Brexit or Bremain - Urban votes

[Stevlin]

Stevlin, the UK can afford those cancer drugs. Now. We'll also be able to afford them if we leave the EU. But they won't get bought.

The reasons for that are probably some mix of pragmatism about the cost of extending the life of people who have a low quality of life and are going to die anyway (all health services have to make these decisions) and, just perhaps, your rulers not giving one fuck about you. The EU has nothing to do with it, nor to do with the poor quality of your local schools, the distance to your closest A&E, or the cost of higher education. See the second part of what I said for the explanation of that.

You are deluded if you think any part of the Tory party wants to leave the EU so they can spend more money on you. They don't and they won't.

The reason for denying the drugs is because of the expense. It may well be that the 'administration' officials consider it poor value for the money.......but so what? The point being made is that British citizens, many of whom have clearly 'contributed' to the system during their lifetime, whereas the UK are paying huge sums to subsidise EU citizens who have made no contributions whatsoever - and in response to the rest of your gripe - if you preferred that EU subsidy saving to be spent elsewhere fine - but it is nonsense to claim the EU has nothing to do with it.
Incidentally - you are the deluded one if you believe that my comments on ceasing to borrow to subsidise the EU is Tory biased - or in fact that we can continue to spend above our income indefinitely - which you appear to imply with claiming that 'we can afford to'.

 

[agricola]

The reason for their wealthier state is irrelevant, as the issue was about EU membership/single market access......but how does a government 'spunk' our oil and gas income??

Well, for a start selling off the British National Oil Company for less than it was worth just before the boom in production in the North Sea.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nope - mid-90s% of Turkey is in Asia - that means mostly Asian in may book........I'm talking of the location of Turkey - not it's peoples.

Asia Minor or Eurasia are not what the majority of people are referring to, when using the term "Asia".

What has that got to do with claims of making a 'silly' argument?

The one informs the other.

No it isn't it is making a straight forward logical conclusion. Whatever money is saved from leaving the EU clearly could be spent on something else.

"Whatever money is saved could be spent elsewhere, therefore Brexit!" is circular logic. It may be straightforward, but it's still circular.

The reason for their wealthier state is irrelevant, as the issue was about EU membership/single market access......but how does a government 'spunk' our oil and gas income??

The reason for Norway's wealth is entirely relevant.
Norway is notwealthy because they're outside the EU, they're wealthy because they had foresight with regard to their natural resources and what could be done with the income they generated.

A government "spunks" such income when they spend it on non-core issues such as cutting taxation, which rarely even generates savings let alone investment, rather than on infrastructure, which generates money.[/quote]

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, for a start selling off the British National Oil Company for less than it was worth just before the boom in production in the North Sea.

Also, oil reserves are pretty evenly split between the UK and Norway. But that means 10 times more oil per capita for Norway.

 

[Stevlin]

I was just clarifying that I am still waiting for him to answer. There's no need to get in a tizzy about it.

Hardly in a 'tizzy' - I was just amazed that somebody posting a question on a forum, ( irrespective to whom it was addressed), would appear to be surprised at receiving an answer from somebody else.

 

[Santino]

Hardly in a 'tizzy' - I was just amazed that somebody posting a question on a forum, ( irrespective to whom it was addressed), would appear to be surprised at receiving an answer from somebody else.

I wasn't surprised, I was correcting someone who I thought couldn't understand how quoting in message boards works. I thought perhaps you were a little bit dim, but I realise now I was wrong.

 

[Stevlin]

Asia Minor or Eurasia are not what the majority of people are referring to, when using the term "Asia".

Irrelevant - the majority of Turkey is in Asia - which is all that I pointed out - after all - it is in the context of the European Union that we are talking......

The one informs the other.

How so?

"Whatever money is saved could be spent elsewhere, therefore Brexit!" is circular logic. It may be straightforward, but it's still circular.

