1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    matt.ant's Avatar
    September 2006
    4,439 Posts
    A Conservative MP says almost 100 colleagues have signed a letter calling on David Cameron to prepare legislation committing the UK to an EU referendum after the next election.

    John Baron's letter does not specify an in-or-out referendum.

    The wording would be decided later but "should relate to the nature of our... relationship with the EU", he said.

    He says the law would "address the lack of public trust" which meant promises to hold such a vote "hold little sway".

    Current laws commit the government to hold a referendum if Britain is asked to cede powers to Brussels.

    In his letter Mr Baron says he believes "there is a consistent majority in this country who believe that the European Union meddles too much in our everyday lives".

    It adds that "no-one in this country under the age of 55 has had the opportunity to express their view on this signally important matter".

    It comes amid reports Foreign Secretary William Hague wants to launch a comprehensive audit of the impact of European Union law on Britain.

    The coalition agreement includes a commitment to examine "the balance of the EU's existing competences" and, according to the Financial Times, Mr Hague wants to press ahead with such a study this summer.

    Civil servants are expected to analyse the impact of EU law, without making recommendations on what powers should be repatriated from Brussels, according to the newspaper, with more details to be announced soon.

    Many Conservative MPs believe Britain should go further renegotiate the terms of its EU membership and take back significant powers.

    More than 100 of them earlier this year demanded that Britain should withdraw from the European Arrest Warrant and 130 other crime and policing rules.

    Conservatives have also long pressed for Britain to be exempted from the European Working Time Directive and other laws they see as harming Britain's economic competitiveness.

    Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and fellow Lib Dem coalition members are likely to resist moves to repatriate powers.

    Prime Minster David Cameron is, meanwhile, in Brussels for two days of talks with EU leaders about the future of the eurozone.

    Mr Cameron insisted eurozone members were right to press ahead with closer fiscal integration but said Britain had different priorities.

    "We want Europe to work for us, as a single market, as a place where we trade, as a place where we co-operate, and I'm going in there so that we get the safeguards to make sure that can keep happening."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18622849
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 India Show Events Dumb Dumb x 11Winner Winner x 10Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    "there is a consistent majority in this country who believe that the European Union meddles too much in our everyday lives"
    There is also a consistent majority who believe any crap the papers print on the EU.

    Nobody knows that under EU law, all your goods have an automatic two year guarantee, not the 1 the retailers tell you. Among many other consumer rights laws.

    The EU protected the UK from ACTA, which the current government was allegedly happy to sign.

    However, they decide to print scandalous crap that 'the EU says firemen can't get into a river without a health and safety check t save lives', or 'The EU bans certain shapes of banana', or 'They cost us a billion trillion pounds and we don't receive anything in return'

    Until the press starts printing the whole truth about the EU, and EU legislation is taught at any level to school children, allowing the nation to have a fair unbiased debate, then there is no point calling for a popular vote referendum because all the average person knows about the EU is complete bullshit, and I suspect many MP's too.

    The UK should be in the driving seat of Europe in order to protect our interests, not outsiders depending on the USA when they don't give a fuck about us.

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Zing Zing x 15Agree Agree x 9Dumb Dumb x 2Winner Winner x 2 (list)

  3. Post #3
    Blue Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    1,031 Posts
    There is also a consistent majority who believe any crap the papers print on the EU.

    Nobody knows that under EU law, all your goods have an automatic two year guarantee, not the 1 the retailers tell you. Among many other consumer rights laws.

    The EU protected the UK from ACTA, which the current government was allegedly happy to sign.

    However, they decide to print scandalous crap that 'the EU says firemen can't get into a river without a health and safety check t save lives', or 'The EU bans certain shapes of banana', or 'They cost us a billion trillion pounds and we don't receive anything in return'

    Until the press starts printing the whole truth about the EU, and EU legislation is taught at any level to school children, allowing the nation to have a fair unbiased debate, then there is no point calling for a popular vote referendum because all the average person knows about the EU is complete bullshit, and I suspect many MP's too.

