Jump to content

EU Referendum


Rabbie
 Share

Recommended Posts

W/B wrote,

 

What a load of devious underhand nonsense

these arguments for Brexit are; anything to twist and turn and try to hide the

fact that they are at heart racist and nationalistic, a little Englanders

mentality which seems to regard the Europeans as stupid and unable to think ot

react for themselves for others and the Brits a somehow superior. Well, luvvies,

the Brits aint and noone cares a *** what they do.

 

Well for someone who claims not to care a ***

about Brexit, you sure do spent a lot of your time expressing your views. I am

not interested in football, never really could see why people would spend so

much time on it, but that's their choice, and as it does not harm me, I just

ignore it completely, I don't spend hours going on about how I don't like the

game, I just accept many people enjoy it, and find it important in their lives

and get on with what is of interest to me.

Life is too short to spend on

subjects which you are not bothered about. I most certainly would not spend my

time trying to change their minds, or slagging their game off to

them.

 

I know there was a short thread on this

subject, but that was just banter among a like minded group who spent  a few

minutes of their time posting.

 

If I had posted the same post as you have just

done, word for word, except changed Brits to Pakistani / Indian's ? African's, (

TYP) then it would have been shot down as racist, but say those things about the

Brits, then its OK in your mind,  I guess.

 

With regard to the comment that the Brits

somehow think they are superior, I would say this is more to do with your own

personal interpretation then anything else. You cannot make someone think you

are superior, that has to be something the other person has to feel. I cant say

that I have ever thought that the Brits do think that, but I guess

being a Brit, I would not.

 

I may, if you don't mind me pointing out

however, that you are posting on a forum run by Brits, and using an internet

invented by one.  [Www]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

R/H wrote,

it only matters that he is racist when he decides he wants to become President ?

I ask again, as you like using the racist word about Mr T, what has he said that makes you think he is racist?????

As you may or may not know, being a mod, I had a PM, claiming my posts were racist, I asked the person who sent it, on several occations over the past month, to point me to what in that thread I had said which was racist, guess what, no reply from them!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Chancer wrote,

I am not usually in agreement with your comments

Ebaynut or perhaps the delivery of them but respect your views, the above is

bang on the money and that is coming from someone who says those things word for

word.

I have not voted however, I am not the slightest

bit interestd in the outcome and especially all the arguments, I will cope with

whatever way it swings but my Jack is alright as  have a foothold and enough

income in either country.

so without getting involved in the politics of

it your observation is spot on as is your comment on the irony.

 

Well thank you for your post, funny enough, there

are many things you have posted over the years, long before you were named

Chancer by the much missed Ron Avery, which I am in complete

agreement on, except for one, but we both know what that is.

Whatever happened to your friend who run the

Chateau, and proudly showed on this forum the work he had done to it, only to be

torn apart by people who would not have had the balls to do it themselves? You

did mention him on the thread regarding  Dick Strawbridge and the current TV

programme?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ebaynut, I have neither the time nor the inclination to plough through Mr Trump's utterances but he does seem to have a strong appeal among the redneck white supremacists. This together with his utterances on banning all muslims and building a wall give me the strong impression that he certainly has racist tendencies somewhat stronger than those expressed in many a bar in Britain. You do not need to listen for very long in the UK to hear casual remarks that are racists. I would be very surprised if Mr Trump would condemn these types of remarks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Trump is not a racist? Try

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

So, Trump is an upright and honest citizen? Try

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-university-fraud-suit-to-go-to-trial-judge-rules-1461707442

(grateful is someone could make the links active)

As usual, ebaynut, no attempt to deal with the issues. I was not referring to whether I cared about what the Brits do but what the rest of the world thought, and, believe me, they do not give a fig for what Britain does as she doesn't count much more than a heap of beans in the new world order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="ebaynut"]

 Well thank you for your post, funny enough, there are many things you have posted over the years, long before you were named Chancer by the much missed Ron Avery, which I am in complete agreement on, except for one, but we both know what that is.

