[snip] I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
What's more "very telling indeed" is that you actually think you've made the piece "EU-neutral".
We can't leave because then other people might want to.... its a view I suppose.
Philip Hammond,yet another Tory been found out pretending to be Eurosceptic when it suited them,like GE or Euro Elections.
It does look as if there are a lot of Eurosceptic-in-name-only in the Cabinet. I'm not one, but if I was I would be bl**dy hoping mad that I'd been led down a garden path by some of these characters.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
Oh but...but you do apparently.....? From this morning in a response to me. SquareRoot said:
"The comments can be ignored because the article , like any from the Daily Jackboot are designed to get the white folks angry.. Their articles are littered with words like, fury, anger and outrage, whilst never identifying who was angry , furious or outraged , and then leave it to the loony comments"
Odd? given You even read the comments.....given you have never read it of course, nor would you buy it. You don't even have to move off this thread to read your quote.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
What mostly worries people is militant Islam. That would point to a ban on immigration from Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia etc, not Poland.
Don't have a ban from anywhere, look at people's qualifications, language skills, ability to get a job, number of years until retirement and other factors that will relate to their utility to the country ("an Australian/Canadian style points system"), then vet them to see if they are likely to be a security risk, then issue a visa. Don't issue any visas to anyone that hasn't applied through an embassy or consulate in the lawful manner. Otherwise you are discriminating on country of origin, and ability to jump the queue, not ability to fit in, be useful and not blow stuff up, and doubly discriminating against people making lawful applications and embassies and getting pushed down the queue by people breaking the rules.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
Not all your links to the Mail, Plato, are links to the promotion of fear, hatred and anger. Not all of them.
Huzzah! Mr. Brooke hits the nail firmly on the head yet again. In a well governed England there would be two equal factions in the Privy Council; one headed up by Mr. AlanBrooke and one by Mr. SouthamObserver. When they couldn't agree a compromise the Monarch would choose the policy that would be implemented.
I'd make it a panel of three - with Ms Cyclefree getting the casting vote.
The trouble with this analysis is blithely putting the EU in Tier 4, self-esteem. Clearly, where the EU fits in Maslow's hierarchy is very subjective and varies according to the personal connections each individual voter makes. If a voter blames the EU for the immigration crisis, then it is Tier 2 for that voter.
It is how individual voters vary in attributing causal linkages at the EU's door on various issues that explains to me the variability in the passion of those who oppose membership of the EU and those who don't; and the general perception that the EC and the EU structures as being largely inefficient at achieving whatever good they were set up to achieve as the reason why there are so few truly passionate defenders of membership.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
Not all your links to the Mail, Plato, are links to the promotion of fear, hatred and anger. Not all of them.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
What mostly worries people is militant Islam. That would point to a ban on immigration from Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia etc, not Poland.
Don't have a ban from anywhere, look at people's qualifications, language skills, ability to get a job, number of years until retirement and other factors that will relate to their utility to the country ("an Australian/Canadian style points system"), then vet them to see if they are likely to be a security risk, then issue a visa. Don't issue any visas to anyone that hasn't applied through an embassy or consulate in the lawful manner. Otherwise you are discriminating on country of origin, and ability to jump the queue, not ability to fit in, be useful and not blow stuff up, and doubly discriminating against people making lawful applications and embassies and getting pushed down the queue by people breaking the rules.
This.
This is a lot of the problem. The illegals get lumped in with the legals and all tallied as " immigration" it is constantly used as a weapon by the left to hide the illegals under the " little Englander" and " racist" labels.
The fact that most people are more than happy and openly welcome legal and controlled immigration they are equally unhappy that people jump the queues by jumping into back of articulated lorries in Calais.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
I suppose its the same as your Londoncentric view that voters in the rest of the country ought to think like you do.
If as you say most people don't give a hoot then odds are they won't amble down to the polling station. Only the fanatics on both sides will bother. Who has the more committed voters: young metroplitans who live off twitter or old grumpies who read the Daily Mail ?
Unless one side successfully promotes their side as being better for jobs/security etc
Not everyone may not amble down to the polling station for abstract concerns but many more do for those concerns.
You can make arguments for both sides on employment.
Remain wishes to big up on trading and investment.
Leave can major on improve your earning power and job security by slowing immigration.
Agreed completely that both sides can. Which side more successfully does will determine who wins the referendum.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
'Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.'
An early rehearsal of the arguments Europhiles, the foreign office and the other usual suspects will indeed be using if they win the referendum.
I have seen some talk of there being a huge push by the EU towards the creation of an Energy Union. The proposals floating about indicate that eventually significant power would be handed over to the EU who are currently limited in what they can do as energy is a shared competence. After a vote to remain in the EU I expect the UK to sign up to the idea of an Energy Union using the threat of the Russian boogeyman as an excuse.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
Not all your links to the Mail, Plato, are links to the promotion of fear, hatred and anger. Not all of them.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
Links? If those are facts you won't expect people to rely on your say-so.
Well:
VAT on fuel must be at a minimum level of 5% according to EU rules [only an aside in this article but it will do]. I doubt the government will cut
The price of food will be related to CAP I guess - not an unreasonable assumption that it causes us to pay too much by artificially restricting supply
On insurance, perhaps there is a tax element? Certainly the EU is responsible for women paying more than they should for car insurance because insurers can't discriminate on the grounds of gender
We can't leave because then other people might want to.... its a view I suppose.