    The UK should be in the driving seat of Europe in order to protect our interests, not outsiders depending on the USA when they don't give a fuck about us.

    There are valid points against the EU too, Nigal Farage raises a lot of those. A referendum is not the answer to this at all though; people are far too stupid to make an informed decision.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 6 (list)

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    There are valid points against the EU too, Nigal Farage raises a lot of those. A referendum is not the answer to this at all though; people are far too stupid to make an informed decision.
    I agree, the EU is far from perfect, and the government has no ideas other than 'Lets ignore it and it'll go away!". People can make a very informed decision, but they're not being informed.

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    smurfy's Avatar
    October 2007
    21,368 Posts
    The sensationalism about the EU can even be seen here on FP, we regularly get (and believe) threads about how the EU raped and murdered a young girl in 1990

    There is a fundamental understanding of how the EU works too, it's constantly being called undemocratic despite holding elections every 5 years

    Could be better (an elected EU President might be nice but would doubtless spark cries of federalism) but it's not as bad as everyone thinks

  6. Post #6
    QwertySecond's Avatar
    December 2008
    978 Posts
    I agree, the EU is far from perfect, and the government has no ideas other than 'Lets ignore it and it'll go away!". People can make a very informed decision, but they're not being informed.
    Can you give get any links for those of us who are uninformed? It's probably way past time I should actually know this stuff.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United Kingdom Show Events Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    Can you give get any links for those of us who are uninformed? It's probably way past time I should actually know this stuff.
    http://www.the-eu-and-me.org.uk/eu-myths is a good start.

    http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/ is a good place to find out the truth behind tabloid rumors or fake stories

    Anything else is personal opinion. If it sounds ridiculous, it probably is. I won't defend the EU with heart and soul, but attacking it over bullshit is stupid.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    Beafman's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,333 Posts
    It sounds contradictory, but there are times when democracy doesn't work. In the case of the EU, it is very clear that the way media and right-wing populists portray the EU, it would always be voted down by the individual member states.

    One could hope it would all come crashing down, so the countries would then unite when they see the problems a europe without a union would be. That or war would break out, but I'd take the risk if it made people see the need for a federal union.

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    It sounds contradictory, but there are times when democracy doesn't work. In the case of the EU, it is very clear that the way media and right-wing populists portray the EU, it would always be voted down by the individual member states.

    One could hope it would all come crashing down, so the countries would then unite when they see the problems a europe without a union would be. That or war would break out, but I'd take the risk if it made people see the need for a federal union.
    I'd hope it doesn't. The suffering and petty arguments wouldn't be worth it to stop the pathetic bitching. I'd rather see an idealistic breakup than a collapse.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,658 Posts
    There are valid points against the EU too, Nigal Farage raises a lot of those. A referendum is not the answer to this at all though; people are far too stupid to make an informed decision.
    The problem is, that under a general rule people only know the negative things about the EU. The bad things get repeated ad nausum and often actually mixed with things which are untrue.

    And the positive things are rarely actually ever shown.

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    Beafman's Avatar
    May 2006
    1,333 Posts
    The problem is, that under a general rule people only know the negative things about the EU. The bad things get repeated ad nausum and often actually mixed with things which are untrue.

    And the positive things are rarely actually ever shown.
    Yeah, I have to regularly explain to people that cellphone chargers are now nearly all micro-usb is because of the EU.

