The Trade without the Oppression (a very important read before you vote)

[Christopher Doyle]

I'm going to upset the apple cart here:

I'm not registered to vote.

 

Reason? 
I honestly and truly believe it won't make a single bit of difference if I vote or not.

I have no reliable way of knowing the outcome of either vote, (I certainly don't believe any of the drivel spouted on the TV and newspapers and online and in leaflets posted through my door.) and therefore don't have the relevant facts I need to make an informed decision.

How can I say this?
Past experience. Too many times have these people told me things will happen when they get in office, then brought up an excuse as to why it didn't. (I don't have any examples, and no longer care enough to research any. We all know its true.) and then just go on to do whatever the hell they like anyway for the next 4 years.

These same people are now trying to get me to decide if we should be in or out, and spouting all this bullshit at me based on their own opinion and facts that can be written several ways to back up several completely different stories, and I've had enough of it. And frankly so have many MANY other people.

I'm not voting because I honestly couldn't care less if we are in or out (Even though in the poll above I voted to leave. If a gun was to my head, that would be what I voted)
And frankly, until they put a "None of the above" on the ballot papers during the elections, I refuse to be a part of it.

I'm just going to do what the rest of the masses are doing, and refusing to turn up until I have an option worth voting for.
Why else is there such a poor turnout? Those who want to make a difference are simply voting for the opposite party of the one they definitely DON'T want in, and where is the use in that?

All that happens then is the 2 losing parties (by overall vote) club together to become a party that wasn't on the ballot paper, wasn't voted for, and wasn't wanted.

When shit like that can happen, where is the point in a majority system?

(Sorry I brought up elections in an "In Out" vote discussion, but it was relevant as to my reasoning.)

If the country turns to shit because I got to a point where I refuse to care, and didn't vote, I don't see that as my failing, I see it as a failing of the system.

[Canny lass]

24 minutes ago, Christopher Doyle said:

I have no reliable way of knowing the outcome of either vote, (I certainly don't believe any of the drivel spouted on the TV and newspapers and online and in leaflets posted through my door.) and therefore don't have the relevant facts I need to make an informed decision.

That's the most sensible contribution in this disussion to date. Well done! Politicians, on either side, won't be coming out of this looking as though their mission was to responsibly inform the public.

[threegee]

8 hours ago, Eggy1948 said:

Proffesor Michael Dougan's says (and if the Brexit 15 can't stand to listen to another 24 mins of this Remain or Brexit debate vote then skip to 10mins 40secs and open your minds to the next 20 secs) - do it his way

OK, I've done just that - virtually the whole unremitting Irish blarney, and what do I hear?

I hear a guy that is a highly paid expert on EU law telling us why we can't do without err... EU law.  There's not a single economic or sociological argument there, and there's no mention of opportunity cost - because he wouldn't know what a business opportunity was if it was presented to him by the entire Dragon's Den panel chanting in unison.  His sole argument is we are so deep in the EU s**t that even I can't tell you how we are going to get out.  He then cites two examples of the supposed insolubility:

a) What happens to the 3 million EU citizens in the UK, and the 2 million UK citizens in the EU?

Well, I suspect the government's figures on the former is an underestimate, and his figure on the latter is in fact a whopping 700,000 too high (he's echoing Cleggie's back of fag packet figures, so some research he's done there!)  I prefer to believe the properly audited UN figure rather than the UK government one, because it accords with my on-the-ground experience and gives a fairly detailed picture.

As a law professor he should know the answer to his own question: the answer is the Vienna Convention says that precisely nothing must happen to either. The chief lie here is that UK citizens in the EU work there; the vast majority are retired and do no such thing. Brits have always retired and been welcome in continental Europe.  This goes way back into history, and their money is a life-saver in many poorer regions.  Though, what amazes me is that only about 20% of our retirees move to our closest neighbours; the great majority prefer to move to far more distant English speaking countries - which in itself says a lot about our relationship with continental Europe.

