| Brexiters, why? 12:51 - Apr 22 with 31569 views | the_oracle |
When are the Brexiters going to be honest about the reason they want out?
By any objective view business says stay in. Support from the IMF, CBI big businesses like BT vodaphone, Marks and Spencers, BAE, Easy Jet etc etc. World leader say stay in to protect our position as a world power, to hold the EU together, prevent conflict etc. Unions cite worker’s protection as a reason to stay in. All the main parties support in, the Treasury says in. There are warnings from EU leaders that if we are not part of the club we will have serious problems.
I have not heard a single cogent reason, financially, to get out. Kate Hoey one of the Brexit leaders embarrassingly couldn’t site a single report saying why we would be better off. A few politicians led by Boris and Farage are for out. That’s it. There is no clear explanation of what happens next from them, they just don’t seem to know.
Everything seems to point to the view that “remain” is right.
So be honest, Brexiters, is it immigration?
|  | | |  |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:25 - Apr 29 with 1800 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Brexiters, why? on 19:43 - Apr 29 by Davillin |
Proof positive that your ideas are taken from bias-ravaged UK/US media: You wrote about me: "There is a complete lack of honesty in your opinion of Obama. To some extent, an ineffectual president in many ways, but a president that has been hampered at every turn by a childlike congress unwilling to countenance anything that is proposed." That is false beyond recognition. You are gullible to believe his lie in your last lines.
First, it appears to me that you know nothing of the way the U.S. federal government is supposed to work, and less about how obama has warped it beyond recognition.
Presidents are supposed to work with the Congess, who are solely responsible for legislating. Every good president -- even half-good presidents -- has met regularly and frequently with leaders of the House and Senate on proposed legislation. This president didn't even work with Congress when his party had control of the Senate.
Now do some research. How many times since the Republicans have had control of both houses has he met with representatives of either house to work on proposed legislation?
The truth, if you care to know it, is that he blames the Republicans for not "cooperating," which means, purely and simply, "not doing it his way," when he has never [never] sought to work with them, and which gives him an excuse to flout the Constitution in order to issue "executive orders" in place of, or changing, statutes.
And do some research on how many of the bills presented to him by Congress he has vetoed, or threatened/promised to veto if it were presented to him.
What is fatal to your already fallacious argument is that he lies through his teeth about virtually anything and everything, and has done so since his first election campaign. Your media do not tell you that, probably primarily because they simply copy the U.S. media claque, who never, never point out his pathological prevarications.
Because you fail to understand what I wrote above, you can never understand how irritatingly insulting your comment, reproduced above, is. Nor how wrong you are about his effectiveness as a president.
Wanna discuss his foreign so-called "policy"? It gets worse.
Or his qualifications to be president of a country? And worse. [Post edited 29 Apr 2016 19:43]
|
Again, you can't resist implying that my view which is different to yours must simply be caused by my ignorance rather than simply a difference of view.
I have access to EXACTLY the same media as you do. It is not 'my media'. I understand EXACTLY the way that the US Federal government is supposed to work (7 seasons of the West Wing taught me all I need to know). I have done some research as you so condescendingly suggest. And I don't fail to understand what you wrote - it's hardly earth shattering or different to the views held by many if not all republicans.
I simply disagree with your assessment. In my view, history will also disagree with it.
PS - the bit about The West Wing was a joke, just in case you failed to detect my 'British' sense of humour. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:25 - Apr 29 with 1800 views | Davillin |
| Brexiters, why? on 18:52 - Apr 29 by the_oracle |
Can you do me a favour. This was a quite interesting thread on Brexit ( or not). Could Dav and the Dav detractors and the Obamaphobes and philes start "yet another thread" on Dav. Obama wants us in. That's all I need to know, no more on Obama's presidency, good or bad, please. |
Mr Oracle:
Normally, I would reply in a p.m., but I want to reply to you, but to do so in the same place.
I never initiate these Pro- and Anti-Davillin mini-threads. And I never make unkind comments unless in riposte.
When posters will stop insulting me, or trying to belittle me, then I won't have to respond. It's not complicated.
There. You wrote your post respectfully, as did I. Proof positive that it can be done. 
[I'm glad you used obama's opinion as it deserves. p.s. That's not "on Obama's presidency," I hope.] |  |
| |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:30 - Apr 29 with 1797 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Brexiters, why? on 18:51 - Apr 29 by johnlangy |
Well, i'll just have to help you with the figures (  ).
I found a file which breaks it down and you're right of course. The figures are far from equal which we'd expect. Of the £290 bn imports £70 bn come from Germany and £37 bn from France. And we send back £45 and £31 bn respectively. So Germany mainly and France will have huge input to what happens in those Trade meetings. Having said that, all members supposedly have an equal vote on such things so how that pans out is anyone's guess. And as you point out, Hungary and Poland have stood up to Germany in regard to migrants (I didn't know that).