Philip Hammond,yet another Tory been found out pretending to be Eurosceptic when it suited them,like GE or Euro Elections.
It does look as if there are a lot of Eurosceptic-in-name-only in the Cabinet. I'm not one, but if I was I would be bl**dy hoping mad that I'd been led down a garden path by some of these characters.
You don't think there's an area between Eurosceptic and BOO?
The trouble with this analysis is blithely putting the EU in Tier 4, self-esteem. Clearly, where the EU fits in Maslow's hierarchy is very subjective and varies according to the personal connections each individual voter makes. If a voter blames the EU for the immigration crisis, then it is Tier 2 for that voter.
It is how individual voters vary in attributing causal linkages at the EU's door on various issues that explains to me the variability in the passion of those who oppose membership of the EU and those who don't; and the general perception that the EC and the EU structures as being largely inefficient at achieving whatever good they were set up to achieve as the reason why there are so few truly passionate defenders of membership.
Indeed. It's pointless even trying to put "the EU" into a tier. If someone thinks immigration is important, and in their mind they associate "EU = immigration" for the purposes of the referendum (whether intellectually accurate or not), then that is how their vote will be affected.
It's like intellectually arguing how the Tories won't be able to do enough to win a majority at the 2015 election, and then they stick up a poster of Miliband in the SNP's pocket...
BB63...On most official forms there is no option if you are English The Scots,Welsh,and Irish can all tick their respective boxes but the English have to tick the British box..
Bollox, take that Little Englander boulder off your shoulder
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
Links? If those are facts you won't expect people to rely on your say-so.
Well:
VAT on fuel must be at a minimum level of 5% according to EU rules [only an aside in this article but it will do]. I doubt the government will cut
The price of food will be related to CAP I guess - not an unreasonable assumption that it causes us to pay too much by artificially restricting supply
On insurance, perhaps there is a tax element? Certainly the EU is responsible for women paying more than they should for car insurance because insurers can't discriminate on the grounds of gender
I doubt the Tories would cut VAT on fuel, though I imagine Corbyn would want to. If we left the EU.
As to food, that was my point: arguing from assumptions, however plausible, is not arguing from fact.
And if women are paying too much for car insurance, then men, surely, should be paying more. Zero-sum, or near enough.
But worry not, old bean. Plato says I'm creepy, so who needs facts? Although I'm not, apparently, creepy enough for her to ask OGH to ban me
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
'Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.'
An early rehearsal of the arguments Europhiles, the foreign office and the other usual suspects will indeed be using if they win the referendum.
I have seen some talk of there being a huge push by the EU towards the creation of an Energy Union. The proposals floating about indicate that eventually significant power would be handed over to the EU who are currently limited in what they can do as energy is a shared competence. After a vote to remain in the EU I expect the UK to sign up to the idea of an Energy Union using the threat of the Russian boogeyman as an excuse.
Sign up to amongst many other things. I have mentioned more than once that the remainers demand what the leavers see as the way forward after a Brexit. Actually, It's is for the remainers to state what they won't be forced into signing up to if we remain.
The day after the EU will start, it will be relentless and it will be merciless and rarely in our favour if history is anything to go by.
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
A colleague at work told me that she will be voting to leave the EU. I asked her if she had seen Dave's "deal". She had not. Her reason for leaving was immigration.
A family friend, metropolitan elite through and through, has recently decided that he too will be voting to leave the EU. His reason? Immigration.
I could given countless examples but have work to be getting on with.
Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
The trouble with this analysis is blithely putting the EU in Tier 4, self-esteem. Clearly, where the EU fits in Maslow's hierarchy is very subjective and varies according to the personal connections each individual voter makes. If a voter blames the EU for the immigration crisis, then it is Tier 2 for that voter.
It is how individual voters vary in attributing causal linkages at the EU's door on various issues that explains to me the variability in the passion of those who oppose membership of the EU and those who don't; and the general perception that the EC and the EU structures as being largely inefficient at achieving whatever good they were set up to achieve as the reason why there are so few truly passionate defenders of membership.
And that neatly illustrates the point that Mr Meeks so cleverly makes.
...that you and I just are not quite as clever as he is. Look! He can put the EU into the correct Tier! Which makes the "individual voters" of which you speak all look a bit silly in comparison.
If only we could all think at Alistair's level then everything would be so much better. Except SeanT who would be bored out of his mind with thread header tedium.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
It is far cheaper (>50%) to book a BA flight from Paris to New York via London + a return from London to Paris than it is to book direct from London to New York
i.e.
London -> Paris (EU return) Paris -> London -> New York (US return) New York -> London (US return)
You can then use or abandon the remaining 2 segments depending on whether you need the airmiles or not
Works like a charm... except the time my Chicago -> London flight was delayed and American kept trying to switch me to a Chicago -> Paris flight to be helpful
is that true?!
Just ran the numbers - flying out 28/2 and back on 6/3. All in business.
London -> NYC return: £4,926.55
Paris -> London -> NYC -> London -> Paris: Eur 4,013 (£3,116)
Paris -> NYC [with American] -> Paris [with BA Openskies]: Eur 1,750 (£1,359)
Haven't priced up the Paris to London leg, but you should be able to make it work with those differentials.
