4 reasons why leaving the EU will do no harm whatsoever to our trade:
1) The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves the EU.
2) Iceland, a country not in the EU, has more trade agreements with countries around world than the EU does (including one with China).
3) The EU is heavily reliant on selling the UK goods so it would be madness for them to stifle that in any way.
4) Like Iceland, we would be able to hold trade agreements with the world, on our own terms and for that reason alone, leaving the EU is actually a trade opportunity.
leaving the EU would be like moving your shop out of bluewater to a little road round the corner from the big car park. Madness.
Yet you seem quite happy that Cameron is happy to risk that very thing.
i'm pretty certain that the country would choose to stay in the EU, as does cameron. He's doing it to keep his backbenchers happy.
And also try to dilute the UKIP effect, though on vote wise that didn't seem to carry through.
Disappointment for me as someone who would definitely vote to stay in (would have answered differently five years ago) is that Europe is going to be massively on the agenda for the next two years when there are so many more important areas of concentration.
I think even politicians can work on more than one issue. ''massively on the agenda'' is more of a press concern than day to day machinations of political daily life.
Just been reading the BBC page on why the Polls got is so wrong.
As on here, shy Conservatives were mentioned. It's a possibility, but if so, they why are they shy?
My own view it that maybe Labour voters feel more that they are doing it for social reasons and like announce this whereas more Tories maybe do it for personal reasons and don't?
Enjoyed being called a troll. A first I think. Anyway. To leave the EU would be madness. The world is now all about trading blocks. America (USA) South America, China, India, The Far East. Europe.
Don't quote Norway or bloody Switzerland at me. It's like comparing the Corner shop to Harrods.
We must stay in otherwise in 50 years we will be bloody Norway.
4 reasons why leaving the EU will do no harm whatsoever to our trade:
1) The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves the EU.
2) Iceland, a country not in the EU, has more trade agreements with countries around world than the EU does (including one with China).
3) The EU is heavily reliant on selling the UK goods so it would be madness for them to stifle that in any way.
4) Like Iceland, we would be able to hold trade agreements with the world, on our own terms and for that reason alone, leaving the EU is actually a trade opportunity.
1) it doesn't say upon what terms, we would be by far the junior parter with much less leverage
2) as above (and I'm not sure Iceland is a good economic example for anyone)
3) No it isn't, the trade deficit is circa £10bn. Compared to the GDP of the EU is £12trn - I suggest you check the definition of "heavily reliant" because this isn't it.
4) Again you seem to fundamentally fail to understand how negotiations work, you never get things on your own terms - it's give and take, the weaker your position the more you have to give, unquestionably Britain is in a weaker position when negotiating with China, USA, India, EU etc. Unless your proposing that we leave the EU to form trade deals with Chad, Tunisia and Gambia they probably won't be "on our terms" in the slightest.
I think if these are the compelling arguments for leaving the EU, and the evidence provided for the success of this approach is Iceland, I don't think there's too much chance of us leaving. Thank goodness.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
Personally, I don't think it is rocket science. They need to get back to centre left, with the emphasis on centre, and there are a number of good candidates there. I'd probably go with Chuka and would like to see prominent roles for all the key figures - Burnham, Cooper (always far, far better than her other half) and newbies like Dan Jarvis & Liz Kendall.
I hate that our media have the power they do. Miliband was ridiculed from the off, any little thing was lampooned & he was mocked for the way he sounded/looked. I couldn't give a monkeys how anyone looks/sounds (I have to look in the mirror every day ffs), I just want to hear their plans/ideas for getting the best out of the country & making sure the vulnerable are looked after. I think Miliband did well, despite the personal attacks.
That said, I am not sad to see the back of Ed Balls. I have never been a fan & Labour would have stood a far better chance had he been removed 2 years ago.
For now, just finishing my short holiday before returning to the real world. I'm in a fortunate position and hope, against hope, that we don't have a large disenfranchised population before this 5 year term is out.