Nonsense.....that is why I clarified my comment with 'COULD'. This clearly indicated that spending on the NHS was only ONE option out of many

The reason for Norway's wealth is entirely relevant.
Norway is not wealthy because they're outside the EU, they're wealthy because they had foresight with regard to their natural resources and what could be done with the income they generated.

Absolute nonsense. I never claimed that they were wealthier because they weren't a member of the EU - that is a claim of the Bremainers. They are wealthy BECAUSE of the oil - the fact that, as you state, unlike the UK, they spend their oil and gas revenue wisely, such as not frittering it away on tax reductions etc. In fact the majority of wealthy countries are not members of the EU.

A government "spunks" such income when they spend it on non-core issues such as cutting taxation, which rarely even generates savings let alone investment, rather than on infrastructure, which generates money.

Nope - 'spunk' is a noun, not a verb ,and is related to pluck, or courage. It has nothing to do with investing oil and gas revenue on social expenditure rather than making tax cuts.

 

[Stevlin]

I wasn't surprised, I was correcting someone who I thought couldn't understand how quoting in message boards works. I thought perhaps you were a little bit dim, but I realise now I was wrong.

Well you may not be.....I have indeed screwed up a few posting attempts. ;0)

 

[DotCommunist]

spunk in that context refers to ejaculation

i.e

he got his wages then spunked them up the wall on a pub crawl

 

[hash tag]

I still don't know which way to vote, because although they have spent £9 million on leaflets to tell us what to do, I still have not received mine Oh, what to do?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Irrelevant - the majority of Turkey is in Asia - which is all that I pointed out - after all - it is in the context of the European Union that we are talking......

Hence the "Eurasian" tag, as supposedly we're not talking about the people.

How so?

I'm sure you can work it out if you try

Nonsense.....that is why I clarified my comment with 'COULD'. This clearly indicated that spending on the NHS was only ONE option out of many

So a single quasi-clarification means it's not circular logic?
Not in my book.

Absolute nonsense. I never claimed that they were wealthier because they weren't a member of the EU - that is a claim of the Bremainers. They are wealthy BECAUSE of the oil - the fact that, as you state, unlike the UK, they spend their oil and gas revenue wisely, such as not frittering it away on tax reductions etc. In fact the majority of wealthy countries are not members of the EU.

No, they're wealthy not "because of the oil", but because of the decisions they made about what to do with the income - decisions made under plebiscite, I believe.

Nope - 'spunk' is a noun, not a verb ,and is related to pluck, or courage. It has nothing to do with investing oil and gas revenue on social expenditure rather than making tax cuts.

"Spunk" is a noun and a verb, and has nothing to do with pluck or courage, unless you're an American.
It's a name for sperm, and a description of ejaculation.

 

[Stevlin]

What other reasons do you have for exit, other than this which doesn't really follow. As others have said, we can afford those drugs already and not paying for membership of the EU won't magically make that money available for those drugs.

(I'm falling towards exit myself in what's a pretty crap deal either way - if only for the potential of attacking EU neoliberalism and hoping that a pro-worker/socialist alliance could come out of it in the longer term both here and in Europe)

Apart from having to pay an EU subsidy, for the privilege of buying more from the EU than vice versa, I consider the free movement right to be totally inappropriate, and irresponsible for a group of countries outside of a federation. It would be appropriate if we were part of a USSE - but I believe that most British people would not accept that - although many of them clearly do not realise that is the undoubted ambition of the EU, despite the EU having introduced a common currency/Parliament ( with sovereign legal powers), passport, foreign embassies, looking to create their own 'army' etc. etc. I don't believe that we derive any benefit from membership of the EU - other than from trading - but we shouldn't have to pay for that. We even had to hand over British territorial fishing rights to the EU!! Many countries enjoy free trade with the EU without being a member of it - that is what I would greatly prefer - even if it involved tariffs - because it is clearly in the interests of the EU as well as the UK for this to continue.
I believe we have too many MPs now, without having to provide another trough for yet even more!!

 

[Stevlin]

Well, for a start selling off the British National Oil Company for less than it was worth just before the boom in production in the North Sea.

