Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 I know. That is the point. The point is that the bigger you are the more you demand, the stronger you are. That's economics. The UK would be weaker traders on their own than within the EU. Fact! Being able to freely negotiate trade deals with emerging markets rather than plough on with stagnating markets would be smart economics
Alf Bentley Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 Malta is in the EU. Correct! One quiz point to Webbo. One of my most pointless abilities is the ability to name the countries of the EU and predecessors (Nigel would love me) in order of accession... Here, with no cheating (honest) & guesstimated years of accession: - France, Germany (W), Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy (6) - 1950s - UK, Ireland, Denmark (9) - 1973 - Greece (10) - 1980 - Spain & Portugal (12) - 1982 - Sweden, Finland & Austria (15) - 1995 - Czech Rep, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Cyprus (25) - 2002 - Romania & Bulgaria (27) - 2009 - Croatia (28) - 2013 In case Tory/UKIP propagandists get to you...these are the qualities that a grammar school education brings you - pointless memory! I used to be able to impress my (Irish Republican) Grandpa by knowing the family tree of the royal family from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II (added Egbert the Saxon onwards after his death). Unfortunately, I've destroyed some of that important knowledge with booze now.....
Rincewind Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 I saw somewhere that a lot of the things that people complain about being in the EU would still exist if Britain were not a part of it as they are not EU rules but UN. I cannot give details but I am sure somebody will know more about it than me. I have tried to reduce my contribution to this thread as others are doing a fine and interesting job from all POV's.
bovril Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 Correct! One quiz point to Webbo. One of my most pointless abilities is the ability to name the countries of the EU and predecessors (Nigel would love me) in order of accession... Here, with no cheating (honest) & guesstimated years of accession: - France, Germany (W), Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy (6) - 1950s - UK, Ireland, Denmark (9) - 1973 - Greece (10) - 1980 - Spain & Portugal (12) - 1982 - Sweden, Finland & Austria (15) - 1995 - Czech Rep, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Cyprus (25) - 2002 - Romania & Bulgaria (27) - 2009 - Croatia (28) - 2013 In case Tory/UKIP propagandists get to you...these are the qualities that a grammar school education brings you - pointless memory! I used to be able to impress my (Irish Republican) Grandpa by knowing the family tree of the royal family from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II (added Egbert the Saxon onwards after his death). Unfortunately, I've destroyed some of that important knowledge with booze now..... 2007
LJS Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 Week one done and almost no change in the polls at all. A ten poll rolling average (all polls post-dissolution) gives us: CON 33.9 LAB 33.8 UKIP 14.2 LIB DEM 8.0 GRN 4.8 The Tories and Labour are both falling ever so slightly, UKIP and the Lib Dems are on the up, whilst the Greens are fading fast. Two England only polls conducted this week both give the Tories a one point English lead. They won England by 11.5% last time so that's very bad news for Cameron's gang. It would point to around 60 losses to Labour which would leave the latter comfortably the largest party even with 30ish losses to the SNP north of the border. Nothing seems to be shifting the polls in any appreciable way. Seats-wise we are still looking at roughly: Labour 280-290 Conservatives 260-270 Lib Dems 20-30 UKIP 1-4 Greens 1 SNP 40-50 My own feeling is that we'll see a bit of movement towards the Tories as the campaign goes on, probably with them ending up as the largest party but with nobody to govern with. Whatever happens it's going to be fascinating and the post-election period will probably be more interesting than the election itself.
BlueSi13 Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 Week one done and almost no change in the polls at all. A ten poll rolling average (all polls post-dissolution) gives us: CON 33.9 LAB 33.8 UKIP 14.2 LIB DEM 8.0 GRN 4.8 The Tories and Labour are both falling ever so slightly, UKIP and the Lib Dems are on the up, whilst the Greens are fading fast. Two England only polls conducted this week both give the Tories a one point English lead. They won England by 11.5% last time so that's very bad news for Cameron's gang. It would point to around 60 losses to Labour which would leave the latter comfortably the largest party even with 30ish losses to the SNP north of the border. Nothing seems to be shifting the polls in any appreciable way. Seats-wise we are still looking at roughly: Labour 280-290 Conservatives 260-270 Lib Dems 20-30 UKIP 1-4 Greens 1 SNP 40-50 My own feeling is that we'll see a bit of movement towards the Tories as the campaign goes on, probably with them ending up as the largest party but with nobody to govern with. Whatever happens it's going to be fascinating and the post-election period will probably be more interesting than the election itself. As I've mentioned before on here, only ever voted Labour in the past. But for the life of me I am both shocked and baffled by their apparent popularity in the polls this election. Imagine what the polls would look like if the economy was still in the gutter, if they had some tangible policies and had a leader and shadow chancellor who weren't completely ridiculed by the majority of the population!
Guest Bilo Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/george-galloway-big-twitter-fight-5458041 I honestly think the bloke has some mental health issue. He's gone from tearing the Senate a new one to swearing at teenagers and reporting a brewery to the police for calling him names in under a decade. That's not to mention the narcissism, that has somehow gotten even worse, and the oddly regressive attitude to sexual consent. Is he even liked in Bradford? Who even votes for him?!