I still don't see though how there's any way they can allow the UK to not follow EU rules and regs. As you say both Germany and France sell us loads of cars. Well, if our lot say we'll just ignore a bunch of regulations, like the working time directive for example, that would give our car manufacturers an advantage over theirs. Our cars would be cheaper so in theory our car sales to them would go up and their car sales to us would go down.
It's not exactly scientific I know.
And as regards the PIIGS countries Ireland's growth was 7.7% in 2014 and Spain's economy is due a 'robust' growth this year and next so they're at least in recovery mode. Portugal and Italy are growing slowly but it's probably a fragile growth. Bu what happens to Greece is anyone's guess. |
This comment "like the working time directive for example, that would give our car manufacturers an advantage over theirs"
just goes to show how little you know about the EU workings and how this directive has affected British workers and overall economics.
PAYING workers to work overtime to produce something does not give the producer an "advantage" over competitors, in fact it is just the opposite. Work it out for yourself, which is cheaper a product produced at Single time, say £10.00 an hour or one that is produced at £13.30/£15.00/£20.00 (time and a third, time and a half and double time respectively.
The working time directive has a massive get out clause exploited in the UK that allows employers & employees to ignore the "overtime" rules by claiming "prior shift or hour patterns".
Just ask the Junior Doctors?
I know workers that can work around 16 hours straight, they also work 7 days straight with just 2 days off.
How do you think all the rules & regs affect the Zero Contract workers? | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:32 - Apr 29 with 1796 views | londonlisa2001 |
We can all have opinions on the geopolitical implications of exit or remain.
However, anyone from either side that makes definitive statements about the economic implications of either decision is ignoring the reality which is that no one can definitively tell what will happen if we exit as it is unprecedented. We can all make predictions or give a view, but the statement that Brexit will be bad economically or good economically just doesn't hold up however it is presented.
The media are not presenting anything other than their own spin either, so anything that either the Mail or the Express prints is simply not worth reading other than as an aside. [Post edited 29 Apr 2016 20:34]
| | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:36 - Apr 29 with 1793 views | A_Fans_Dad |
It does not matter whether it is Biased or Unbiased or not, the Truth of the matter is that the UK HAS been stopped from deporting people due to human rights issue.
Don't you read the press at all?
Do you want me to embarass you by digging them up? | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:38 - Apr 29 with 1788 views | Morfa_Same |
| Brexiters, why? on 19:54 - Apr 29 by Kilkennyjack |
All welsh people should vote to stay in. Thank you. |
Indeed.
Wales is a net beneficiary from the EU. If we vote out we'd be effectively turning down money. What's more I think I'm right in saying EU money can't be syphoned off by Cardiff, which is not an objective one area.
European money goes to where it's needed most, unlike money from the UK Government/WAG which always goes to places like London and Cardiff. |  | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:40 - Apr 29 with 1788 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:36 - Apr 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
It does not matter whether it is Biased or Unbiased or not, the Truth of the matter is that the UK HAS been stopped from deporting people due to human rights issue.
Don't you read the press at all?
Do you want me to embarass you by digging them up? |
The Human Rights Act is not affected by the upcoming vote. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:44 - Apr 29 with 1781 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:32 - Apr 29 by londonlisa2001 |
We can all have opinions on the geopolitical implications of exit or remain.
However, anyone from either side that makes definitive statements about the economic implications of either decision is ignoring the reality which is that no one can definitively tell what will happen if we exit as it is unprecedented. We can all make predictions or give a view, but the statement that Brexit will be bad economically or good economically just doesn't hold up however it is presented.
The media are not presenting anything other than their own spin either, so anything that either the Mail or the Express prints is simply not worth reading other than as an aside. [Post edited 29 Apr 2016 20:34]
|
There you go, just like the orcale.
Rubbish the messenger so you can rubbish the content.
If all the news that comes from the Express or Mail it is not true, would you care to tell us all what sources you do find acceptable.
I totally agree with you about the "Economic Predictions" about Brexit, it is a shame that the oracle doesn't agree with you, because then there would have been absolutely no point to this whole post. [Post edited 29 Apr 2016 23:16]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Brexiters, why? on 20:50 - Apr 29 with 1775 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:38 - Apr 29 by Morfa_Same |
Indeed.
Wales is a net beneficiary from the EU. If we vote out we'd be effectively turning down money. What's more I think I'm right in saying EU money can't be syphoned off by Cardiff, which is not an objective one area.
European money goes to where it's needed most, unlike money from the UK Government/WAG which always goes to places like London and Cardiff. |
Sorry, EU money, is not EU money it is recycled UK money and it does not necessarily go to where it is needed most, but to where the EU decides it should go, with some cap in hand input from the Welsh Assembly.