Post-Brexit those EU citizens who are gainfully employed will be self-certified by their employers. The rest will be treated respectfully according to their status and respect for the law. Our government will reassume the power to deport miscreants on its own terms, just like any other sovereign nation.  Practicably all UK retirees have already applied for resident status, and that can't be revoked.  If they haven't done this they already running the risk of being told to leave under current rules - so, again, nothing changes!  This isn't theory or supposition: Brits live alongside non-EU citizens in continental Europe and compare notes with them all the time. And, guess what? The non-EU citizens have the odd extra form to fill in now and then, but it's trivial, and all ex-pats have the option to use local facilitators who perform this service every day, and work for unbelievably little by UK accountant's standards. Mrs 3G has just used one such facilitator to convert her driving licence, and what a lot of hassle he has saved her! This guy really needs to get his nose out of his law books and get out into the real world!

b )  The "problem" with the border with the RoI.

Again, the answer is nothing. This may be a problem for the protectionist EU, but it wasn't a problem for a country like ours with an international outlook before our entanglement with the EU, and it is very unlikely to be after.  Certainly there will be spot checks to see that the Republic isn't abusing the continued understanding (and these must already quietly go on), but life will proceed pretty much as normal.

The future though is that either the RoI will at some point leave the EU as it economically disintegrates, or more likely a reformed EU (triggered by Brexit) will incidentally solve the Republic's problem for it. That's a situation that's too painful for fully paid-up EUphiles like him to contemplate.  In fact there's a body within the Leave lobby that would like the UK to rejoin when genuine reform is achieved - Brexit is their means to this end.  That's not an entirely unreasonable position, but I think we shouldn't hang around for this to happen, and move forward with other like-minded countries.  The EU is all about solving 20th century problems that no longer exist; it's anachronistic in the 21st century, and actually creates problems which Europe does not need!

 

I could go on, but will spare you.  All I will say to sum up is that his self-serving (and more than likely EU funded) blarney stream hinges on the premise that UK citizens are there to serve the law, whereas the reverse is true. He's part of the EU machine, lecturing to an obviously receptive audience where no questioning is permitted, and quite probably has no personal experience of how we managed our own affairs for the last 1000-40 years.  His arguments about Norway can be torn to shreds - yet, we aren't Norway!  He fails to even countenance that an EFTA with the UK, and an EU without the UK will be an entirely different world, because that's the last thing his paymasters would want to hear.

I was actually quite interested when you posted the video, and thought there might be a new angle or two, but sadly it's all just regurgitated, unimaginative, and self-serving EU drivel.

[threegee]

And, Eggy how about opening your mind to exactly why Dougan is coming out with all this drivel?  Follow the money and you'll see!  He's very coy about his own funding but a female colleague isn't quite so unforthcoming.  She admits to EU money, but you need to dig a little deeper to find out where Liverpool Law School gets much of it's funding.  It's part of the Russell Group of universities, which seems to be how most of the payola is channelled.  There's an interesting document titled "Russell Group universities and the European Union" which boasts about the £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing.  It also boasts about £579 millions of direct funding.

It, and more, is all our own money of course, cleverly presented to glorify the font of all beneficence.  If you don't boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time and place strings on the local funding element too) your funding is rapidly withdrawn.  There's a massive propaganda machine out there that feeds on public gullibility, and you and I are funding it -  "open your minds" to that!

[Canny lass]

16 minutes ago, threegee said:

There's a massive propaganda machine out there that feeds on public gullibility,

I have to agree with you on that one.

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

11 hours ago, threegee said:

 

I was actually quite interested when you posted the video, and thought there might be a new angle or two, but sadly it's all just regurgitated, unimaginative, and self-serving EU drivel.

Fortunately I haven't listened to all the other regurgitated, unimaginative, and self serving EU drive that has been posted and as like Chris D. says :- 

 

13 hours ago, Christopher Doyle said:

I honestly and truly believe it won't make a single bit of difference if I vote or not.

I have no reliable way of knowing the outcome of either vote, (I certainly don't believe any of the drivel spouted on the TV and newspapers and online and in leaflets posted through my door.) and therefore don't have the relevant facts I need to make an informed decision.