Whatever happened to your friend who run the Chateau, and proudly showed on this forum the work he had done to it, only to be torn apart by people who would not have had the balls to do it themselves? You did mention him on the thread regarding  Dick Strawbridge and the current TV programme?.

[/quote]

 

I cant think what the disagreement was, you may remember but I have forgotten, as you say life is too short.

 

The guy with the château split from his Partner, the owner, she still has it and rents it to high end clients, it is still in superb condition has had a pool built and the adjoining buildings converted, I hope to revisit it one day.

 

I made no mention of it as it was he that posted on internet forums and I respect her wish for privacy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy h4 wrote,

Ebaynut

Immigration - and I promise

not to play the race card

 

Thank you for a good set of

questions, I will try to asnwer some below for you.

From the strength of your post and your statement that the UK could

tailor the number of immigrants to those that it needed and could handle, I

assume (and I could be wrong) that you would favour a significant reduction from

the levels that are currently in the UK.

 

You are correct in your assumption.

Let us

assume that were possible (and forget about the Vienna Convention and whether

that may or may not apply - I actually doubt it does). So if you could be in

control of the current migrants, who would you be sending back home?

 

Anyone who has a criminal record. Anyone who commits a

crime in the UK. Anyone who cannot show a legitimate source of income to support

their lifestyle. Anyone who has not had employment after three months, for

starters.

Personally, I would then like to see anyone who has not

lived in the UK for at least 15 years, and is not from the original common

market area removed, but I know this will not happen, but as I said this my own view.

I ask this in all seriousness, because as far as I can see immigration

is going to go in the other direction.

The NHS will be receiving a lot

more money, but the UK does not have the number of nurses, doctors and technical

staff to cope now, let alone with more hospitals, surgeries etc.. So I see

immigration as the solution.

 

For a starter we should treat our present health workers

better. The latest tussle between Mr Hunt and the junior doctors is a

disgrace, many of these young doctors, who have cost the country

much money to train are now heading for Australia, and who can blame them they

way the government treat them.

I was talking only last week to a nurse at the largest

hospital in Cambridge where we are regular visitors, she told me that the NHS no

longer provides tea or coffee for the staff, even the top docs,

have to supply their own. They all have to pay £2.50 a day to park at their

place of work, she told me that she even has to buy pens, as the NHS will no

longer supply them. When her children leave school, she will leave the NHS she

tells me, as the way it is now she fells there is no point in carrying on in

that field.

When the government can get immigrants to work for

minimum wage, and as many are prepared to live in small rooms, so they can sent

some of the money they earn to their families overseas, they will have no need

to pay British workers the money they need to live a decent

life.

More is going to be spent on schools and education, but the

UK does not produce enough teachers - in fact for several years there have been

vacant places in teacher training courses. Such is the way governments have

degraded a profession to a handle turning exercise where STATS and GCSEs are the

only success criteria. So extra teachers will come from where? Immigration?

 

Many Many good teachers have left because of the work

conditions imposed by governments, one lady I know was a head

teacher in a large school in Harlow Essex, she tells me that with all the

children entering school these days, are large percentage are from overseas,

many cannot even speak basic English, some do not even know how to use a toilet,

so much of their time is spent on these basic things, so the poor old English

kids get left to play while teacher spends time on a few. She was

looking for another career path, and she had been a teacher all her life, must

have cost a fortune again to train, but value her, no, just let her go. If we treated

teachers properly there would soon be enough home grown ones to cope with the

English children.

Who is going to work in the fields on a cold

December day picking the vegetables for Christmas? Brits do not seem to want to

do it. Or are we going to force the population into the fields against their

will? Pol Pot tried that and it was not the greatest success.

 

When I was young, it was always the traveling community

who worked the fields around Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, ( which is why to

this day there are large numbers of travellers in these areas)  but what

happened there ? they were paid small amounts as you would expect, so many

claimed benefits and at the time there was not working credits,

just unemployment benefit, so they claimed this while earing a few pounds on the

side. What happened, well in went the government agency's, and took them to

court, result was no workers on the fields, then came the chance to bring in

people from overseas, to who what was a poor wage to a UK worker, was huge to

them, so came they did. I don't blame them, it was all part of the government

plan. Let the fields stay empty for all I care,  if the farmer paid a proper

wage, it would attract more workers, so the only winners in this low paid game

is the rich farmer.