Personally, I don't think it is rocket science. They need to get back to centre left, with the emphasis on centre, and there are a number of good candidates there. I'd probably go with Chuka and would like to see prominent roles for all the key figures - Burnham, Cooper (always far, far better than her other half) and newbies like Dan Jarvis & Liz Kendall.
I hate that our media have the power they do. Miliband was ridiculed from the off, any little thing was lampooned & he was mocked for the way he sounded/looked. I couldn't give a monkeys how anyone looks/sounds (I have to look in the mirror every day ffs), I just want to hear their plans/ideas for getting the best out of the country & making sure the vulnerable are looked after. I think Miliband did well, despite the personal attacks.
That said, I am not sad to see the back of Ed Balls. I have never been a fan & Labour would have stood a far better chance had he been removed 2 years ago.
For now, just finishing my short holiday before returning to the real world. I'm in a fortunate position and hope, against hope, that we don't have a large disenfranchised population before this 5 year term is out.
I can see Chukka being a big turn off to northern Labour voters. It's not a race thng it's that he's such a far removed metropolitan liberal that they'll never warm to him.
Personally, I don't think it is rocket science. They need to get back to centre left, with the emphasis on centre, and there are a number of good candidates there. I'd probably go with Chuka and would like to see prominent roles for all the key figures - Burnham, Cooper (always far, far better than her other half) and newbies like Dan Jarvis & Liz Kendall.
I hate that our media have the power they do. Miliband was ridiculed from the off, any little thing was lampooned & he was mocked for the way he sounded/looked. I couldn't give a monkeys how anyone looks/sounds (I have to look in the mirror every day ffs), I just want to hear their plans/ideas for getting the best out of the country & making sure the vulnerable are looked after. I think Miliband did well, despite the personal attacks.
That said, I am not sad to see the back of Ed Balls. I have never been a fan & Labour would have stood a far better chance had he been removed 2 years ago.
For now, just finishing my short holiday before returning to the real world. I'm in a fortunate position and hope, against hope, that we don't have a large disenfranchised population before this 5 year term is out.
I can see Chukka being a big turn off to Northern voters. It's not a race thng it's that he's such a far removed metropolitan liberal that they'll never warm to him.
It's why Dan Jarvis could be the right choice. I think he could appeal to all sides of the party and wider electorate.
Daniel Owen Woolgar "Dan" Jarvis MBE is a British Labour politician and former army officer. After a career in the Parachute Regiment, he went into politics and has been the Member of Parliament for ... Wikipedia
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. How does it go ? Beyond parody
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll Squadron
I think this thread deserves a break from your pretentious pronouncements.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. How does it go ? Beyond parody
From Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet...by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You called me a twat for no reason except to disrupt discussion with inflammatory intent. That is the very definition of being a troll.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
I think you deserve a reply after this thread was derailed by the phallus troll squadron.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
You won't let it go mate will you. Back off now for all our sakes.
You're telling me to back off, yet you decided to call me a twat for no reason when Seth and I were having a completely civil discourse and you weren't even involved?
And you have the nerve to call me a troll. How does it go ? Beyond parody
From Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet...by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You called me a twat for no reason except to disrupt discussion with inflammatory intent. That is the very definition of being a troll.
Sorry to the posters on this very wonderful thread that several of us have on occasion hijacked it for a handbags fight.
I don't usually bite but I got drawn in and on that basis I think my opponent achieved his aim of rattling me. I have appologised to him in a pm. He didn't respond. I am now openly say to Fiish lets just stop.
I don't want to spoil this thread for the majority.
Sorry to the posters on this very wonderful thread that several of us have on occasion hijacked it for a handbags fight.
I don't usually bite but I got drawn in and on that basis I think my opponent achieved his aim of rattling me. I have appologised to him in a pm. He didn't respond. I am now openly say to Fiish lets just stop.
I don't want to spoil this thread for the majority.
