Has Cameron ever clarified exactly what it is he wants to negotiate with the EU on ? I keep hearing "a fairer deal for Britain" - what exactly does that mean ?
Whatever he wants it to mean. I genuinely doubt we will see a referendum in this parliament (and hope we don't). Cameron's off before the next election anyway so whoever takes over just plays the Blame Dave card.
Why don't you think the referendum will happen in 2017, only the Guardian today, along with the rest of the press seem pretty certain its a major issue for the new Government.
It will be THE defining issue for this government.
So not the NHS now?
Firstly, I've never said that was the case and secondly it's all connected innit! Just having the run up to the referendum is going to give the city and big business the jitters and if I were looking to invest in a base in the EU I wouldn't choose the UK right now, hence there's a knock on effect on growth and GDP.
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
...well that and the decimation of our public services :-(
It will be more onerous than decimation which means "removal of a tenth".
Thanks for the lesson. I knew that anyway and you are of course correct especially when one factors in that the next round of cuts disproportionately effect some services more than others...services that are already on their arse but hey, ho...
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
What something along the lines of "Do you want the UK to remain a member of the EU or would you rather live in a mud hut?" that sort of thing?
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
What you mean like the Scottish independence one has solved that pesky issue? ;-)
Has Cameron ever clarified exactly what it is he wants to negotiate with the EU on ? I keep hearing "a fairer deal for Britain" - what exactly does that mean ?
Whatever he wants it to mean. I genuinely doubt we will see a referendum in this parliament (and hope we don't). Cameron's off before the next election anyway so whoever takes over just plays the Blame Dave card.
Why don't you think the referendum will happen in 2017, only the Guardian today, along with the rest of the press seem pretty certain its a major issue for the new Government.
It will be THE defining issue for this government.
So not the NHS now?
Firstly, I've never said that was the case and secondly it's all connected innit! Just having the run up to the referendum is going to give the city and big business the jitters and if I were looking to invest in a base in the EU I wouldn't choose the UK right now, hence there's a knock on effect on growth and GDP.
Spot on. Honda in Swindon and Nissan in Sunderland would also question their location if they end up outside the free trade zone with huge implications for UK jobs. As you say, new companies will put plans on hold before considering the UK as an access route to European markets.
I see your point regarding the necessity to pre arrange an in vote. Anything else would be a disaster. I do think some control of free movement will be the crux of those discussions with the continent.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was their fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Why do people think the EU referendum will make UKIP go away?
No matter what Cameron negotiates, either theoretical or real-world, would be rejected by them, and it's likely that they would be the only major party advocating a vote to leave the EU. In a referendum, that means they would be involved in almost every debate about the matter (whether they're on the panel or not). If they are on the losing side, they might be able to use the momentum of the campaign to build a party base and membership and speak to those who voted with them. In time for the next election, they could have say 40% of the electorate sympathetic to them.
That's how the Scottish referendum worked. The SNP were on the losing side, but they were the only party there, so pro-independence campaigners & voters naturally moved towards Sturgeon. They turned 45% of the vote last year into 50% of the vote this year and swept the board - even in pro-Union cities like Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The SNP had advantages that UKIP would not have, both in terms of their existing political power, the popularity of their leaders, and the type of message they would be sending (a UKIP 'leave the EU' campaign would be different to a SNP 'leave the UK' campaign). But the referendum will give them an opportunity.
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
What you mean like the Scottish independence one has solved that pesky issue? ;-)
I imagine Scots have no interest in being dragged into another horrible campaign so soon and the SNP are hopefully smart enough to keep their irons in the fire for now. Another call for a referendum in the next 10 years will guarantee a backlash from people at having to go through that again.
Has Cameron ever clarified exactly what it is he wants to negotiate with the EU on ? I keep hearing "a fairer deal for Britain" - what exactly does that mean ?
Whatever he wants it to mean. I genuinely doubt we will see a referendum in this parliament (and hope we don't). Cameron's off before the next election anyway so whoever takes over just plays the Blame Dave card.
Why don't you think the referendum will happen in 2017, only the Guardian today, along with the rest of the press seem pretty certain its a major issue for the new Government.