The trouble with this analysis is blithely putting the EU in Tier 4, self-esteem. Clearly, where the EU fits in Maslow's hierarchy is very subjective and varies according to the personal connections each individual voter makes. If a voter blames the EU for the immigration crisis, then it is Tier 2 for that voter.
It is how individual voters vary in attributing causal linkages at the EU's door on various issues that explains to me the variability in the passion of those who oppose membership of the EU and those who don't; and the general perception that the EC and the EU structures as being largely inefficient at achieving whatever good they were set up to achieve as the reason why there are so few truly passionate defenders of membership.
Indeed. It's pointless even trying to put "the EU" into a tier. If someone thinks immigration is important, and in their mind they associate "EU = immigration" for the purposes of the referendum (whether intellectually accurate or not), then that is how their vote will be affected.
It's like intellectually arguing how the Tories won't be able to do enough to win a majority at the 2015 election, and then they stick up a poster of Miliband in the SNP's pocket...
No I think the point (as I understand it) is being missed here and you are actually ultimately agreeing with the OP's point.
If someone views immigration as a critical Tier 2 issue and they want to Vote Leave due to that then it is because of there being a Tier 2 issue that they care about being affected.
The key to winning the referendum isn't who best argues about Qualified Majority Voting, it will be who can win over 50%+1 of the votes almost all of which will be cast due to a Tier 2 concern. To win Leave (and Remain) need to concentrate on Safety and Security issues.
Greetings from Silicon Valley. What a miserable start to the day. Commisserations to Leicester, but as any Spurs fan would have told you - that's what Arsenal do. It would be a major surprise if they don't win the league now. And they'll win plenty more games this season in the last five minutes. Man City will win today too. And I fancy a Harry Kane season-ending injury on top.
We can't leave because then other people might want to.... its a view I suppose.
Philip Hammond,yet another Tory been found out pretending to be Eurosceptic when it suited them,like GE or Euro Elections.
It does look as if there are a lot of Eurosceptic-in-name-only in the Cabinet. I'm not one, but if I was I would be bl**dy hoping mad that I'd been led down a garden path by some of these characters.
You don't think there's an area between Eurosceptic and BOO?
Bollocks,One of the early runners to lead the out vote was Hammond.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
What mostly worries people is militant Islam. That would point to a ban on immigration from Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia etc, not Poland.
Don't have a ban from anywhere, look at people's qualifications, language skills, ability to get a job, number of years until retirement and other factors that will relate to their utility to the country ("an Australian/Canadian style points system"), then vet them to see if they are likely to be a security risk, then issue a visa. Don't issue any visas to anyone that hasn't applied through an embassy or consulate in the lawful manner. Otherwise you are discriminating on country of origin, and ability to jump the queue, not ability to fit in, be useful and not blow stuff up, and doubly discriminating against people making lawful applications and embassies and getting pushed down the queue by people breaking the rules.
This.
This is a lot of the problem. The illegals get lumped in with the legals and all tallied as " immigration" it is constantly used as a weapon by the left to hide the illegals under the " little Englander" and " racist" labels.
The fact that most people are more than happy and openly welcome legal and controlled immigration they are equally unhappy that people jump the queues by jumping into back of articulated lorries in Calais.
Indeed. Its actually worse than that. The level of lawful immigration applications made at embassies and rejected by entry clearance officers went up by 18% in the last year. Any believe those applications suddenly get almost a 1/5th more dodgy over night ? Possibly people are being asked to look more closely at the applications for excuses to reject so that the overall number is reduced.
We can't leave because then other people might want to.... its a view I suppose.
Philip Hammond,yet another Tory been found out pretending to be Eurosceptic when it suited them,like GE or Euro Elections.
It does look as if there are a lot of Eurosceptic-in-name-only in the Cabinet. I'm not one, but if I was I would be bl**dy hoping mad that I'd been led down a garden path by some of these characters.
You don't think there's an area between Eurosceptic and BOO?
Bollocks,One of the early runners to lead the out vote was Hammond.
If he thinks cameron has brought back substantial powers,the man's a fool or a liar.
On Hammond individually I agree but on the claim of "a lot of Eurosceptic-in-name-only in the Cabinet" I don't. The other people like May and Boris that people projected the notion they'd vote Out and now they're saying they won't were never on the record as saying Out. Hammond was, he's different but I don't see lots like Hammond.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
What mostly worries people is militant Islam. That would point to a ban on immigration from Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia etc, not Poland.
Don't have a ban from anywhere, look at people's qualifications, language skills, ability to get a job, number of years until retirement and other factors that will relate to their utility to the country ("an Australian/Canadian style points system"), then vet them to see if they are likely to be a security risk, then issue a visa. Don't issue any visas to anyone that hasn't applied through an embassy or consulate in the lawful manner. Otherwise you are discriminating on country of origin, and ability to jump the queue, not ability to fit in, be useful and not blow stuff up, and doubly discriminating against people making lawful applications and embassies and getting pushed down the queue by people breaking the rules.
This.
This is a lot of the problem. The illegals get lumped in with the legals and all tallied as " immigration" it is constantly used as a weapon by the left to hide the illegals under the " little Englander" and " racist" labels.
The fact that most people are more than happy and openly welcome legal and controlled immigration they are equally unhappy that people jump the queues by jumping into back of articulated lorries in Calais.