How can I say this?
Past experience. Too many times have these people told me things will happen when they get in office, then brought up an excuse as to why it didn't. (I don't have any examples, and no longer care enough to research any. We all know its true.) and then just go on to do whatever the hell they like anyway for the next 4 years.

These same people are now trying to get me to decide if we should be in or out, and spouting all this bullshit at me based on their own opinion and facts that can be written several ways to back up several completely different stories, and I've had enough of it. And frankly so have many MANY other people.

I'm not voting because I honestly couldn't care less if we are in or out (Even though in the poll above I voted to leave. If a gun was to my head, that would be what I voted)
And frankly, until they put a "None of the above" on the ballot papers during the elections, I refuse to be a part of it.

I'm just going to do what the rest of the masses are doing, and refusing to turn up until I have an option worth voting for.
Why else is there such a poor turnout? Those who want to make a difference are simply voting for the opposite party of the one they definitely DON'T want in, and where is the use in that?

All that happens then is the 2 losing parties (by overall vote) club together to become a party that wasn't on the ballot paper, wasn't voted for, and wasn't wanted.

When shit like that can happen, where is the point in a majority system?

(Sorry I brought up elections in an "In Out" vote discussion, but it was relevant as to my reasoning.)

If the country turns to shit because I got to a point where I refuse to care, and didn't vote, I don't see that as my failing, I see it as a failing of the system.

I have matured into a caring responsible adult my views on voting, in whatever poll; election etc. etc. have allowed me to cast my vote not caring of the outcome. My past experience has taught me to relax in my declining years knowing that the outcome will be managed by many people, hopefully from different walks of life, that the majority will work as hard as they can to achieve what they believe in. Unfortunately we can't stop those with their head up their own orifice that join political groups to try and manipulate legislation to suite their own ends (and that's just my opinion, not something to debate).

However one point of Chris D's I disagree with is the one of not voting. We may feel that, it makes no difference or we don't understand or what does it matter but it's there to use and in my opinion if you don't use your vote then don't complain. Register for postal voting, it's simple and you don't have to drag yourself out of the house, on that one day, to do it. Whilst out for a casual drive, trip to the pub, or out exercising your pet in the environment it was created for you can even pull up close to a post box and pop it in. I hand mine to the wife and she does the leg work. n

I Remain yours forever.

Eggy       

Edited June 22, 2016 by Eggy1948

[Canny lass]

I have to agree with you on the voting. I'd rather submit a blank vote than not use my right at all.

10 minutes ago, Eggy1948 said:

Fortunately I haven't listed to all the other regurgitated, unimaginative, and self serving EU drive that has been posted

I think you forgot to mention subjective and misinformed, Eggy. 

[threegee]

39 minutes ago, Canny lass said:

I have to agree with you on the voting. I'd rather submit a blank vote than not use my right at all.

I think you forgot to mention subjective and misinformed, Eggy. 

Is that a cheap shot, or do you have anything specific in mind CL?

I'm fully in accord on a null vote, and I think most people would be. But this is something else our politicos don't want to contemplate.  It's an utter disgrace that in a supposedly democratic country our elites should be telling us that this referendum is a once in a lifetime decision.  Voters must be allowed to make mistakes and have the freedom to correct them, that's at the very core of democracy - the arguments against this are entirely spurious.

[threegee]

1 hour ago, Eggy1948 said:

... we can't stop those with their head up their own orifice that join political groups to try and manipulate legislation to suite their own ends (and that's just my opinion, not something to debate)...

You've just described the EU and its myriad international business lobby groups, and yet you actually voted for this!  Did you watch Brexit the Movie or even Lexit the Movie?

[threegee]

1 hour ago, Canny lass said:

I have to agree with you on that one.

The one on the Leave side is nothing like as massive as the EU one, and it isn't involuntarily funded by you or I.  The EU one is to ensure the continued growth of the creature, and that creature has become an all-consuming monster.