It will be THE defining issue for this government.
So not the NHS now?
Firstly, I've never said that was the case and secondly it's all connected innit! Just having the run up to the referendum is going to give the city and big business the jitters and if I were looking to invest in a base in the EU I wouldn't choose the UK right now, hence there's a knock on effect on growth and GDP.
Spot on. Honda in Swindon and Nissan in Sunderland would also question their location if they end up outside the free trade zone with huge implications for UK jobs. As you say, new companies will put plans on hold before considering the UK as an access route to European markets.
I see your point regarding the necessity to pre arrange an in vote. Anything else would be a disaster. I do think some control of free movement will be the crux of those discussions with the continent.
I think we've found some common ground at last :-)
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Has Cameron ever clarified exactly what it is he wants to negotiate with the EU on ? I keep hearing "a fairer deal for Britain" - what exactly does that mean ?
Whatever he wants it to mean. I genuinely doubt we will see a referendum in this parliament (and hope we don't). Cameron's off before the next election anyway so whoever takes over just plays the Blame Dave card.
Why don't you think the referendum will happen in 2017, only the Guardian today, along with the rest of the press seem pretty certain its a major issue for the new Government.
It will be THE defining issue for this government.
So not the NHS now?
Firstly, I've never said that was the case and secondly it's all connected innit! Just having the run up to the referendum is going to give the city and big business the jitters and if I were looking to invest in a base in the EU I wouldn't choose the UK right now, hence there's a knock on effect on growth and GDP.
Spot on. Honda in Swindon and Nissan in Sunderland would also question their location if they end up outside the free trade zone with huge implications for UK jobs. As you say, new companies will put plans on hold before considering the UK as an access route to European markets.
I see your point regarding the necessity to pre arrange an in vote. Anything else would be a disaster. I do think some control of free movement will be the crux of those discussions with the continent.
I think we've found some common ground at last :-)
I'm sure there's loads if we look for it. Shall we start a "which theology is best" thread and see how that goes? ;-)
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
What you mean like the Scottish independence one has solved that pesky issue? ;-)
I imagine Scots have no interest in being dragged into another horrible campaign so soon and the SNP are hopefully smart enough to keep their irons in the fire for now. Another call for a referendum in the next 10 years will guarantee a backlash from people at having to go through that again.
Don't you think if the in/out referendum happens in 2017 then we will see the perfect moment for a Scottish independence push? That would be my aim if I was in SNP HQ
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
What you mean like the Scottish independence one has solved that pesky issue? ;-)
I imagine Scots have no interest in being dragged into another horrible campaign so soon and the SNP are hopefully smart enough to keep their irons in the fire for now. Another call for a referendum in the next 10 years will guarantee a backlash from people at having to go through that again.
Don't you think if the in/out referendum happens in 2017 then we will see the perfect moment for a Scottish independence push? That would be my aim if I was in SNP HQ
Sturgeon said there wouldn't be another refferendum "this generation" unless there was a major change in the UK and agreed that a vote to leave the EU could constitute such a change.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was their fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
What you mean like the Scottish independence one has solved that pesky issue? ;-)
I imagine Scots have no interest in being dragged into another horrible campaign so soon and the SNP are hopefully smart enough to keep their irons in the fire for now. Another call for a referendum in the next 10 years will guarantee a backlash from people at having to go through that again.
Your original point was that the EU referendum is "to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP". If the intention of the Scottish referendum was anything similar (and I believe that was part of the thinking in allowing it), then it obviously didn't work.
The whole campaign was bungled on the pro-Union side, and that's something that's even more likely to happen in an EU referendum.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
I think Fiiish's comment about "declawing" UKIP with regard to Cameron offering an in / out referendum is absolutely correct.
When was the offer made ? 18 months, 2 years ago ? It was a knee jerk reaction to the rise of UKIP and the Tory realisation that in all probability that they (the Tories) were more likely to lose votes to Farage than Labour.
I bet he regrets that decision now. It's going to hang like a cloud over this parliament and is a real problem for business confidence and therefore the growth of the economy.
