Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

(05-03-2016 01:49 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Or maybe they just shout the loudest.

Some of us have seen all this before

The thing is, I genuinaly want to know; the absolute specific reason.

(05-03-2016 00:59 )wackawoo Wrote:  ...As they say, people never had it so good, as I said earlier, the poorest now are living like middle class people 40 years ago. Most houses are multi car homes, most poeple have colour tvs, mobiles phones, computers and so on and so on, this simply wouldn't have been heard off back then.

In short people way back a when were way more poor on average than now...

Is your vision of a 'good' society based totally on the materialistic?

Food banks, child poverty at record highs (http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/2014-0...y-2020)...

...^ Are these things anything to do with Europe? I just thought I'd try to clarify what you think an 'out' would achieve? How do you think Britain be different after a few years outside the EU?

(06-03-2016 12:53 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Is your vision of a 'good' society based totally on the materialistic?

Food banks, child poverty at record highs (http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/2014-0...y-2020)...

...^ Are these things anything to do with Europe? I just thought I'd try to clarify what you think an 'out' would achieve? How do you think Britain be different after a few years outside the EU?

No why? It is other people saying being poor leads to an increase in crime. I said rich people can commit crime and most poor people are actually honest; so totally opposite to what you inteprited. I also stated that people, relative to years ago, have never had it so good. So I find your point a little odd.

As for your link, you do realize we have been in europe since the early 70's right? So being in Europe hasn't prevented your record highs. I can only go on the title since it just says 'page not found' for me.

As for poverty, thats all very relative, I am personally skeptical that anybody in the UK lives in REAL poverty (unless homeless), unlike say the slums of Brazil, they might be CLASSED that way by UK standards but thats a very different thing. There is a very good benefits system in the UK (hence immigration problems), where people may be poor, relative to others, but it's not REAL poverty.

(06-03-2016 17:12 )wackawoo Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 12:53 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Is your vision of a 'good' society based totally on the materialistic?

Food banks, child poverty at record highs (http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/2014-0...y-2020)...

...^ Are these things anything to do with Europe? I just thought I'd try to clarify what you think an 'out' would achieve? How do you think Britain be different after a few years outside the EU?

No why? It is other people saying being poor leads to an increase in crime. I said rich people can commit crime and most poor people are actually honest; so totally opposite to what you inteprited. I also stated that people, relative to years ago, have never had it so good. So I find your point a little odd.

As for your link, you do realize we have been in europe since the early 70's right? So being in Europe hasn't prevented your record highs. I can only go on the title since it just says 'page not found' for me.

As for poverty, thats all very relative, I am personally skeptical that anybody in the UK lives in REAL poverty (unless homeless), unlike say the slums of Brazil, they might be CLASSED that way by UK standards but thats a very different thing. There is a very good benefits system in the UK (hence immigration problems), where people may be poor, relative to others, but it's not REAL poverty.

My apologies about the link it didn't like the bracket I put it in!

I wasn't talking about crime at all though. I was taking issue with how good you seem to think we have it these days and how you seem to think being out of Europe will improve things even further. Your list of the 'good' was entirely materialistic 'things'. (At least I can congratulate you on being a true Thatcher child there!) I was asking if that was all you wanted from society?

So you see it is you that is missing my point. I'm saying these things like poverty and the diminishing of doddle's "social dimension" in our society (not just as it relates to crime), things that you are either ignoring or denying, have been going on for years in and out of Europe and are getting worse. The disparity between the 'haves' and the true 'have nots' in this country is getting larger. Just lifting and enlarging your 'middle' (something that's been happening for the past 40 years under both lab and con) to buy votes does not a cohesive society make.

I also asked what you thought would happen if we opted out of the EU. How would it change things for the better in this country? What do you want to achieve most by doing so?

You keep asking for facts in this debate. There were some very good ones that I see that you either missed or conveniently ignored in the link brummie posted earlier in this thread - about how things work for European countries outside the EU who currently work alongside side it. Is there anything in that article that gives you comfort that your vision of a UK outside the EU would be a better one? Or are you going to deny those facts too?

going by the save the children article then we should stop all overseas aid and put our own house in order. Sadly the are plenty of parents will buy themselves a packet of fags rather than new clothes for the children? If they cant afford both and want/need the fags/booze/betting/drugs then dont have the kids! do her up the jaxie or COB or cum on the carpet ffs

(06-03-2016 17:58 )ShandyHand Wrote:  My apologies about the link it didn't like the bracket I put it i.......

Your over all tone seems to be one of attack but it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote (common enough on here I suppose).

Firstly, can you tell me what you mean by 'good'? because doddle was refering to poor, and poor is finantial with resulting poorer living conditions, this by it's very nature is materialistic, improve the living conditions (this is done finantially) improve the life style. Or you refering to spiritual goodness? community spirit? you know, like in the war. As I say, you have completely misunderstood what I have been writing. I was saying all these community problems have increase when people by and large are MATERIALLY BETTER, which is diametrically opposite to what you are trying to critizes me for. Other issues i suspect are down to being very little discipling now, compared to when I was young and other social issues, ALL have nothing to do with being in Europe or not, explain to me how it is?