[Canny lass]

12 minutes ago, threegee said:

Is that a cheap shot, or do you have anything specific in mind CL?

There is nothing cheap about any of my "shots". I have nothing specific in mind. I find the vast majority of your contributions to be totally subjective.You could do yourself a favour - and achieve better credibility - if you started to remove the plethora of adjectives, which give away your personal feelings, from your texts. On the misinformed side of the discussion, I find it amazing/ sickening/ disheartening that you can advocate arguments of a journalist paid to make money for his employer, while vehemently rejecting the work of a professor with 20 years in the field. Start reading some REAL literature! 

[Canny lass]

1 hour ago, Canny lass said:

There's a massive propaganda machine out there that feeds on public gullibility,

The remark is true. Difference between you and I is that I think that propoganda machine has two or more facets.

6 minutes ago, threegee said:

The one on the Leave side is nothing like as massive as the EU one, and it isn't involuntarily funded by you or I.  The EU one is to ensure the continued growth of the creature, and that creature has become an all-consuming monster.

Oh, wait a minute! Are you admitting that BOTH sides are using propoganda? Well, that's a step in the right direction. There's hope for you yet, 3g. 

As for "the one on the Leave side is nothing like as massive as the EU one", I'm afraid I wouldn't know. More importantly I wonder how you know. Can you give me the source of that information (preferably not another newspaper) or ar you just putting into print your own subjective thoughts? 

[threegee]

21 minutes ago, Canny lass said:

There is nothing cheap about any of my "shots". I have nothing specific in mind. I find the vast majority of your contributions to be totally subjective.You could do yourself a favour - and achieve better credibility - if you started to remove the plethora of adjectives, which give away your personal feelings, from your texts. On the misinformed side of the discussion, I find it amazing/ sickening/ disheartening that you can advocate arguments of a journalist paid to make money for his employer, while vehemently rejecting the work of a professor with 20 years in the field. Start reading some REAL literature! 

If you had nothing in mind then by definition it was a cheap shot.

Yes, I feel very strongly about the EU because I get to see its affect on real people.

Which journalist would that be?  Tell me what field has this Professor got his "20 years experience" in, and what will happen to that experience when we Brexit?  That he's EU funded is undeniable, and he actually spouts the civil service line.  You constantly make pretence of being dispassionate about things but, as revealed here, this is far from the truth.

If ANY of the detailed argument I have presented above against Dugan's position are fallacious then please argue your case, else you've lost the argument!

[Canny lass]

4 minutes ago, threegee said:

If you had nothing in mind then by definition it was a cheap shot.

I'm afraid I can't quite follow your logic there.

[threegee]

6 minutes ago, Canny lass said:

I'm afraid I can't quite follow your logic there.

You decry my use of adjectives, then deploy adjectives yourself without attaching them to anything specific - anything which can be counter argued.  That comprises a cheap shot, because you aren't prepared to have your own ideas tested.

[mercuryg]

"I honestly and truly believe it won't make a single bit of difference if I vote or not."

I honestly could scream every time I read or hear someone say this; of course it makes a difference! Don't listen to the propaganda and the bullshit; use your vote to express what YOU believe, what it means to you. Do you work, for example? If you do, will the EU situation affect you on that area of your life? Where do you do your shopping? Simple, basic things. or, quite simply, you are intensely patriotic and believe, for whatever reason, Britain is Britain, and not Europe. Or, perhaps, you like lasagne, and feel you should vote remain because it's Italian. Above all, use - gain - your bloody right to vote! You're not upsetting the applecart; you're being - with respect - extremely stupid.

 

[Canny lass]

5 minutes ago, threegee said:

Yes, I feel very strongly about the EU because I get to see its affect on real people.

You are not unique in seeing the effects of EU on real people. We all have eyes and ears and we are all surrounded by real people. You seem to be surrounded by one type, but others may be surrounded by another type. Your interpretation of what you see among say, 100 000 people - I've no idea how many people you know - may just not be representative of what the rest of Britain or Europe are seeing.