  12. Post #12
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    Regardless of how the EU is painted by the media, it is still good to have a referendum. People should be allowed to have a say on the EU, considering how much of an impact it has on their lives.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    Regardless of how the EU is painted by the media, it is still good to have a referendum. People should be allowed to have a say on the EU, considering how much of an impact it has on their lives.
    It is, but it's a poor choice to do so now. In 5 years when the economy has stabilized, the new media ethics rules are in place, and there is more education on law and government practice, then absolutely. People shouldn't choose option A or B when they understand neither/little or don't care, imo it's bad democracy to just say 'asap'. I would have loved to have had more courses on UK law.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  14. Post #14
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    It is, but it's a poor choice to do so now. In 5 years when the economy has stabilized, the new media ethics rules are in place, and there is more education on law and government practice, then absolutely. People shouldn't choose option A or B when they understand neither/little or don't care, imo it's bad democracy to just say 'asap'. I would have loved to have had more courses on UK law.
    What you are saying is all well and good, except it is based purely on optimistic assumptions. We cannot guarantee that that the economy will stabilise in the next five years, for example. Furthermore, I generally think it is a bad idea to postpone referendums for the benefit of the image of one side - Scotland's SNP is doing exactly that with its indepedence referendum by having it coincide with 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. I consider it unreasonable to ask for a referendum to be postponed based on the idea that 'things might get better'.

  15. Post #15
    GlebGuy's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,379 Posts
    So is this a good thing or a bad thing?

  16. Post #16
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    So is this a good thing or a bad thing?
    Depends on if you like the EU or not. Although, from a democratic point of view, I consider it a good thing.

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    ewitwins's Avatar
    December 2009
    14,072 Posts
    I wish Canada and the US were on the same page regarding currency and measurements, just for kick and giggles.

  18. Post #18
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    What you are saying is all well and good, except it is based purely on optimistic assumptions. We cannot guarantee that that the economy will stabilise in the next five years, for example. Furthermore, I generally think it is a bad idea to postpone referendums for the benefit of the image of one side - Scotland's SNP is doing exactly that with its indepedence referendum by having it coincide with 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. I consider it unreasonable to ask for a referendum to be postponed based on the idea that 'things might get better'.
    It's not assumptions when even the slightest hint of decent is hurting markets. Succession from the EU now won't change anything except damage our economic position. Sure, great, we have more control over our financial market, and don't have to pay into the IMF, etc, whoopie do. The EU is having little effect on our lives in order to incur a semi-uprising and see what the popular opinion is during a recession.

    Tell me exactly what we'd achieve, right now, if we came out of the EU that will improve the average persons life.

  19. Post #19
    Personally I like the perks of being in the EU, and I don't really see how we would benefit from exiting it. However, I still think the idea of the Euro was terrible.

  20. Post #20
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    It's not assumptions when even the slightest hint of decent is hurting markets. Succession from the EU now won't change anything except damage our economic position. Sure, great, we have more control over our financial market, and don't have to pay into the IMF, etc, whoopie do. The EU is having little effect on our lives in order to incur a semi-uprising and see what the popular opinion is during a recession.

    Tell me exactly what we'd achieve, right now, if we came out of the EU that will improve the average persons life.
    Well, for starters, the EU does have a major effect on our lives. How can you claim, on the one hand, that the EU has brought so many benefits but then, on the other, say it has no impact on our lives? That seems contradictorary.

    But my beef doesn't with what the EU does or does not bring to the UK. My beef is with the fact that the EU can dictate laws to the our government and we have to abide by them - and this is all done with little to no democratic processes involved. If we don't like something the UK government is doing, we can at least take some comfort in know that we get to elect a new government at some point. When was the last time we got to have a say on who is in control of the EU, or had any say at all on anything that goes on in it?

    The fact of the matter is that, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it, powers are being assigned to the EU that both directly and indirectly have an impact on us - and we as the public have not been given a choice on whether or not we agree with this. That is what I don't like.

  21. Post #21
    Gold Member
    Ond kaja's Avatar
    December 2009
    2,954 Posts
    and this is all done with little to no democratic processes involved.
    Care to elaborate? The European parliament is elected directly and the commission is indirectly elected.

  22. Post #22
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    Care to elaborate? The European parliament is elected directly and the commission is indirectly elected.
    We can vote in MEPs, but that is it. It would be like only being able to vote for MPs in UK Parliament.