So who would you be sending home? And don't

say the illegals because they get sent home anyway when the have been found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W/B wrote,

 

So, Trump is not a racist? Try http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83 So, Trump is an upright and honest citizen? Try

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-university-fraud-suit-to-go-to-trial-judge-rules-1461707442 (grateful is someone could make the links active) As

usual, ebaynut, no attempt to deal with the issues. I was not referring to

whether I cared about what the Brits do but what the rest of the world thought,

and, believe me, they do not give a fig for what Britain does as she doesn't

count much more than a heap of beans in the new world order.

 

Ah quotes from the ‘Huff’ you sure must be

scrapping low to post from that diverse’ source. If you had read my

post, it was not addressed to you, or asking for quotes, it was asking a

straight question to a specific member on their view.

 

Well if the ROTW does not care a fig what the

UK does, why do they keep on about why we should stay, according to you, you

would think they would be as glad to lose us as I would be to

separate from them??

 

Someone also mentioned the UKIP posters, great

don't you think, showing streams of migrants entering the EU, nice to know my

donation to the party is being put to good use.  [:P]

 

And no, I don't think for one

minute the UK will leave the EU, even if the majority vote to leave, the

government will find a way to keep us in, too many brown

envelopes’ handed out for them to allow the UK to leave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone should see this ... pass it on .... it's the best factual response about the EU I have heard

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20/eu-law-expert-responds-industrial-dishonesty-video-goes-viral/

Sorry don't know how to make it live ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, given the criteria laid out above, how the lucky immigrants who might be accepted into the Greater Britain would be chosen, assuming several equally qualified candidates for the same post or usefulness and benefit to the UK (perhaps, in fact, England alone)? Would they all be tall and blonde with blue eyes? Or golfers?

What would happen to these people who might interact with an English person and, dare I say it, breed? Would they be allowed to stay or would the family be split at the end of the work contract?

Frankly the logical conclusion of the programme suggested above by ebaynut is alarming in the extreme.

I am in London for a few days and must say how much I am enjoying the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the city and the people I interact with; they make life a pleasure. Oh, by the way, thus far, not one of them seems to be British born and bred, judging by their accents. It would be such a pity to lose this to arrant nationalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'est vrai qu'ils sont plaisants, tous ces petits villages,

Tous ces bourgs, ces hameaux, ces lieux-dits, ces cités

Avec leurs châteaux forts, leurs églises, leurs plages,

Ils n'ont qu'un seul point faible et c'est d'être habités.

Et c'est d'être habités par des gens qui regardent

Le reste avec mépris du haut de leurs remparts,

La race des chauvins, des porteurs de cocardes,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part.

Maudits soient ces enfants de leur mère patrie

Empalés une fois pour tout's sur leur clocher,

Qui vous montrent leurs tours, leurs musé’s, leur mairie,

Vous font voir du pays natal jusqu'à loucher.

Qu'ils sortent de Paris, ou de Rome, ou de Sète,

Ou du diable vauvert ou de Zanzibar,

Ou même de Montcuq, ils s'en flattent mazette,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part.

Le sable dans lequel, douillettes, leurs autruches

Enfouissent la tête, on trouve pas plus fin,

Quant à l'air qu'ils emploient pour gonfler leurs baudruches,

Leurs bulles de savon, c'est du souffle divin.

Et, petit à petit, les voilà qui se montent

Le cou jusqu'à penser que le crottin fait par

Les chevaux, même en bois, rend jaloux tout le monde,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part.

C'est pas un lieu commun celui de leur naissance,

Ils plaignent de tout coeur les pauvres malchanceux,

Les petits maladroits qui n'eur’nt pas la présence,

La présence d'esprit de voir le jour chez eux.

Quand sonne le tocsin sur leur bonheur précaire,

Contre les étrangers tous plus ou moins barbares,

Ils sortent de leur trou pour mourir à la guerre,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part.