I have indeed read doddles points, as I attempted to read yours, this is why I was able to provide counter arguments to them, but not to yours. What i don't get from doddles points or yours over child povery, is what specifically as this to do with in or out of Europe? the high in child poverty is since we have been Europe and have been the past 40 years.

People WERE poorer back then, I have no idea how anybody could even challange that; people in the generation before I was born were poorer still, going back to the REAL poverty of Victorian Britian. There was REAL and massive social difference then.

You also make the comment "how you seem to think being out of Europe will improve things even further.", I have never claimed this. I am being told how it would be terrible to leave Europe (the end would be neigh to hear some people) and that we gain so much by being in it. When I have search ACTUAL data, i have infact seen that Britian certainly pays an high price for this, and inputs much more than she actually gets out of it; that money could go directly into the UK economy. As said, I have seen some arguments put forward here, some seem totally irrelavant (clearner beaches) some seem more pertinant (free trade). My questions have always been about the fine detail and what would REALISTICALLY happen if the UK were more akin to some of the nordic countires where partial membership seems very much more finantially better than full.

You made this comment yourself:

Quote:have been going on for years in and out of Europe and are getting worse.

Doesn't this suggest that whatever social problems there are in this country, being in europe or not is not the issue? You say the gap between the haves and haves not is getting larger in this country, this simply doesn't seem to be the case. There is no where near the social hierarchy there was years ago, even from when i was a child.

Quote:I also asked what you thought would happen if we opted out of the EU. How would it change things for the better in this country? What do you want to achieve most by doing so?

This is the crux, nobody knows; in or out. But you can assume that there would be tighter boarder controls, immigration would be a lot easier to control (especially from east european countries); being governed by our government with laws made in this country for our people not being told what we can and cannot do from Brussels. Instead of having to pay a premium for UK grown products over cheap imports in super markets, may be more British products could be supplied in shops at a cheaper price and this will stop the finantial lynching of UK farmers, which in turn would mean the government won't have to pay subsidies to them. I honestly do not think trade with foreign countries would just stop, I think that would carry on, if Europian countires put an extra level of taxs on our products that would be a form of black mail. I dont think the UK would suddenly stop being a finantial captital of the world, and suddenly become one of the poorest. The money, or some of it, going to europe could go to the NHS and this would lead to a better health service. And I'm sure there are other things, but the important thing to consider, would it be as damning as people say it would be not being in Europe?

Lets face it, the EU is pretty much the richer stronger countries carrying the poorer ones, in it's self thats not a bad thing, but it's easier to have an exodus of peple from these countries to get the hand outs rather than try and rebuild finantially there own countires.

Regarding the Brummie post, I will search that out and read it. If I don't respond to something, it's more that i havn't seen it rather than ignoreing it, I'll leave that to others. I'll be awefully dissapointed though if it's just the same things I have already read.

You seem to be under the impression I'm some thatcherite anti Europe little Englander. You are very wrong, I'm quite happy to stay in Europe if it IS the better thing to do, I have not seen a really good argument for it and against seems a little more convincing.

I was born in 1968 I have lived pretty much through the Europe years and can only go on personal experiance. I remember the 70's I was 12 at there close, I remember the stuggle my mum had, I remember how much better things got thoughout the 80's and have stayed that way. People today typing on computers saying how terrible it has got really do not know what poor means. It's not not having the latest iphone, or driving down to the local food hand out becasue it's better than paying for them. it's having to eat baby food to feed themselves like my mum had to because what money she did get went first on us. So you really have no need to talk to me about the poor of today.

OK, I manage to see the save the children link, and seriously?




What is the first thing I read in the title of that aweful graph.

UK children living in RELATIVE poverty.

No where in that article do I see anything about facts and figures, including on that graph. There is nothing stating what they are actually living on.

Quote:Far too many of our children are living in cold and damp homes, without healthy food, with parents who can see no end to their situation

Is this becasue parents feed them junk food? which is normally more expensive any way.

Unemployed couple get: up to £114.85

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance

Child benefit is: £20.70 and then £13.70 per child

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit/what-youll-get

So an unemployed couple with two children receive £149.25/ w, thats £597 per month, plus rent and council bennefit, plus medical, dental perscriptions fees paid for etc.

Where this is poor, it is not poverty.

If they live in council accomadation and there is damp injurious to a childs health, the council by law would have to do something.

Incidentally, in the council were i live they said they where thinking of introducing law to cap rent benefit allowance to £500/w, which indicates some people are actually getitng more than this.

(06-03-2016 19:14 )wackawoo Wrote:  Your over all tone seems to be one of attack but it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote (common enough on here I suppose).