Indeed. Its actually worse than that. The level of lawful immigration applications made at embassies and rejected by entry clearance officers went up by 18% in the last year. Any believe those applications suddenly get almost a 1/5th more dodgy over night ? Possibly people are being asked to look more closely at the applications for excuses to reject so that the overall number is reduced.
Need more information. How many applications were made last year versus the year before?
It depends on your previous behaviour. If you are a consummate shopper-around, it will lower it. (Or more likely, flash up a "limited time only" offer.)
If, on the other hand, you've paid full price in the past, they might bump the price up and carry a "Hurry! Only x rooms left at this price point" message.
Amazon charges you different prices for their own goods, depending on whether you regularly look at other sellers, and choose the cheapest. If you appear cost conscious to their systems, and they worry about losing you to other vendors, you'll get a lower price.
That is very interesting, Mr. Robert, thank you. Once upon a time businesses went out of there way to retain customers by offering long-standing ones the best deals (easier to retain a customer than get a new one and all that) but now it would seem those who stay loyal get screwed over, but sophisticated algorithms. I am sure it all makes sense to someone - probably a consultant who charges a couple or three thousand pounds a day.
I think I shall test out your advice this year in all my dealings. I shall start with my bank. I have been with Lloyds ever since I left school and opened my first account and, to be fair, we have rubbed along pretty well through good times and bad (only had one row - 30 years ago when for 24 hours I went 70p below the balance that entitled me to free banking and they tried to charge me for a full quarter's transactions). So next month I'll tell them that I think I'll move my accounts (all in credit don't owe them a penny) elsewhere and see what they say. I'll follow that up with the Gas, Electric Providers and Telephone providers (never switched any of them), travel agents and get herself to switch her grocery shopping habits (save for Waitrose for the cat's stuff - for somethings money is just not the priority) and stop buying from Amazon. It will be an interesting experiment.
Many thanks for that idea and that link, Mr. Richard.
I think there is a genuine issue here for the elderly, amongst whom I now count myself. The world has turned and those who expected loyalty would have its rewards are now being screwed over.
Hurst , I did it this year , actually looked at insurance renewal on my flat , had been with Halifax/B of S forever , and discovered it was £70 a month, could not believe it. Shopped around and got same for £30 a month.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
Links? If those are facts you won't expect people to rely on your say-so.
Do your own research. I will spend time digging this stuff out and then the usual suspects will deny it anyway.
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
A colleague at work told me that she will be voting to leave the EU. I asked her if she had seen Dave's "deal". She had not. Her reason for leaving was immigration.
A family friend, metropolitan elite through and through, has recently decided that he too will be voting to leave the EU. His reason? Immigration.
I could given countless examples but have work to be getting on with.
Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
Of course. if there's one single burning issue which will win this for LEAVE, it's migration. Both LEAVE and REMAIN know this perfectly well, hence David's ridiculous attempt to counter-attack with the Calais jungle rubbish.
Meek's thesis is jejune and pointless. Next.
Except that Meek's thesis was that migration is a Tier 2 concern and that is the sort of concern that Leave and Remain should fight on. I fail to see how you saying migration could win it for Leave disproves Meek's thesis that Leave should fight on concerns like migration.
That's like me saying the ice in the glass has melted and you saying no it hasn't, there's water in the glass.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
Ah, you are of course right to suggest that Champagne doesn't go with steak. But the Champagne is for the arrival drink and the prawn cocktail starter.
The Chateauneuf-du-Pape is what goes with the steak.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
Links? If those are facts you won't expect people to rely on your say-so.
Well:
VAT on fuel must be at a minimum level of 5% according to EU rules [only an aside in this article but it will do]. I doubt the government will cut
The price of food will be related to CAP I guess - not an unreasonable assumption that it causes us to pay too much by artificially restricting supply
On insurance, perhaps there is a tax element? Certainly the EU is responsible for women paying more than they should for car insurance because insurers can't discriminate on the grounds of gender
I doubt the Tories would cut VAT on fuel, though I imagine Corbyn would want to. If we left the EU.
As to food, that was my point: arguing from assumptions, however plausible, is not arguing from fact.
And if women are paying too much for car insurance, then men, surely, should be paying more. Zero-sum, or near enough.
But worry not, old bean. Plato says I'm creepy, so who needs facts? Although I'm not, apparently, creepy enough for her to ask OGH to ban me
My unfinished sentence on fuel was going to express the same scepticism as you.
CAP analysis is well founded - I saw one from the IEA some years ago which laid it out well. But it's a pretty basic axiom that trade barriers = high prices for consumers.
Car insurance - actually what happened was that men's insurance didn't come down, but women's prices went up. That's capitalism I guess
And the way the insurance firms are complaining about the impact of draft EU policies on their business I'd be surprised if prices don't rise once they are implemented
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
It is far cheaper (>50%) to book a BA flight from Paris to New York via London + a return from London to Paris than it is to book direct from London to New York
i.e.
London -> Paris (EU return) Paris -> London -> New York (US return) New York -> London (US return)
You can then use or abandon the remaining 2 segments depending on whether you need the airmiles or not
Works like a charm... except the time my Chicago -> London flight was delayed and American kept trying to switch me to a Chicago -> Paris flight to be helpful
is that true?!