Well that's no different to stupidly selling off more than half of our gold reserves at a 20 year low price......but that is another example of stupidity - not courage!

 

[agricola]

Well that's no different to stupidly selling off more than half of our gold reserves at a 20 year low price......but that is another example of stupidity - not courage!

Well no, but of course that was another decision made by the UK government of the day without interference from Europe.

 

[Stevlin]

Hence the "Eurasian" tag, as supposedly we're not talking about the people..

Still irrelevant..over 90% of Turkey is in Asia - so clearly , Turkey is predominantly Asian - which is what I pointed out.


.

I'm sure you can work it out if you try.

Doubt it - my mind isn't as twisted as yours.



.

So a single quasi-clarification means it's not circular logic?
Not in my book..

Then you need to change your book.
.




.

No, they're wealthy not "because of the oil", but because of the decisions they made about what to do with the income - decisions made under plebiscite, I believe..

They needed that amount of oil prior to making those decisions did they not?



.[/QUOTE]"Spunk" is a noun and a verb, and has nothing to do with pluck or courage, unless you're an American.
It's a name for sperm, and a description of ejaculation.[/QUOTE] Still wrong - but that is hardly surprising. I would recommend that you buy a decent dictionary - like the OED for instance.

 

[Stevlin]

Well no, but of course that was another decision made by the UK government of the day without interference from Europe.

Well yes - but perhaps you could indicate where I cited Europe, ( presuming you meant the EU), as the culprit???

 

[Stevlin]

spunk in that context refers to ejaculation

i.e

he got his wages then spunked them up the wall on a pub crawl

No it doesn't - and, in any event, if used in the sentence on which I commented, it just wouldn't make any sense! .......nor in fact in your sentence either. The other type of ejaculation is verbal, also known as ' interjections', such as shouting ''Stop!" when someone is rabbiting on.

 

[DotCommunist]

No it doesn't - and, in any event, if used in the sentence on which I commented, it just wouldn't make any sense! .......nor in fact in your sentence either. The other type of ejaculation is verbal, also known as ' interjections', such as shouting ''Stop!" when someone is rabbiting on.

a common usage in the 19th was ejaculate as you describe- an interjection or exclamation. These days its amost solely used to refer to the male emission of semen. Look, I'm not about to argue a colloquialism with you, 'spunked' as in 'wasted with glee' has been in use in this manner for over 20 years or more. Its use in the classic sense of pluck or spirit has actually died out more or less because it refers now to semen. Words change and usages also

 

[mauvais]

You know your argument is going well when it's reduced to the core philosophical tenet of, 'but spunk is a noun'.

 

[newbie]

(I'm falling towards exit myself in what's a pretty crap deal either way - if only for the potential of attacking EU neoliberalism and hoping that a pro-worker/socialist alliance could come out of it in the longer term both here and in Europe)

I can't remember whether I've already asked you or not, but no-one I have asked has answered, so here goes again. I'm in full agreement, it is a crap deal either way and I'd love there to be that potential. But where's the evidence that it might exist? What possible reason is there, other than pure wishful thinking, to imagine that any such alliance is on the cards here?

And, I suppose as a supplementary since you raised it, why is Brexit more likely to improve the chances "both here and in Europe"? To me that seems counterintuitive and to run against any notions of internationalism. What am I missing?

 

[stethoscope]

I think I said before that it's all rather wishful thinking on my part tbh, but it's one that I cling onto because otherwise if we're saying that EU neo-liberalism (and the clutching onto workers rights, etc. from 20 years ago that seems to be some sort of defense for staying in) is the best we're ever gonna get, that's a very depressing situation.

'Internationalism' inside the EU only cares as long as it supports capital interests. So, again, wishful thinking really, but I'd rather we at least tried through exit to derail the EU neoliberal project and attempt to create new internationalist pro-socialist alliances.