Like Bournemouth I am not supremely confident but would imagine that most of the "establishment" the media, big business and politicos will push a pro staying in stance which will be hard to ignore. I hope so anyway.
late Friday morning, the BNP had won 1,667 votes, 0.3% of the 563,743 votes they won in 2010. This year the Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol Party won 8,419, while the Monster Raving Loony Party reached 3,898.
Comments
1) The Lisbon Treaty states that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves the EU.
2) Iceland, a country not in the EU, has more trade agreements with countries around world than the EU does (including one with China).
3) The EU is heavily reliant on selling the UK goods so it would be madness for them to stifle that in any way.
4) Like Iceland, we would be able to hold trade agreements with the world, on our own terms and for that reason alone, leaving the EU is actually a trade opportunity.
''massively on the agenda'' is more of a press concern than day to day machinations of political daily life.
As on here, shy Conservatives were mentioned.
It's a possibility, but if so, they why are they shy?
My own view it that maybe Labour voters feel more that they are doing it for social reasons and like announce this whereas more Tories maybe do it for personal reasons and don't?
Don't quote Norway or bloody Switzerland at me. It's like comparing the Corner shop to Harrods.
We must stay in otherwise in 50 years we will be bloody Norway.
2) as above (and I'm not sure Iceland is a good economic example for anyone)
3) No it isn't, the trade deficit is circa £10bn. Compared to the GDP of the EU is £12trn - I suggest you check the definition of "heavily reliant" because this isn't it.
4) Again you seem to fundamentally fail to understand how negotiations work, you never get things on your own terms - it's give and take, the weaker your position the more you have to give, unquestionably Britain is in a weaker position when negotiating with China, USA, India, EU etc. Unless your proposing that we leave the EU to form trade deals with Chad, Tunisia and Gambia they probably won't be "on our terms" in the slightest.
I think if these are the compelling arguments for leaving the EU, and the evidence provided for the success of this approach is Iceland, I don't think there's too much chance of us leaving. Thank goodness.
Generally speaking, I imagine that if a law was brought in requiring 40% of the eligible voters to support an action, trade unions would only offer ballots with two options on them. My original point stands though - comparing ballots for strike action to a general election is apples to oranges. That isn't really in dispute from the points you've made.
Before we engulf ourselves with even more grown up information gathering to enable the country to choose correct again
Personally, I don't think it is rocket science. They need to get back to centre left, with the emphasis on centre, and there are a number of good candidates there. I'd probably go with Chuka and would like to see prominent roles for all the key figures - Burnham, Cooper (always far, far better than her other half) and newbies like Dan Jarvis & Liz Kendall.
I hate that our media have the power they do. Miliband was ridiculed from the off, any little thing was lampooned & he was mocked for the way he sounded/looked. I couldn't give a monkeys how anyone looks/sounds (I have to look in the mirror every day ffs), I just want to hear their plans/ideas for getting the best out of the country & making sure the vulnerable are looked after. I think Miliband did well, despite the personal attacks.
That said, I am not sad to see the back of Ed Balls. I have never been a fan & Labour would have stood a far better chance had he been removed 2 years ago.
For now, just finishing my short holiday before returning to the real world. I'm in a fortunate position and hope, against hope, that we don't have a large disenfranchised population before this 5 year term is out.
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet...by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
You called me a twat for no reason except to disrupt discussion with inflammatory intent. That is the very definition of being a troll.
Sorry to the posters on this very wonderful thread that several of us have on occasion hijacked it for a handbags fight.
I don't usually bite but I got drawn in and on that basis I think my opponent achieved his aim of rattling me. I have appologised to him in a pm. He didn't respond. I am now openly say to Fiish lets just stop.
I don't want to spoil this thread for the majority.
Truce ?
late Friday morning, the BNP had won 1,667 votes, 0.3% of the 563,743 votes they won in 2010. This year the Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol Party won 8,419, while the Monster Raving Loony Party reached 3,898.