based financial services would then decamp to Paris/Brussels/Frankfurt? What would the hit on UK GDP be?

Warwick

PS I'll happily pay my €32 per year to remain a full member.

[Loretta9]

Not even YOU Carolina will cite anything I have said that is non other than debating the EU subject. I was corrected on spelling - grammar etc I was accused of saying something I did not say nor imply. You have some idiot who does not know the meaning of the word "Scumbag" deriding my use of that word .. in doing so shows his ignorance of said word. And I am accused of abusing the forum.
In every other Subject group I display the utmost respect and have never gone outside the rules or spirit of the forum. So it has to be the pathetic small-mindedness of some on here who lack the imagination to think beyond their set ways. I have NEVER - EVER personalised on any debate, NOT once. I am NOT fighting for acceptance, merely showing that the facts have been twisted beyond the surreal.
I am so mature and broad of mind to ask you Carolina to terminate my membership of this site. Some will be very happy but I would say that is because they want to carry on patting each other on the back.

PS: its PUTS not BUTS .. ooh dear !!!

[moved 2 crete]

Sad but true, By By, where i come from if you called any one a Scumbag to their face you would end up in A and E, End of. QED..............

[Istronian]

How much of UK based financial services would then decamp to Paris/Brussels/Frankfurt? What would the hit on UK GDP be?
Warwick

In my opinion the UK sells very few “financial services” in other EU countries.

I say this for two reasons:

My wife was the beneficiary of a UK life insurance policy and wanted to use the cash to buy an annuity in the UK. No UK company would deal with her because she did not have a UK address! They all, without exception, quoted money laundering regulations as the reason.

The same regulations are quoted if you try to open a UK bank account without a UK address.

Cannot open a bank account, can’t buy an annuity, just what financial service can you buy apart from insurance?

Ian

[Istronian]

Sad but true, By By, where i come from if you called any one a Scumbag to their face you would end up in A and E, End of. QED..............

This is your chance to win a "Brucie Bonus"

Which is correct? "By by", "Buy buy" or "Bye bye"?

Good game! Good game!

Ian

[paul g]

All I can say is, take a listen to:- When the sun goes down, by Arctic Monkeys.

[Istronian]

I am so mature and broad of mind to ask you Carolina to terminate my membership of this site. Some will be very happy but I would say that is because they want to carry on patting each other on the back.

It is actually because having lost the argument they have to resort to attacking the messenger! These underhand tactics should never be allowed to prevail.

Ian

[Kilkis]

...In my opinion the UK sells very few “financial services” in other EU countries...

Despite your experiences that is not what the figures say. You are talking about retail banking. That's not where the profits are made. Retail banking simply satisfies the need for capital adequacy. Banks cannot use created money to fulfil that need. Debt and speculation are where the big money is made.

Warwick

[moved 2 crete]

Sad but true, By By, where i come from if you called any one a Scumbag to their face you would end up in A and E, End of. QED..............

This is your chance to win a "Brucie Bonus"

Which is correct? "By by", "Buy buy" or "Bye bye"?

Good game! Good game!

Ian

Brucie, have I won the bonus, he past By, we could have said Bye Bye, but we did not Buy what he was selling.........

[Kilkis]

According to Oxford Dictionaries, assuming moved 2 crete meant "incidentally, then the correct expression is by-the-by but it can also be written as by-the-bye. Thus "by by", "bye bye" and "buy buy" are all wrong. No Brucie bonus for anyone, I'm afraid.

Warwick

[moved 2 crete]

unappropriate language for this forum I feel...........

I disagree, the Cambridge English dictionary definition is `a very unpleasant person who has done something dishonest or unacceptable'
As the remark was made about a certain Mr T. Blair. I think it is wholly appropriate.

The Cambridge or Oxford Dictionary`s have many words, however not all of the words are appropriate for use in public debate, they never the less are what dictionary`s contain, description, spelling, etc, a commonsense approach in the use of them publicly is relying on the reader of the dictionary to use a certain amount of discretion on where and when, even obscenities are spelt and described there in, but one would not use them on a website forum or in public debate, because they are in a dictionary is not the criteria for use ..............

[peebee]

Dave H
Yes the dictionaries DO contain some words that are inappropriate for use on forums, however, I cannot see how the word in question (according to the definition) falls into this category.
Patrick