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    We can vote in MEPs, but that is it. It would be like only being able to vote for MPs in UK Parliament.
    But you don't really vote for a leader, you vote for a party. As we've seen with Blair/Brown, if you don't like the new leader, it's kinda tough unless they decide to host a re-election. So it's similar in methodology.

  24. Post #24
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,352 Posts
    it's good for democracy sure but it would only hurt the UK.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    Well, for starters, the EU does have a major effect on our lives. How can you claim, on the one hand, that the EU has brought so many benefits but then, on the other, say it has no impact on our lives? That seems contradictorary.

    But my beef doesn't with what the EU does or does not bring to the UK. My beef is with the fact that the EU can dictate laws to the our government and we have to abide by them - and this is all done with little to no democratic processes involved. If we don't like something the UK government is doing, we can at least take some comfort in know that we get to elect a new government at some point. When was the last time we got to have a say on who is in control of the EU, or had any say at all on anything that goes on in it?

    The fact of the matter is that, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it, powers are being assigned to the EU that both directly and indirectly have an impact on us - and we as the public have not been given a choice on whether or not we agree with this. That is what I don't like.
    I'm arguing that we've been given indirect benefits, and concluding that the EU hasn't affected us directly. My life hasn't changed in the last 10 years despite plenty of new EU regulation (Ok, I can't order a certain type of chemical by mail anymore, but that's practically it)

    Unfortunately I do not share your beliefs in the integrity of British politics. Sure, we can vote out a party or MP, but in a practical sense the people have little power over the political hierarchy that seems to be becoming dominated with populist issues and instant turn-around decisions instead of a proper discussion with citizens.

    The EU has provided us with a second layer of governance. In theory isn't not a great idea for personal freedoms, but my political belief in any of the British parties in their current state is fraught with doubt and contentment over many policy changes I do no agree with from all three major parties, while the EU has present (mostly) sensible legislation in the past few years.

    Once they start declaring everyone must wear a Barret, speak eloquent English and hate Russians at all times, then I'd be on your side.

    Also, you didn't answer my question. What would we achieve right now if we all decided to come out of the EU that doesn't involve 'oh freedom'

  26. Post #26
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    At some point Britain will have to concede to the Euro, but I think the Scottish referendum in 2014 will play a big part in that.

  27. Post #27
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    But you don't really vote for a leader, you vote for a party. As we've seen with Blair/Brown, if you don't like the new leader, it's kinda tough unless they decide to host a re-election. So it's similar in methodology.
    That's beside the point, really - because we don't get to elect parties in the EU either. So, to ammend my comment:

    We can vote in MEPs, but that is it. It would be like only being able to vote for MPs in UK Parliament and having the ruling party picked for us.

    Also, you didn't answer my question. What would we achieve right now if we all decided to come out of the EU that doesn't involve 'oh freedom'
    Well, apparently I did but you chose to just ignore it. But seeing as you think that liberty and democracy can be dismissed as "oh freedom", then there is always this nugget:

    "Last time it was calculated, in 2008, the European Union was costing us £65 billion gross every year. That's about £1,000 each every year for every man, woman and child in the UK. It increases every year, so it will be a lot more now. "
    http://www.democracymovementsurrey.c...k_eucosts.html

    You see, the problem is that - through issues like beaurocracy and large politician benefits (to name a few) - our own government costs us a fuckton of money. Having a second layer on top of this will only make things worse. I don't disagree that the EU needs to work together, but that does not mean we need to be forced into a costly and undemocratic union - or possible single state.

    And to finish it off, there is this:

    "The EU Commission itself* has estimated that EU regulation costs businesses 600 billion Euros a year, while the savings from the free market amount to only 180 billion Euros.
    *Gunter Verheugen, EU Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, in 2006

    The UK should be in the driving seat of Europe in order to protect our interests, not outsiders depending on the USA when they don't give a fuck about us.
    I honestly didn't notice this earlier, but I'm glad I have now. Previously I was assuming that you were British, but apparently that isn't the case. I don't see how you can dictate to someone what they should do with their country if you are not from said country.