Mon dieu, qu'il ferait bon sur la terre des hommes

Si on n'y rencontrait cette race incongru’,

Cette race importune et qui partout foisonne :

La race des gens du terroir, des gens du cru.

Que la vi’ serait belle en toutes circonstances

Si vous n'aviez tiré du néant tous ces jobards,

Preuve, peut-être bien, de votre inexistence :

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part,

Les imbécil’s heureux qui sont nés quelque part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WscVYSu-O2w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R/H,

Here is your link, I have read it, and I would say its fair comment.

I would point to the part which states the EOE is more likely to vote to leave than those in London. I fully agree with this statement, most of London has been taken over by immigrants so would expect nothing else.

This is because, has W/B has pointed out above, he has not seen a 'British born and bred'  face on his current trip to our capial, the reason of course is that is anyone who is English and cant afford to live in the 'westminster village' has long moved out, except the really really poor.

The good thing is a lot of London town is still owened by Brits, stacking their accounts on super high rents, so its not all bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W/B wrote,

I wonder, given the criteria laid out above,

how the lucky immigrants who might be accepted into the Greater Britain would be

chosen, assuming several equally qualified candidates for the same post or

usefulness and benefit to the UK (perhaps, in fact, England alone)? Would they

all be tall and blonde with blue eyes? Or golfers?

 

Well, lets say, it would not hurt their

chances.

What would happen to these people who might interact with an English

person and, dare I say it, breed? Would they be allowed to stay or would the

family be split at the end of the work contract?

 

No, they would all be free to leave the UK and stay

together after contracts end. It would be unfair and inhumane to suggest

otherwise.

Frankly the logical conclusion of the programme suggested above by

ebaynut is alarming in the extreme.

 

You have not seen plan ‘B’

yet!!!!!!!!!!!!  [Www]

I am in London for a few days and must say how

much I am enjoying the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the city and the people I

interact with; they make life a pleasure. Oh, by the way, thus far, not one of

them seems to be British born and bred, judging by their accents. It would be

such a pity to lose this to arrant nationalism.

 

I am sure you fit in nicely in todays ‘diverse’

capital.  I believe (and I may be wrong) that the correct etiquette to

address people in London these days  is ‘ please don't hurt me, here is my

wallet and my I phone, please take it’

 

 It looks like the weather may be slightly better today,

I hope you enjoy your trip.   I hear Bobby Geldof is running boat trips by the

palace of Westminster, perhaps that would be worth a look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Ebaynut, you confirm that the policies that you support are nothing short of white supremist apartheid. I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but don't try to kid anyone that they are anything else.

London has been a multicultural city founded by generations of immigrants of various sorts since the Romans..who built it.

Last time I went to London, a year ago, I was extremely well looked after. Taking the train to Slough I was probably one of only two non-Muslim's in my carriage. They gave me a seat, looked up the train times for me, made sure I new where to get off and helped me off with my bag. (It did make me feel old but they were so sweet I didn't feel I could get offended). The only other non-Muslim in the carriage sat there drinking a can of lager and scowling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have posted the following with the permission of the writer, they are not my word, but I agree with them.

''I have found the entire debate profoundly depressing. The media coverage has simply intensified that feeling. Both sides have produced dud numbers and fatuous arguments; very few journalists seem capable of rigorous interview and many columnists, most of all Toynbee, seem to inhabit a world that I do not recognise. I approach Thursday with one overwhelming thought, and that is that politics in the UK is broken and that must change. Now.

I think that the current political failure exists in great depth throughout the system. It starts with the classification of left and right which would be better expressed as a split between authoritarian or libertarian. The structuring of political parties does not help, the creation of professional politicians, and indeed political dynasties (Kinnock, Benn, Churchill), has lowered quality. The largely LibDem creation of the MP as a social worker adds further confusion. Add in sound bite politics and the application of mass marketing techniques to stimulate emotional responses to what is supposed to be an intellectual process and the current mess is explicable. I shall return to it in subsequent posts.