I need to look it up but I'm fairly certain that the terms of the referendum were promised as in or out. That's very dangerous for the country and the government.
Can you imagine how big business will react to an out vote facilitated by a conservative government.
My best guess is that Cameron will drag out the negotiations with the complicity of Merkel and Hollande to make it impossible to hold a referendum on his watch. He'll be happy to pass the baton on.
The whole mess is of his own making and now he's between a rock and a hard place.
And already the DWP have announced that they're looking to make changes to the Access to Work fund, that helps fund equipment and support to enable the most disabled people get into work. Bastards.
I'm confused about this fund. What does it pay for? Employers have a legal responsibility to provide the disabled with the facilities they need to do a job and to have accessibility and must not discriminate against the disabled. So is this some form of subsidy to employers rather than payments to disabled employees?
There has been an amendment by the independent added on the bottom of the article clarifying it is just a step closer to a review, not a policy.
The EU referendum isn't to get us to leave the EU, it's to put the issue to bed to declaw UKIP. I imagine the referendum will be drawn up in such a way as to either guarantee a Stay vote or that a Leave vote will have caveats.
I also know not all Tories want out the EU. This is an interesting issue amongst Tories because Cameron now has the balancing act of managing conflicting interests in his own party.
I just couldn't believe my boss yesterday. He is in now bang on Britain leaving the EU, citing some flimsy fishing rights we might get back and the opportunity for us to be world leaders in electric car manufacturing. I found it even more amazing that his mantra throughout the general election has been 'oh the economy'. Watch the economy struggle take a hit if we leave. I just found it amazing that as a business owner, who buys into the Tory strategy of wealth creation and admires other (bigger and better) businesses, is disregarding all this when wanting out the EU.
I have no issue with Britain negotiating/renegotiating terms, I just hope that all the people who have elected the Conservative government (presumably because of the economy), remember this when the vote takes place.
@Fiiish I'm not just singling out the Tories here, it is just that it's part of their manifesto so presumably their supporters are those that want out?
Outside of the Tory vote, I'm dreading which newspapers drum up outdated nationalistic rhetoric about Vikings invading us in King Alfred's time to demand an exit.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
My last comment as I haven't got the time or energy.
" After we"" who's the hell is we?? Is this the royal we or are you talking about you little group of coordinated supporters?
" and the mods" Actually they asked people to stop being abusive. My response was based upon two or three nasty little comments you snuck in last night - All of which are in keeping with your usual trolling activities
I refer all to my earlier email and bid you adieu.
Fiish you have been outed and you will continue to stir it up wherever you post.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
My last comment as I haven't got the time or energy.
" After we"" who's the hell is we?? Is this the royal we or are you talking about you little group of coordinated supporters?
" and the mods" Actually they asked people to stop being abusive. My response was based upon two or three nasty little comments you snuck in last night - All of which are in keeping with your usual trolling activities
I refer all to my earlier email and bid you adieu.
Fiish you have been outed and you will continue to stir it up wherever you post.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
My last comment as I haven't got the time or energy.
" After we"" who's the hell is we?? Is this the royal we or are you talking about you little group of coordinated supporters?
" and the mods" Actually they asked people to stop being abusive. My response was based upon two or three nasty little comments you snuck in last night - All of which are in keeping with your usual trolling activities
I refer all to my earlier email and bid you adieu.
Fiish you have been outed and you will continue to stir it up wherever you post.
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.
Wherever you post on Charlton Life you sow discord and otherwise reasonable posters end up being annoyed or engaging in heated arguments. Your posts are deliberately designed to produce this result ( either that or you have no EQ whatsoever). When people respond with annoyance to your initial posts you go in for the kill and try and make them feel as if it was thier fault. You also coordinate other posters responses off thread.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
Please don't carry this on for another day.
I have no intention of doing so. AFKA has already told them to stop, just flag them and ignore them.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Why do you and the rest of your lot still feel the need to carry this on, even after we and the mods have explicitly said 'drop it'? You realise none of you are any better since you make these retorts all the time.