  28. Post #28
    Gold Member
    Memobot's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,465 Posts
    There is also a consistent majority who believe any crap the papers print on the EU.

    Nobody knows that under EU law, all your goods have an automatic two year guarantee, not the 1 the retailers tell you. Among many other consumer rights laws.


    The EU protected the UK from ACTA, which the current government was allegedly happy to sign.

    However, they decide to print scandalous crap that 'the EU says firemen can't get into a river without a health and safety check t save lives', or 'The EU bans certain shapes of banana', or 'They cost us a billion trillion pounds and we don't receive anything in return'

    Until the press starts printing the whole truth about the EU, and EU legislation is taught at any level to school children, allowing the nation to have a fair unbiased debate, then there is no point calling for a popular vote referendum because all the average person knows about the EU is complete bullshit, and I suspect many MP's too.

    The UK should be in the driving seat of Europe in order to protect our interests, not outsiders depending on the USA when they don't give a fuck about us.

    I' sure that when it comes down to it, the UK doesn't care so much about trade and goods cover, but more about illegal immigrants murdering someone, then having the right to stay in the country because try have a family! Hardly takes into account the rights of the victims and their families does it?

  29. Post #29
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    but more about illegal immigrants murdering someone, then having the right to stay in the country because try have a family!
    Wait what?

  30. Post #30
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    Wait what?
    Not directly what he is talking about, but close enough:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16923527

  31. Post #31
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    Not directly what he is talking about, but close enough:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16923527
    They're completely different things.

    I won't answer him until he provides a source, because I can't be bothered to argue over something if he won't point out the case he's discussing.

    Edited:

    I honestly didn't notice this earlier, but I'm glad I have now. Previously I was assuming that you were British, but apparently that isn't the case. I don't see how you can dictate to someone what they should do with their country if you are not from said country.
    I'll get to your other points later, but what the hell? How does that quote in any way say I'm not British? Did you miss the 'us' in that statement or what?

    Edited:

    "Last time it was calculated, in 2008, the European Union was costing us £65 billion gross every year. That's about £1,000 each every year for every man, woman and child in the UK. It increases every year, so it will be a lot more now. "
    http://www.democracymovementsurrey.c...k_eucosts.html

    You see, the problem is that - through issues like beaurocracy and large politician benefits (to name a few) - our own government costs us a fuckton of money. Having a second layer on top of this will only make things worse. I don't disagree that the EU needs to work together, but that does not mean we need to be forced into a costly and undemocratic union - or possible single state.

    "The EU Commission itself* has estimated that EU regulation costs businesses 600 billion Euros a year, while the savings from the free market amount to only 180 billion Euros.
    *Gunter Verheugen, EU Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, in 2006
    For starters, the report is from 2008. The 'report' it uses as a source is from an MEP taking figures from the Pink Book, newspapers, anti-EURO websites and 'some economists', (I will read the report more thoroughly later, though) not the EU commission. The democracymovement website does not list a source for this so called 'EU Commission estimate', unless it believes a single MEP is the EU commission. If you can find me a source (Which I can't), then I'll discuss it further.

    I also don't see a problem with the UK not receiving a boost in returns. As the report states, Germany is by far paying the majority of money in bailouts and IMF expenditure. Sure, we can argue all day about 'yeah but is it right to give the EU money to pay for other countries' and not get anywhere, but imo as long as the money is being spent on mostly bailouts and legislation I (mostly) like, I don't see a problem.

    If you want to argue from a purely economic standpoint, I don't believe we'd receive a good trade return if countries decided they couldn't pay the loans to our banks anymore. I'll try and find a figure for EU bailout costs to the UK cost compared to country loan amount.

    Edited:

    We can vote in MEPs, but that is it. It would be like only being able to vote for MPs in UK Parliament and having the ruling party picked for us.
    The difference between directly elected and 'picked for us' is a pretty daft comparison. The president of Europe requires a significant majority of MEP's to approve their position. UK MEPs are voted in by us, and the MEP can be nominated and ratified. We're electing a party to select a president, which is basically the reverse of UK voting, where they pick a leader first and we vote for the party. I'd greatly prefer we'd directly vote for a president, but with a low turnout for MEP voting already I don't think it's feasible.