Firstly, can you tell me what you mean by 'good'? ...

My tone was only as attacking as yours is un-empathetic.

You seem to have a supreme gift of reading without understanding. I used the word 'good' in the context that you used it, "never had it so good." I even quoted the relevant part of your post in mine. You were responding to Doodle's comment about "social" welfare. If you equate this to merely the acquisition of materialistic things then that is your misunderstanding not mine.

Quote:I was saying all these community problems have increase when people by and large are MATERIALLY BETTER, which is diametrically opposite to what you are trying to critizes me for.

No, again you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I said broadly the same thing about these "community problems" as you are here! My point was merely that you claim people have "never had it so good" but ignore that certain, very important, things are now worse than they were previously.

And yes, of course, the poverty we are talking about is relative. How else can a country be judged in these things other than by it's own standards. I am also talking about the modern era (post-WWII) here. No need for the Victorian times straw man argument.

Quote:When I have search ACTUAL data, i have infact seen that Britian certainly pays an high price for this, and inputs much more than she actually gets out of it

Would you like to qualify that? What data are you referring to? Not this sort of data anyhow: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/...-ucl-study

Would you really rather follow the nordic model of having to pay dues to the EU without a vote to influence what goes on from the very centre of it?

Quote:There is no where near the social hierarchy there was years ago, even from when i was a child.

Perception is a very individual thing is it not.

Quote:...you can assume that there would be tighter boarder controls, immigration would be a lot easier to control (especially from east european countries); being governed by our government with laws made in this country for our people not being told what we can and cannot do from Brussels. Instead of having to pay a premium for UK grown products over cheap imports in super markets, may be more British products could be supplied in shops at a cheaper price and this will stop the finantial lynching of UK farmers, which in turn would mean the government won't have to pay subsidies to them. I honestly do not think trade with foreign countries would just stop, I think that would carry on, if Europian countires put an extra level of taxs on our products that would be a form of black mail. I dont think the UK would suddenly stop being a finantial captital of the world, and suddenly become one of the poorest. The money, or some of it, going to europe could go to the NHS and this would lead to a better health service. And I'm sure there are other things, but the important thing to consider, would it be as damning as people say it would be not being in Europe?

Lets face it, the EU is pretty much the richer stronger countries carrying the poorer ones, in it's self thats not a bad thing, but it's easier to have an exodus of peple from these countries to get the hand outs rather than try and rebuild finantially there own countires.

Regarding the Brummie post, I will search that out and read it. If I don't respond to something, it's more that i havn't seen it rather than ignoreing it, I'll leave that to others. I'll be awefully dissapointed though if it's just the same things I have already read.

Thank you for at least getting down to brass tacks with me and for admitting you haven't read the article brummie posted. Be assured I have read all of your many posts on this thread.

Your argument above does seem to revolve around a lot of assumptions of what leaving the EU would mean though (some I even agree with; some seem a little speculative and unrealistic to me). Please comment after reading brummie's article, it make affect your choice of the 'nordic model'.

Quote:You seem to be under the impression I'm some thatcherite anti Europe little Englander. You are very wrong, I'm quite happy to stay in Europe if it IS the better thing to do...

Well cheers for clearing that up. All your other posts on this thread led me to think otherwise.

Having read your latest post it's pretty clear you have no intention of actually reading or understanding what i have posted, you have no interest in debating the issues of in or out of Europe but are more interested in being personal against me. To this end you nit pick over things that have nothing to do with europe.

You call me un-empathetic, stating the quality of life is better now than it use to be is merely a statment of fact, anybody denying this is just living in cloud coockoo land.

I don't equate anything to material gain (just the opposite), I never stated I did, find me the quote, that was doddle (whom you defend) not me. You're trying to build a strawman argument, but strawman arguments can go up in a puff of smoke with very little effort.

Quote:No, again you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I said broadly the same thing about these "community problems" as you are here!

Yes, this was my point, you was critisizing me for actually saying the same thing you was, which I found most bizarre.

Then you agree I am also right in this case, poverty in this country actually means poor, not true or real poverty. Are you saying there was no such thing as true poverty in victorian Britian? this isn't a straw man argument (the irony has not been lost) but a statement of fact.

Quote:Would you like to qualify that? What data are you referring to? Not this sort of data anyhow

Yes:

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...pid1842428

It is a especially amusing over the brummie post, which I clearly stated I would seek out and read.When I did I did indeed found I HAD indeed read it and responded:

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...189&page=9

Seems I'm not the only one guilty of skipping post, no wait, I didn't skip.

You need to keep personal bias out of your responce, you have made yourself look rather silly here, since the things you critisize me for I have covered, responded to, or you have agreed with me.

^ Why are you so intent on pointing out that people that disagree with you are being "rather silly"? I'd rather let readers judge for themselves who qualifies for that title on this thread.