 

[newbie]

you're right, I think you did say that before- sorry

I think I said before that it's all rather wishful thinking on my part tbh, but it's one that I cling onto because otherwise if we're saying that EU neo-liberalism (and the clutching onto workers rights, etc. from 20 years ago that seems to be some sort of defense for staying in) is the best we're ever gonna get, that's a very depressing situation.

massively depressing. It's by far the strongest argument for leaving, that staying in means abandoning all hope. I wish I didn't see the prospect of a future being mapped by Brexit victors- the nationalist right of the Tories and UKIP- as even more depressing.

'Internationalism' inside the EU only cares as long as it supports capital interests.

No, don't agree with that. Very few of the progressive gains of recent decades have come from domestic struggle, mostly we've coat-tailed on initiatives from the continent (where tory/labour governments haven't opted out), and that's exactly what's happening with eg opposition to TTIP and the so-called Social Pillar that's under discussion.

 

[stethoscope]

No, don't agree with that. Very few of the progressive gains of recent decades have come from domestic struggle, mostly we've coat-tailed on initiatives from the continent (where tory/labour governments haven't opted out), and that's exactly what's happening with eg opposition to TTIP and the so-called Social Pillar that's under discussion.

From what I've briefly read about the 'Social Pillar', it still places workers and social rights secondary to capital and labour market interests. The priority is still on access to fair markets (i.e. opening up to competition), fiscal sustainability (i.e. imposing austerity where needed), etc.

 

[newbie]

From what I've briefly read about the 'Social Pillar', it still places workers and social rights secondary to capital and labour market interests. The priority is still on access to fair markets (i.e. opening up to competition), fiscal sustainability (i.e. imposing austerity where needed), etc.

yep. I don't think there's doubt that the EU institution is intent on expanding neo-liberalism. But I also don't think there's any doubt that the most expansionist elements (which historically has had the UK at the forefront) are tempered by collectivist and social improvement tendencies. There's a balance of forces out of which comes the direction of travel, and some of the progressive forces are quite strong- which is why 'our' government has done so many opt-outs.

That's not the case in this country and hasn't been for decades- there are very limited oppositional forces to balance neo-liberalism, and what there is is unfortunately almost entirely ineffective.

I'll predict that if we stay in no socially progressive or useful measures from the Social Pillar will be implemented here*, but the regressive ones will be. Does that prediction surprise anyone?


* if/when it comes about, and bearing in mind it's primarily aimed at the Eurozone

 

[nuffsaid]

Just to add my sterling two penneth.

I worked in Brussels for 2 years for the European Commission itself and with the inside knowledge that experience gave me I am voting to leave. You may wish to believe the fear propaganda about leaving but my voting decision is based from inside knowledge, not of reading anything written by journos or spoken of from politicians and having also worked on 2 other separate occasions in other EU countries I was firmly in the remain camp.

 

[laptop]

Just to add my sterling two penneth.

I worked in Brussels for 2 years for the European Commission itself and with the inside knowledge that experience gave me I am voting to leave. You may wish to believe the fear propaganda about leaving but my voting decision is based from inside knowledge, not of reading anything written by journos or spoken of from politicians and having also worked on 2 other separate occasions in other EU countries I was firmly in the remain camp.

What were you doing? Which DG?

 

[nuffsaid]

IT Consultant - DG Education and culture.

 

[weltweit]

Just to add my sterling two penneth.

I worked in Brussels for 2 years for the European Commission itself and with the inside knowledge that experience gave me I am voting to leave. You may wish to believe the fear propaganda about leaving but my voting decision is based from inside knowledge, not of reading anything written by journos or spoken of from politicians and having also worked on 2 other separate occasions in other EU countries I was firmly in the remain camp.

No, that isn't nuffsaid so you have inside knowledge and are voting out, but what knowledge do you have and why does it persuade you to vote out?

 

[laptop]

IT Consultant - DG Education and culture.

Should we have a vote to exit IT consultancy?

 

[nuffsaid]

Should we have a vote to exit IT consultancy?

Well I'm working to be able to exit it as soon as possible.