Just ran the numbers - flying out 28/2 and back on 6/3. All in business.
London -> NYC return: £4,926.55
Paris -> London -> NYC -> London -> Paris: Eur 4,013 (£3,116)
Paris -> NYC [with American] -> Paris [with BA Openskies]: Eur 1,750 (£1,359)
Haven't priced up the Paris to London leg, but you should be able to make it work with those differentials.
Flying business to NY aleays seems like a waste to me.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
Best meal I ever had was spag bol with a 1923 port
We can't leave because then other people might want to.... its a view I suppose.
Philip Hammond,yet another Tory been found out pretending to be Eurosceptic when it suited them,like GE or Euro Elections.
It does look as if there are a lot of Eurosceptic-in-name-only in the Cabinet. I'm not one, but if I was I would be bl**dy hoping mad that I'd been led down a garden path by some of these characters.
You don't think there's an area between Eurosceptic and BOO?
Bollocks,One of the early runners to lead the out vote was Hammond.
This is a lot of the problem. The illegals get lumped in with the legals and all tallied as " immigration" it is constantly used as a weapon by the left to hide the illegals under the " little Englander" and " racist" labels.
The fact that most people are more than happy and openly welcome legal and controlled immigration they are equally unhappy that people jump the queues by jumping into back of articulated lorries in Calais.
Indeed. Its actually worse than that. The level of lawful immigration applications made at embassies and rejected by entry clearance officers went up by 18% in the last year. Any believe those applications suddenly get almost a 1/5th more dodgy over night ? Possibly people are being asked to look more closely at the applications for excuses to reject so that the overall number is reduced.
Need more information. How many applications were made last year versus the year before?
That should not affect a percentage figure. 18% more applicants that applied lawfully through embassies were rejected... and then there is this,
The second stage will from 6 April 2015 end full rights of appeal for all “legitimate” migrants (those within the Immigration Rules), increase rights of appeal for overstayers and preserve rights of appeal for those relying on the Refugee Convention or human rights law.
So we screw over those that apply legally, and make things easier for the rest.. classy.
My recollection about the 1975 referendum is that it was undertaken against a backdrop of relative economic decline in the UK and our inability to tackle major problems such as the economy, industrial action etc. We were a country that viewed the EEC as a group of countries that had grown faster than us and we wanted more of the good fortune they had. We were the sick man of western europe in the larger 40m+ countries. Today the situation has almost reversed. It is the EC that looks like the sick man (excluding Germany) and the EC institutions appear ineffective and unable to cope with the modern world. We prefer our unemployment level of 5.1% and recoil at the much higher levels of unemployment and overall lower growth rates that exist in the EC.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
It is far cheaper (>50%) to book a BA flight from Paris to New York via London + a return from London to Paris than it is to book direct from London to New York
i.e.
London -> Paris (EU return) Paris -> London -> New York (US return) New York -> London (US return)
You can then use or abandon the remaining 2 segments depending on whether you need the airmiles or not
Works like a charm... except the time my Chicago -> London flight was delayed and American kept trying to switch me to a Chicago -> Paris flight to be helpful
is that true?!
Just ran the numbers - flying out 28/2 and back on 6/3. All in business.
London -> NYC return: £4,926.55
Paris -> London -> NYC -> London -> Paris: Eur 4,013 (£3,116)
Paris -> NYC [with American] -> Paris [with BA Openskies]: Eur 1,750 (£1,359)
Haven't priced up the Paris to London leg, but you should be able to make it work with those differentials.
Flying business to NY aleays seems like a waste to me.
Agreed. If I'm spending my own money I'll fly premium economy outside Europe, otherwise economy.
Arsenal have scored more injury time goals than any other side in Premier League history. They'll do it a few more times this season as well. It really does set them apart and it's why they'll be champions come May. If Wenger was wise he'd retire then. But he won't.
We can't leave because then other people might want to.... its a view I suppose.
Philip Hammond,yet another Tory been found out pretending to be Eurosceptic when it suited them,like GE or Euro Elections.
It does look as if there are a lot of Eurosceptic-in-name-only in the Cabinet. I'm not one, but if I was I would be bl**dy hoping mad that I'd been led down a garden path by some of these characters.
You don't think there's an area between Eurosceptic and BOO?
Bollocks,One of the early runners to lead the out vote was Hammond.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
...Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
In line with the recent ComRes poll. Which is why Mr Meek's article is a little inexplicable on that matter.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Yes thank goodness that the influence of Ian Fleming has waned. Many French drink red with everything.
I doubt the Tories would cut VAT on fuel, though I imagine Corbyn would want to. If we left the EU.
As to food, that was my point: arguing from assumptions, however plausible, is not arguing from fact.
And if women are paying too much for car insurance, then men, surely, should be paying more. Zero-sum, or near enough.
But worry not, old bean. Plato says I'm creepy, so who needs facts? Although I'm not, apparently, creepy enough for her to ask OGH to ban me
No its not zero sum. When the changes were introduced young women drivers saw their premiums increase by 50%. Young men of the same age bracket saw their premiums drop by 6%. The new equalised premiums were not the mid point between the two previous amounts and the overall level of insurance premium increased markedly.
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
...Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
In line with the recent ComRes poll. Which is why Mr Meek's article is a little inexplicable on that matter.