The fundamental point about Thursday’s vote is that it is a choice between two possible futures – both of which are uncertain to an immeasurable degree. Once all the economic forth is discarded (any forecast that comes without a measure of how likely it is while claiming accuracies of 1% or less is clearly drivel – or intended to deceive) the question becomes one of how you prefer to be governed. If it is by directly elected politicians who regularly submit themselves and their policies to a plebiscite, then you prefer out. If you think it better to rely on an appointed elite to set policy, then vote in.

A huge amount has been made of access to the single market, most of which has been bilge. I have done my own research on this (you can too – Google is your friend and World Bank is pretty impartial and comprehensible). In 2014 the UK GDP was about £2,000 billion. Of that about 28% was exports, of which about 44% went to EU. The value of our exports to EU was thus about £246 Bn. The trade weighted average import tariff of our largest EU partners is 1.5%. Thus the import tariffs that would have been paid on these exports is about £3.7 billion (I’m rounding figures up and sensibly). Out net contribution (i.e. after rebates, CAP payments and one off grants) to the EU in 2014 was £7.1 billion, so we are actually paying almost £2 in cash for every £1 of tariff that we save. That makes no sense to anyone other than a politician.

Moreover, there is no such thing (for an exporter) as a single market. A product that sells is France is unlikely to sell in Germany without some modification– for a start the instruction manual will need to be in a different language. Moreover, the marketing and advertising will be completely different. Our largest single export partner is the United States, followed by Germany, Netherlands Switzerland and France. Exports to US are twice the size of exports to France.

In terms of growth (i.e. which export markets are likely to be larger in future) the Eurozone is stagnating at about 0.3%. The future lies in Asia, where growth rates are 5% plus. The EU is, increasingly, a backwater. Worse than that, the (self-inflicted) problems of the Euro mean that the EU’s future is far from certain. At least some of the commercial establishment wants to stay in. Why? Because EU regulation is a barrier to entry, and thus protects the current incumbents. That does not make it the right decision for the UK (nor actually the right long term decision for the current incumbents, but then famously the City doesn’t do long term). Why would any country, let alone the 5th largest economy in the world and the world’s financial centre want to pay to retain access to a market that has near zero growth and a currency time bomb?

We come now to migration. The simple, unadorned fact is that the UK has failed to get a grip of migration for years. Moreover, the debate has long been poisoned by halfwit politicians and commentators who can’t discern between nationalism and racism, let alone accept that the former is as essential to understanding what is going on as the latter is abhorrent. However, even if we did get a grip, we would not be able to regulate the flow from the EU, which is about half (although many suspect that this is an underestimate) or 160,000 per year. That is because the EU requires the free movement of labour. Restricting movement in any way requires us to leave.

So, is migration a good or a bad thing? Well, it depends. If a job needs filling and it can’t be filled by UK resident, using a migrant enables growth. Which is a good thing, but how good depends on what that migrant does with his or her pay. A UK national will spend and invest most of their pay inside the UK. That pay therefore gets recycled as further growth for the recipients of that spend. Economists call this the multiplier effect and it is a fundamental part of growth and it has exponential tendencies (the extra income for the food seller comes out as profit, which then gets reinvested etc). However, if that migrant chooses to live packed into a room, spend as little as possible and send the rest of his money to his home country then the multiplier effect is much reduced. The overall effect is still good, but not as good as using a UK resident. If you then consider the additional burdens on infrastructure (housing, transport, water, education, health) some costs will accrue. Again, if the worker is spending some or all of his or her wealth in the UK it probably covers it. As money is repatriated then the tax take (through 20% VAT on sales) diminishes and the net gain becomes harder to measure.

Is uncontrolled migration a problem at the moment? It depends where you live and how much you earn. In some areas it certainly is. Is future migration potentially a problem? Well, the UK has a very high standard of living compared to those countries that have recently joined or are about to join the EU. That would imply that their people will come here seeking work. Now, Cameron’s reforms (note that these are actually future reforms because they do not yet exist in EU law and there is no guarantee that they will). And note that those reforms rather rely on the Border Service trying to find and deport unemployed EU migrants after they have been in UK for 6 months. It is a recipe for yet more failure. If you wish to control who lives in the UK then you need to vote out.