  32. Post #32
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    They're completely different things.
    Care to elaborate?

    I'll get to your other points later, but what the hell? How does that quote in any way say I'm not British? Did you miss the 'us' in that statement or what?
    Then it is poor sentence structure on your part. In "not outsiders depending on the USA when they don't give a fuck about us", 'they' implies the 'outsiders' and 'us' implies the 'USA'.

    For starters, the report is from 2008.
    But it also states that it increases each year. This is backed up by:

    "MEP Dan Hannan [daniel.hannan@europarl.europa.eu] reports in his blog (June 2011) that:
    • The European Commission has just published its new draft budget. It wants an extra 46 billion euros, proposes to scrap Britain’s rebate, and suggests various forms of EU taxes, including a levy on financial transactions which would disproportionately hit the City of London.
    •Britain increased its net contribution by 74 per cent in 2010. Much of the increase will be wasted.
    •Worst of all, though, is the way in which the EU is assuming bank liabilities in advance of a default which everyone can now see coming. Britain has been dragged directly into the Irish and Portuguese bailouts, and indirectly into that of Greece: http://tgr.ph/kIye0L"

    The 'report' it uses as a source is from an MEP taking figures from the Pink Book, newspapers, anti-EURO websites and 'some economists', (I will read the report more thoroughly later, though) not the EU commission.
    You do realise that the Pink Book is the annual publication by the government that details the country's balance of payments, right?

    The democracymovement website does not list a source for this so called 'EU Commission estimate', unless it believes a single MEP is the EU commission. If you can find me a source (Which I can't), then I'll discuss it further..
    Well, it does actually. And I posted it:
    "*Gunter Verheugen, EU Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, in 2006"

    Google: "Gunter Verheugen costs 600 billion" and take your pick of the sources.

    I also don't see a problem with the UK not receiving a boost in returns. As the report states, Germany is by far paying the majority of money in bailouts and IMF expenditure. Sure, we can argue all day about 'yeah but is it right to give the EU money to pay for other countries' and not get anywhere, but imo as long as the money is being spent on mostly bailouts and legislation I (mostly) like, I don't see a problem.
    There are quite a few people who would hold a much different view to you on this issue: hence the need for a referendum.

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    Care to elaborate?
    I'm not trawling around the Internet to discuss something else, so no.

    Then it is poor sentence structure on your part. In "not outsiders depending on the USA when they don't give a fuck about us", 'they' implies the 'outsiders' and 'us' implies the 'USA'.
    How the fuck does 'We need to be', 'our interests', 'not outsiders' and 'don't care about us' imply otherwise? How many more clues do you seriously need?

    There are quite a few people who would hold a much different view to you on this issue: hence the need for a referendum.
    I'm not arguing against a referendum, I just think it's stupid to do it now amongst such uncertainty.

    I'm reading up on your other points, I'll need to post a counter argument, which I will do eventually.

  34. Post #34
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,964 Posts
    I'm not trawling around the Internet to discuss something else, so no.
    Why not? It's a perfectly valid issue.

    How the fuck does 'We need to be', 'our interests', 'not outsiders' and 'don't care about us' imply otherwise? How many more clues do you seriously need?
    What?

    I'm not arguing against a referendum, I just think it's stupid to do it now amongst such uncertainty.
    Uncertainty in regards to what?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  35. Post #35
    Gold Member
    MrEndangered's Avatar
    October 2006
    4,707 Posts
    Why not? It's a perfectly valid issue.
    If he wants to link me to the newspaper article, then fine. I'm not wasting my time arguing assumptions or looking for specific news articles. I didn't make the claim.

    What?
    They speak English in what?

    Uncertainty in regards to what?
    Everything I said earlier.