He called the migrant crisis completely wrong (if you use public opinion as a barometer) and has been doubling down on the premise ever since
My unfinished sentence on fuel was going to express the same scepticism as you.
CAP analysis is well founded - I saw one from the IEA some years ago which laid it out well. But it's a pretty basic axiom that trade barriers = high prices for consumers.
Car insurance - actually what happened was that men's insurance didn't come down, but women's prices went up. That's capitalism I guess
And the way the insurance firms are complaining about the impact of draft EU policies on their business I'd be surprised if prices don't rise once they are implemented
So in fact all the points I made that IA thought to question were correct.
On the issue of VAT on heating costs, the Government did try to get rid of it in 1997 but were not allowed to. All they could do was reduce it to 5%. I have absolutely no doubt that if the EU regulation did not exist then there would be huge political pressure to reduce it as it can in no way be considered a non essential
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
...Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
In line with the recent ComRes poll. Which is why Mr Meek's article is a little inexplicable on that matter.
He called the migrant crisis completely wrong (if you use public opinion as a barometer) and has been doubling down on the premise ever since
I wonder if in a tv interview Cameron is going to get skewered by an interviewer about his failure to meet his net immigration promise? It is the sort of moment that a Paxman would have gone for or a Robin Day "here today gone tomorrow minister"... Only Andrew Neil seems to be capable of that and I cannot see Neil getting the chance at Cameron.
George Eaton Labour figures who voted Out in 1975 back EU membership in open letter (Beckett, Benn, Blunkett, Kinnock, Straw).
Politicians on all sides trying to confirm the public in their contempt for all things Westminster or Brussels. We are seeing levels of hypocrisy and shameless lying to the public unseen since at least Blair.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
...Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
In line with the recent ComRes poll. Which is why Mr Meek's article is a little inexplicable on that matter.
He called the migrant crisis completely wrong (if you use public opinion as a barometer) and has been doubling down on the premise ever since
I wonder if in a tv interview Cameron is going to get skewered by an interviewer about his failure to meet his net immigration promise? It is the sort of moment that a Paxman would have gone for or a Robin Day "here today gone tomorrow minister"... Only Andrew Neil seems to be capable of that and I cannot see Neil getting the chance at Cameron.
Nope, but he will probably go and talk to Andrew Marr and any other metro-elite liberal soft soap artist
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Red wine (though all wines are on a scale) has a much fuller body, more tannin, duffs up your tongue more. Drink that with fish or white meat and a delicate sauce, it will generally overpower the dish and you won't be able to fully appreciate the food's flavours (Beaujolais with fish being a well-known exception). On the other hand, a strongly flavoured red meat dish or curry will overpower the taste of a more delicately flavoured white wine. So 'the rule' is simple common sense and has not been superseded as far as I know.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
It is telling that you believe the piece to be EU neutral. It is not. It makes the usual Europhile assumptions which have no basis in reality.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Yes thank goodness that the influence of Ian Fleming has waned. Many French drink red with everything.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
Links? If those are facts you won't expect people to rely on your say-so.
Well:
VAT on fuel must be at a minimum level of 5% according to EU rules [only an aside in this article but it will do]. I doubt the government will cut
The price of food will be related to CAP I guess - not an unreasonable assumption that it causes us to pay too much by artificially restricting supply
On insurance, perhaps there is a tax element? Certainly the EU is responsible for women paying more than they should for car insurance because insurers can't discriminate on the grounds of gender
I doubt the Tories would cut VAT on fuel, though I imagine Corbyn would want to. If we left the EU.
As to food, that was my point: arguing from assumptions, however plausible, is not arguing from fact.
And if women are paying too much for car insurance, then men, surely, should be paying more. Zero-sum, or near enough.
But worry not, old bean. Plato says I'm creepy, so who needs facts? Although I'm not, apparently, creepy enough for her to ask OGH to ban me
.... And the way the insurance firms are complaining about the impact of draft EU policies on their business I'd be surprised if prices don't rise once they are implemented
I did ask Alastair his views the other day on what the EC had coming down the road for insurance in the service regulations etc, I missed the response, so if our great PB community could clarify that it would be helpful. I echo your comment on the impact of the meddling proposed but it is not my specialism.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Yes thank goodness that the influence of Ian Fleming has waned. Many French drink red with everything.
You're missing out! Those types of red wine are very good for you too.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Yes thank goodness that the influence of Ian Fleming has waned. Many French drink red with everything.
You're missing out! Those types of red wine are very good for you too.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Yes thank goodness that the influence of Ian Fleming has waned. Many French drink red with everything.
My rebellious side would often order red just to invite the pompous. But I do like a Chablis and a Pouilly-Fumé.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
I started doing a Master of Wine course years ago, never finished it. The instructor described Mateus Rose as the ultimate inoffensive party wine.
Not red and not white Not sweet and not dry Not sparkling and not still Not light, but not full bodied etc
Once the world biggest wine, so there must be something in that approach.
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
...Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
In line with the recent ComRes poll. Which is why Mr Meek's article is a little inexplicable on that matter.
He called the migrant crisis completely wrong (if you use public opinion as a barometer) and has been doubling down on the premise ever since
I wonder if in a tv interview Cameron is going to get skewered by an interviewer about his failure to meet his net immigration promise? It is the sort of moment that a Paxman would have gone for or a Robin Day "here today gone tomorrow minister"... Only Andrew Neil seems to be capable of that and I cannot see Neil getting the chance at Cameron.