And don’t listen to the drivel that voting our means that we’ll be short of labour. Controlled immigration is not zero immigration. It works in US, Australia and in fact most of the rest of the world. Note also, as I showed above, that leaving the single market would actually save the UK money. So if the choice is between controlled immigration and single market membership, out is the way to go.

So that’s democracy, economic management and immigration. That really only leaves security and ex-pats. The latter is simple. No EU member state has said that it will take any action against any UK nationals resident in their country. Reason? Well firstly it would make no sense and secondly EU law would make it very, very difficult. It is a non-issue.

Moving on to security. Firstly, let’s just remember that the reason for peace in Europe (well, northern Europe at least) is NATO and nuclear weapons. And thinking about it, it took NATO (not the EU) to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. To argue that our membership of the EU is important to NATO or our security is drivel. We were NATO members long before we joined the EEC and NATO was formed long before the fore-runners of the EEC. Moreover, the current EU military capability is risible. Any future one (and there is one) will be equally risible as it will not include the US. Some old Generals wrote a letter saying EU membership was important. At least one of the claimed signatories had not agreed it and another has recently changed his mind. There is simply no way in which the military security of the UK is in any way dependent upon the EU.

What about terrorism. As anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you the key weapon in fighting terrorism is intelligence. The best intelligence in the world (they will also tell you) comes from the Five Eyes group (UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ). They do not share it. There is, of course, other information from other countries. The UK may well share information with France or Spain. Maybe Germany. But probably not Bulgaria or Romania. So any EU intelligence organisation is not getting the best stuff that the UK has. One of the problems of the free movement of people is that we have no mechanism to stop EU nationals whom we know are involved in terrorism if the information comes from non EU sources (which is likely). Some argue that if we leave EU we won’t get access to EU data. As I have shown, the EU data is not top quality and we have better stuff anyway. Moreover, as EU is likely to want stuff from us I do not believe that leaving EU will preclude intelligence sharing.

My final point is this. The debate has shown that the current political system in this country routinely knowingly publishes inaccurate data, seeks to inflame emotions rather than win arguments and stifles dissent rather than encouraging better. Given the current level of polls it is surely symptomatic of a failed system that all parties (bar one) have adopted a policy likely to be rejected by at least 45% of the electorate. How can they be so out of touch? How can the “professional” political reporting establishment have missed this so badly? How can a government publish such drivel as the leaflet, a Chancellor threaten vengeance taxes simply for voting out or a Prime Minister forecast war? It’s not good enough.

I expected better than this farce. I want, no, I demand improvement; you should too. The only to get change is to exercise the sensible option. Vote for improvement. Vote to remove some of the buffoons in Westminster and all of the ones in Brussels. Vote because you love democracy and freedom.

Vote for whatever reason you like, but vote OUT.''
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all well and good if we could just morph seamlessly from one system to the other - the fact is that we can't and law changes on their own could take years - the Good Friday agreement, for instance, written in terms assuming we would both parties would be in the EU. It's OK Michael Howard saying that UK law would prevail - do you think that would go down well with all parties to that agreement ? All the Scottish agriculture and fisheries policy would default to Edinburgh not Westminster in the event of Brexit, how would that go ? How long do you think fishermen would stick to current agreements if they weren't bound by the EU ?

In the meantime we would be losing those companies that are here because its a condition of their contracts that they are based in the EU. Then there are the science and pharma research industries, both of which are dreading an out vote......

Reading the stats I posted earlier, its likely that older people will vote out - so those that have their lives sorted, their money in the bank, or not, as the case may be, could prevail and risk the jobs, careers and futures of those younger.

In addition the likelihood is that we would move dangerously to the right politically - Boris would like us to pay for the NHS, Gove thinks we need to follow the American model. Farage has yet to be elected...to anything except the EU where he hardly covered himself in glory....

As for political dynasty's - I happen to like both Stephen Kinnock and Hilary Benn, probably more than their parents, as it happens

BTW any house wife 'sur le continent' knows that instruction manuals come in multiple languages including Chinese and have done for many years......maybe industry should try the same ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...