I've not carried anything on. If you read back I didn't comment on this thread yesterday nor have I carried anything on. Re-post what I actually commented on before you edited it and we'll see if you've dropped the petty, arrogant crap that the mods have asked us all to cease. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Comments
As you say, new companies will put plans on hold before considering the UK as an access route to European markets.
I see your point regarding the necessity to pre arrange an in vote. Anything else would be a disaster. I do think some control of free movement will be the crux of those discussions with the continent.
Yesterday I and others were massively disappointed - You chose to deliberately wind people up and provoke a response and simply because you enjoyed it.
As for the calling us trolls and saying we are obsessed with you or that it's always everyone else's fault - That's all just projection of your own behaviour.
You are the epitome or troll and the definition you quote could have been based upon careful observation of your continued behaviour.
No matter what Cameron negotiates, either theoretical or real-world, would be rejected by them, and it's likely that they would be the only major party advocating a vote to leave the EU. In a referendum, that means they would be involved in almost every debate about the matter (whether they're on the panel or not). If they are on the losing side, they might be able to use the momentum of the campaign to build a party base and membership and speak to those who voted with them. In time for the next election, they could have say 40% of the electorate sympathetic to them.
That's how the Scottish referendum worked. The SNP were on the losing side, but they were the only party there, so pro-independence campaigners & voters naturally moved towards Sturgeon. They turned 45% of the vote last year into 50% of the vote this year and swept the board - even in pro-Union cities like Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The SNP had advantages that UKIP would not have, both in terms of their existing political power, the popularity of their leaders, and the type of message they would be sending (a UKIP 'leave the EU' campaign would be different to a SNP 'leave the UK' campaign). But the referendum will give them an opportunity.
And that's exactly the kind of retort that gets so many people's backs up.
*this was a response to the original, unedited post*
Seriously, let it go.
The whole campaign was bungled on the pro-Union side, and that's something that's even more likely to happen in an EU referendum.
When was the offer made ? 18 months, 2 years ago ? It was a knee jerk reaction to the rise of UKIP and the Tory realisation that in all probability that they (the Tories) were more likely to lose votes to Farage than Labour.
I bet he regrets that decision now. It's going to hang like a cloud over this parliament and is a real problem for business confidence and therefore the growth of the economy.
I need to look it up but I'm fairly certain that the terms of the referendum were promised as in or out. That's very dangerous for the country and the government.
Can you imagine how big business will react to an out vote facilitated by a conservative government.
My best guess is that Cameron will drag out the negotiations with the complicity of Merkel and Hollande to make it impossible to hold a referendum on his watch. He'll be happy to pass the baton on.
The whole mess is of his own making and now he's between a rock and a hard place.
I just couldn't believe my boss yesterday. He is in now bang on Britain leaving the EU, citing some flimsy fishing rights we might get back and the opportunity for us to be world leaders in electric car manufacturing. I found it even more amazing that his mantra throughout the general election has been 'oh the economy'. Watch the economy struggle take a hit if we leave. I just found it amazing that as a business owner, who buys into the Tory strategy of wealth creation and admires other (bigger and better) businesses, is disregarding all this when wanting out the EU.
I have no issue with Britain negotiating/renegotiating terms, I just hope that all the people who have elected the Conservative government (presumably because of the economy), remember this when the vote takes place.
@Fiiish I'm not just singling out the Tories here, it is just that it's part of their manifesto so presumably their supporters are those that want out?
Outside of the Tory vote, I'm dreading which newspapers drum up outdated nationalistic rhetoric about Vikings invading us in King Alfred's time to demand an exit.
" After we"" who's the hell is we?? Is this the royal we or are you talking about you little group of coordinated supporters?
" and the mods" Actually they asked people to stop being abusive. My response was based upon two or three nasty little comments you snuck in last night - All of which are in keeping with your usual trolling activities
I refer all to my earlier email and bid you adieu.
Fiish you have been outed and you will continue to stir it up wherever you post.
TTFN
Is it all over now then ?
I've not carried anything on. If you read back I didn't comment on this thread yesterday nor have I carried anything on. Re-post what I actually commented on before you edited it and we'll see if you've dropped the petty, arrogant crap that the mods have asked us all to cease. Hypocrisy at it's finest.