Nope, but he will probably go and talk to Andrew Marr and any other metro-elite liberal soft soap artist
Cameron and his record on immigration is an open goal.
George Eaton Labour figures who voted Out in 1975 back EU membership in open letter (Beckett, Benn, Blunkett, Kinnock, Straw).
Politicians on all sides trying to confirm the public in their contempt for all things Westminster or Brussels. We are seeing levels of hypocrisy and shameless lying to the public unseen since at least Blair.
The idea that Kinnock is a Eurosceptic considering how much he and his family make out of the EU is hilarious.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Red wine (though all wines are on a scale) has a much fuller body, more tannin, duffs up your tongue more. Drink that with fish or white meat and a delicate sauce, it will generally overpower the dish and you won't be able to fully appreciate the food's flavours (Beaujolais with fish being a well-known exception). On the other hand, a strongly flavoured red meat dish or curry will overpower the taste of a more delicately flavoured white wine. So 'the rule' is simple common sense and has not been superseded as far as I know.
In my affluent middle age I have discovered that champagne goes with, basically, everything. Or maybe it's because it makes me so cheerful I don't care what I'm eating.
Cheerful, agreed. Being not quite so affluent I extend that to any decent bubbly.
23-3 in the cricket...Reece, He can't bat, but can certainly bowl, Topley.
And less than an hour later those two have put on a ton.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
Is steak and champagne a match made in heaven? Come to think of it, didn't Jeffrey Archer used to serve champagne with shepherds pie? What happened to white with fish, red with meat? (Genuine-ish query: I don't drink but do play host from time to time.)
One of the minor, but still welcome, changes in my lifetime has been the death of wine snobbery (it's been replaced by coffee snobbery). People used to be terrified of ordering the 'wrong' wine (sadistic sommeliers must pine for those halcyon days). Hence those heuristics.
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
Red wine (though all wines are on a scale) has a much fuller body, more tannin, duffs up your tongue more. Drink that with fish or white meat and a delicate sauce, it will generally overpower the dish and you won't be able to fully appreciate the food's flavours (Beaujolais with fish being a well-known exception). On the other hand, a strongly flavoured red meat dish or curry will overpower the taste of a more delicately flavoured white wine. So 'the rule' is simple common sense and has not been superseded as far as I know.
In my affluent middle age I have discovered that champagne goes with, basically, everything. Or maybe it's because it makes me so cheerful I don't care what I'm eating.
He called the migrant crisis completely wrong (if you use public opinion as a barometer) and has been doubling down on the premise ever since
I wonder if in a tv interview Cameron is going to get skewered by an interviewer about his failure to meet his net immigration promise? It is the sort of moment that a Paxman would have gone for or a Robin Day "here today gone tomorrow minister"... Only Andrew Neil seems to be capable of that and I cannot see Neil getting the chance at Cameron.
Nope, but he will probably go and talk to Andrew Marr and any other metro-elite liberal soft soap artist
Cameron and his record on immigration is an open goal.
Indeed. but Marr is a lefty liberal, so there isn't the slightest chance of him trying to score in that sort of goal, Cameron might be a nasty Tory, but some things go to far, he would get "unliked" from all the best Islington dinner parties.
RIP Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury. He was the Liberal victor at Orpington in 1962. A long a distinguished life, still attending the House of Lords regularly up until December.
There will now be a by-election for his hereditary seat in the House of Lords, with only hereditary LibDem peers entitled to vote.
RIP Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury. He was the Liberal victor at Orpington in 1962. A long a distinguished life, still attending the House of Lords regularly up until December.
There will now be a by-election for his hereditary seat in the House of Lords, with only hereditary LibDem peers entitled to vote.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
What's visceral for me is being bored stupid by a dull, redundant thesis which you have already expressed, several times, in thread headers. Even if there was some truth in your forlorn, ridiculous belief that people don't closely associate migration with the EU, we've already heard you say it six trillion times. What's the fecking point in doing it again? Were you stuck for a subject? Get a grip.
It's because Alastair isn't fully convinced himself and is using these threads to work out his thinking.
I think that Philip Thompson has, to be fair, put his case across far more clearly and simply than Alastair has.
But that's because Alastair is too emotionally invested in the EU referendum issue - because he doesn't want to be on the same side as a segment of the populace whom he perceives to be homophobic.
He is trying to work back the logic for his argument back from the conclusion he's already reached; thus his thinking is compromised.
Comments
SquareRoot said:
"The comments can be ignored because the article , like any from the Daily Jackboot are designed to get the white folks angry.. Their articles are littered with words like, fury, anger and outrage, whilst never identifying who was angry , furious or outraged , and then leave it to the loony comments"
Odd? given You even read the comments.....given you have never read it of course, nor would you buy it. You don't even have to move off this thread to read your quote.
It is how individual voters vary in attributing causal linkages at the EU's door on various issues that explains to me the variability in the passion of those who oppose membership of the EU and those who don't; and the general perception that the EC and the EU structures as being largely inefficient at achieving whatever good they were set up to achieve as the reason why there are so few truly passionate defenders of membership.
You're creepy. I'll now go back to scrolling passed them.