To put it another way, I feel very strongly about alcohol because I've seen its effect on real people. That does not make me the be all and end all on everything related to alcohol. There are those who know more about the effects of alcohol than me, having not just seen those effects but worked with, suffered from and studied those effects under a long period of time. Would you recommend that journalists are the best people to give advice on alcohol-related matters?

[Canny lass]

19 minutes ago, threegee said:

Which journalist would that be?

That would be all journalists, in my opinion. Journalism is biased towards the  political stance and economic status of the publication. Left-wing orientated publications select the facts to be published to suit left-wing readers. Right-wing publications select facts to suit the right-wing reader. That's why we always have different accounts of the same thing. Daily nationals use a language which is more formal, has longer words and a more complex sentence structure to appeal to the target group of readers. Tabloids, on the other hand use a language which resembles the spoken word,uses shorter words and a more simple sentence construction. BOTH manipulate syntax to make the reader believe what they want us to believe.

[Canny lass]

33 minutes ago, threegee said:

 

 

37 minutes ago, threegee said:

Tell me what field has this Professor got his "20 years experience" in, and what will happen to that experience when we Brexit? 

Oops! Got that quote twice for some reason!

As far as I can see:

EU law

EU Constitutional law

Single market

EU Welfare Law

Relationship between EU law and National courts

EUs constitutional framework after the Lisbon Treaty

and so on, and so on and so on ....

What will happen to this experience when we Brexit? (when we Brexit? I don't think the referendum has taken place yet. Surely you mean IF we Brexit) Nothing will happen to it. You can't take a person's experiences from them. Even without the UK there will still be an EU so that knowledge can still be useful.

[Canny lass]

1 hour ago, threegee said:

That he's EU funded is undeniable, and he actually spouts the civil service line

Most universities in Britain are EU funded.

[Canny lass]

1 hour ago, threegee said:

You constantly make pretence of being dispassionate about things but, as revealed here, this is far from the truth.

I make no pretence to be dispassionate about "things". I'm very passionate about a lot of things. Seeing that people hear both sides of the story is one of them. Believe me 3g, had you been passionately expounding home-spun left-wing philosophies in the same subjective fashion, I would have been shouting equally loudly about the philosophies of the right-wing - just to encourage people to think for themselves rather than follow the flock.

[Canny lass]

1 hour ago, threegee said:

You decry my use of adjectives, then deploy adjectives yourself without attaching them to anything specific - anything which can be counter argued.  That comprises a cheap shot, because you aren't prepared to have your own ideas tested.

I'm not decrying your use of adjectives. I'm advising you that adjectives can reveal a lot about the writer. I'm also advising you on on how to conceal your apparent subjectivity and at the same time gain credibility. If you'd been a publishing company I'd have sent you a big  bill for the service!

The next part has me beat. Give me an example so that I can fathom out what you mean about using an adjective without attaching it to anything specific - anything which can be counter argued. You can test any of my ideas. I'd welcome it!

[Canny lass]

1 hour ago, threegee said:

If ANY of the detailed argument I have presented above against Dugan's position are fallacious then please argue your case, else you've lost the argument!

Where to begin! It's a big job but I'll tackle it this evening and get back to you tomorrow. What argument?

[webtrekker]

Christopher Doyle said ...

 

Quote

I'm going to upset the apple cart here:

I'm not registered to vote.

 

Reason? 
I honestly and truly believe it won't make a single bit of difference if I vote or not.

 

Now, I don't think that's 'stupid,' as has been said, or implied, in the posts that followed it.

Christopher was talking mainly about UK elections, where it really doesn't matter a damn who you vote for, they're all the bloody same. Remember, the 1% are where they are only because the 99% VOTE FOR THE B@st@RDS! The only way the 99% can show their true feelings is to not cast ANY votes at all. However, this will never happen because of all the weak-willed folk who think a vote for 'X' is better than a vote for 'Y.'

[webtrekker]

Of course, my above post wouldn't apply to the EU where you DON'T EVEN HAVE A VOTE TO WITHHOLD!

 

BREXIT all the way for me!