Alf Bentley Posted 4 April 2015 Posted 4 April 2015 2007 OK, OK! You're not old, drunk, exhilarated and prattish (as far as I'm aware) - and you are in Bulgaria. That's not a fair contest!
bovril Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 OK, OK! You're not old, drunk, exhilarated and prattish (as far as I'm aware) - and you are in Bulgaria. That's not a fair contest! I was quite drunk and I needed my partner to tell me anyway.
Guest Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Its not a fact at all, its not known, as since the EU has existed we have always be a part of it. That's not economics at all, that's gibberish. You don't seen to have any idea what you're talking about and if you do, you're awful at articulating it. Being able to freely negotiate trade deals with emerging markets rather than plough on with stagnating markets would be smart economics I now understand why I created a company and made a million pound turnover in 4 years, then was able to move abroad and live a life of leisure and you three clearly haven't.
SMX11 Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 I know. That is the point. The point is that the bigger you are the more you demand, the stronger you are. That's economics. The UK would be weaker traders on their own than within the EU. Fact! If that is true why do we lag behind smaller no eu countries in terms of free trade agreements?
Buce Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Children 'living in Victorian poverty' say teachers: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32181848 Another damning indictment of austerity.
Strokes Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Children 'living in Victorian poverty' say teachers: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32181848 Another damning indictment of austerity. It was not a representative sample of teachers, but among those replying more than two in three reported seeing pupils come to school hungryYeah pretty damning that
Buce Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 It was not a representative sample of teachers, but among those replying more than two in three reported seeing pupils come to school hungry Yeah pretty damning that How typical of the right's blinkered 'I'm all right, Jack' attitude. I expected better of you, Strokes.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 I honestly think the bloke has some mental health issue. He's gone from tearing the Senate a new one to swearing at teenagers and reporting a brewery to the police for calling him names in under a decade. That's not to mention the narcissism, that has somehow gotten even worse, and the oddly regressive attitude to sexual consent. Is he even liked in Bradford? Who even votes for him?! The Pakistani community I believe, since the party he stands for are anti-war.
Guest Bilo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 The Pakistani community I believe, since the party he stands for are anti-war. I hardly think any party is pro war these days. Miliband pretty much prevented us from using air strikes to support the group that would become ISIS, whereas Cameron was all for us launching air strikes on Assad. I honestly think that the overwhelming majority of his voters are simply too thick to look into alternatives.
Guest Bilo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 being anti-war is thick? Yeah, because that's exactly what I said. Jesus.
The Doctor Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 I honestly think the bloke has some mental health issue. He's gone from tearing the Senate a new one to swearing at teenagers and reporting a brewery to the police for calling him names in under a decade. That's not to mention the narcissism, that has somehow gotten even worse, and the oddly regressive attitude to sexual consent. Is he even liked in Bradford? Who even votes for him?! I don't know a single person in Bradford who likes him. I expect his votes come from the Muslim community given how much he panders to them (that they're the biggest community in Bradford West is of course, entirely coincidental).
Rincewind Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Yeah, because that's exactly what I said. Jesus. It is just how I interpreted your reply to the quoted post saying the ones he represented were anti-war and your reply saying they must be thick. My reply was also slightly tongue in cheek. I meant no offence. I am bored and caught up with posts. Maybe I should watch the recording of MotD now before I make any moresilly comments.
Guest Bilo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 I don't know a single person in Bradford who likes him. I expect his votes come from the Muslim community given how much he panders to them (that they're the biggest community in Bradford West is of course, entirely coincidental). It's bizarre. From what I can see; the man does nothing for Bradford except drag the place into disrepute whenever he does or says something stupid, and even then he has his odd fan club queuing up to defend him.
Buce Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 I hardly think any party is pro war these days. Miliband pretty much prevented us from using air strikes to support the group that would become ISIS, whereas Cameron was all for us launching air strikes on Assad. I honestly think that the overwhelming majority of his voters are simply too thick to look into alternatives. You completely contradict yourself: you say 'hardly any party is pro-war', then follow it up by saying Cameron wanted to bomb Assad. And that was after he spent hundreds of millions of 'hard-working families' taxes bombing Gaddafi (that turned out well...)
The Doctor Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 You completely contradict yourself: you say 'hardly any party is pro-war', then follow it up by saying Cameron wanted to bomb Assad. And that was after he spent hundreds of millions of 'hard-working families' taxes bombing Gaddafi (that turned out well...) Cameron wanted to but didn't a lot of tory back-benchers rebel against that?
MooseBreath Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Children 'living in Victorian poverty' say teachers: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32181848 Another damning indictment of austerity. How do you know it's a damning indictment of austerity? Maybe if they'd have conducted this 'study' (clearly there was no academic rigour here whatsoever but I don't know what else to call it) during the boom years some teachers would have reported the same, or worse? This is just another example of the desperate left, or in this case a teachers union who of course stand to benefit directly from a labour win, simply inventing problems this election season. It makes me feel quite sad that people will probably actually be duped by crap like that and it makes me angry that I've paid for that bias crap reporting with my license fee, and I will be making a complaint to the BBC.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.