The fact that most people are more than happy and openly welcome legal and controlled immigration they are equally unhappy that people jump the queues by jumping into back of articulated lorries in Calais.
If we don't break this one quickly then the result is clear - those five overs we didn't use this morning will no doubt come to affect the result again.
By the way, who the f... schedules England to play in cricket and rugby, along with a couple of key football fixtures - on Valentine's day!
I'll be signing off soon as it's 6pm here and Mrs Sandpit is on her way back to the waiting Champagne and steak
VAT on fuel must be at a minimum level of 5% according to EU rules [only an aside in this article but it will do]. I doubt the government will cut
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/brown-makes-firm-pledge-to-cut-vat-on-fuel-1361039.html
The price of food will be related to CAP I guess - not an unreasonable assumption that it causes us to pay too much by artificially restricting supply
On insurance, perhaps there is a tax element? Certainly the EU is responsible for women paying more than they should for car insurance because insurers can't discriminate on the grounds of gender
Indeed. It's pointless even trying to put "the EU" into a tier. If someone thinks immigration is important, and in their mind they associate "EU = immigration" for the purposes of the referendum (whether intellectually accurate or not), then that is how their vote will be affected.
It's like intellectually arguing how the Tories won't be able to do enough to win a majority at the 2015 election, and then they stick up a poster of Miliband in the SNP's pocket...
As to food, that was my point: arguing from assumptions, however plausible, is not arguing from fact.
And if women are paying too much for car insurance, then men, surely, should be paying more. Zero-sum, or near enough.
But worry not, old bean. Plato says I'm creepy, so who needs facts? Although I'm not, apparently, creepy enough for her to ask OGH to ban me
The day after the EU will start, it will be relentless and it will be merciless and rarely in our favour if history is anything to go by.
A family friend, metropolitan elite through and through, has recently decided that he too will be voting to leave the EU. His reason? Immigration.
I could given countless examples but have work to be getting on with.
Whether rightly or wrongly, people believe that immigration can be controlled through leaving the EU.
...that you and I just are not quite as clever as he is. Look! He can put the EU into the correct Tier! Which makes the "individual voters" of which you speak all look a bit silly in comparison.
If only we could all think at Alistair's level then everything would be so much better. Except SeanT who would be bored out of his mind with thread header tedium.
London -> NYC return: £4,926.55
Paris -> London -> NYC -> London -> Paris: Eur 4,013 (£3,116)
Paris -> NYC [with American] -> Paris [with BA Openskies]: Eur 1,750 (£1,359)
Haven't priced up the Paris to London leg, but you should be able to make it work with those differentials.
If someone views immigration as a critical Tier 2 issue and they want to Vote Leave due to that then it is because of there being a Tier 2 issue that they care about being affected.
The key to winning the referendum isn't who best argues about Qualified Majority Voting, it will be who can win over 50%+1 of the votes almost all of which will be cast due to a Tier 2 concern. To win Leave (and Remain) need to concentrate on Safety and Security issues.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/philip-hammond-a-foreign-secretary-who-would-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
If he thinks cameron has brought back substantial powers,the man's a fool or a liar.
That's like me saying the ice in the glass has melted and you saying no it hasn't, there's water in the glass.
But the Champagne is for the arrival drink and the prawn cocktail starter.
The Chateauneuf-du-Pape is what goes with the steak.
CAP analysis is well founded - I saw one from the IEA some years ago which laid it out well. But it's a pretty basic axiom that trade barriers = high prices for consumers.
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble [this isn't the original, just a blog]
Car insurance - actually what happened was that men's insurance didn't come down, but women's prices went up. That's capitalism I guess
And the way the insurance firms are complaining about the impact of draft EU policies on their business I'd be surprised if prices don't rise once they are implemented
x Shouldn't have got sent off then should he
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/full-immigration-appeals-ended-immigration-act-2014-brought-into-force/ So we screw over those that apply legally, and make things easier for the rest.. classy.
It was our first sending off of the season.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/fixtures
If you invite pressure as Leicester do, its no surprise when good teams induce lots of fouls. Its not hard luck
Now, you can pretty much drink whatever you think works. Personally I think red is better with pretty much everything. However, that may have something to do with the ruination of my palate due to my orgiastic youth of excess-in-all-things.
George Eaton
Labour figures who voted Out in 1975 back EU membership in open letter (Beckett, Benn, Blunkett, Kinnock, Straw).
On the issue of VAT on heating costs, the Government did try to get rid of it in 1997 but were not allowed to. All they could do was reduce it to 5%. I have absolutely no doubt that if the EU regulation did not exist then there would be huge political pressure to reduce it as it can in no way be considered a non essential
When I was small it was only Mateus Rose and candles, lol.
Not red and not white
Not sweet and not dry
Not sparkling and not still
Not light, but not full bodied
etc
Once the world biggest wine, so there must be something in that approach.
There will now be a by-election for his hereditary seat in the House of Lords, with only hereditary LibDem peers entitled to vote.
I think that Philip Thompson has, to be fair, put his case across far more clearly and simply than Alastair has.
But that's because Alastair is too emotionally invested in the EU referendum issue - because he doesn't want to be on the same side as a segment of the populace whom he perceives to be homophobic.
He is trying to work back the logic for his argument back from the conclusion he's already reached; thus his thinking is compromised.
new thread