Ask the fishing Industry how they feel about the EU.
What we should fighting for is a fairer distribution of the UK money that is distributed by Westmnister and the Welsh Assembly. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:54 - Apr 29 with 1773 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:44 - Apr 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
There you go, just like the orcale.
Rubbish the messenger so you can rubbish the content.
If all the news that comes from the Express or Mail it is not true, would you care to tell us all what sources you do find acceptable.
I totally agree with you about the "Economic Predictions" about Brexit, it is a shame that the oracle doesn't agree with you, because then there would have been absolutely no point to this whole post. [Post edited 29 Apr 2016 23:16]
|
I'm not rubbishing anything - I simply said that the papers are putting their own spin on everything which they are and as such anything that they print can only be read as an aside.
I don't find any sources acceptable on this particular part of the issue - that is the great disappointment of the entire debate. We are seeing nothing that is factual, just spurious 'projections' of figures that absolutely no one can project from both camps.
In my view, the whole economic argument is so false in either direction that it comes down to a matter of principle. I personally believe that we will be able to negotiate trade agreements with whoever we need to negotiate with in the EU in the more medium term as they won't want to lose such an important market. However, I also believe that there may be some detrimental short term economic effect and a short term adverse impact on jobs with a shock wave to sterling and possibly equity markets both of which hit the average person much more than may be imagined. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 21:00 - Apr 29 with 1768 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:40 - Apr 29 by londonlisa2001 |
The Human Rights Act is not affected by the upcoming vote. |
Of course not, but the UK court decisions on Human Rights can and are overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, which cannot be prevented all the time we are in the EU.
Just like the European Court takes precedence over all the other National courts.
See this for a classic example.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/eu-court-overturns-carb
This directly affects our Industries like Port Talbot. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 21:10 - Apr 29 with 1759 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Brexiters, why? on 21:00 - Apr 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
Of course not, but the UK court decisions on Human Rights can and are overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, which cannot be prevented all the time we are in the EU.
Just like the European Court takes precedence over all the other National courts.
See this for a classic example.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/eu-court-overturns-carb
This directly affects our Industries like Port Talbot. |
Irrespective of the vote on membership of the EU I firmly believe that we should remain a contracting state to the ECHR. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 21:35 - Apr 29 with 1750 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Brexiters, why? on 21:10 - Apr 29 by londonlisa2001 |
Irrespective of the vote on membership of the EU I firmly believe that we should remain a contracting state to the ECHR. |
Why, when we have the Human Rights Act? | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 23:16 - Apr 29 with 1715 views | Jack_Meoff |
| Brexiters, why? on 21:35 - Apr 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why, when we have the Human Rights Act? |
Which is in the Tory manifesto to get rid of. [Post edited 29 Apr 2016 23:26]
|  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| Brexiters, why? on 23:49 - Apr 29 with 1702 views | the_oracle |
All I asked was please keep it on thread which is Brexiters, why? Not what Dav, Lisa, you et al thought about bloody Obama. I am happy to listen to any view, no matter how skewed it may be about in or out of the EU.
However its clear to me that the comments from the outers point to the real underlying truth of the reasons for out, (how ever hard they may protest it isn't), its immigration. All the serious well thought out economic evidence and analysis points to stay in, for the outers there's no evidence showing how we will be better off, its purely guess work. If the outers continue to ignore what appears to be the general consensus there must be a reason why you want out and all that remains is...bloody immigrants. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 02:24 - Apr 30 with 1677 views | skacrazy |
I think you've answered your own questions. They are absolutely shit scared of us leaving because they know we can go it alone and do well. They are practically begging for us to stay. At this point in time I don't see any reason to stay in. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 04:54 - Apr 30 with 1663 views | Humpty |
| Brexiters, why? on 16:30 - Apr 29 by Davillin |
I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to open a closed mind. And you are not to consider that a personal insult or anything near that. Your mind is closed on this subject, as your posts clearly demonstrate.
I have seven years of first-hand almost daily experience with obama and his philosophy about politics, economics, foreign affairs, society, and more, about his lies, and about his misdeeds, on top of a lifetime [I'm almost 80] of living and observing all things political and social in the States. I literally study news and commentary daily in periodicals from countries other than my own -- especially from the U.K. I know what you read and how inaccurate it all is when it comes to matters in the U.S.
I have lived under -- and was aware of -- almost a third of all U.S. presidents. The first presidential election i voted in was for John Kennedy.
I studied American History in college and taught it for about 15 years. I was for many years actively involved in politics at the city and county levels.
Do you actually expect me to put all of that into a book-length essay that I know you will be unable to understand and unwilling to consider?
If you think my refusing to embark on a fool's errand is "a hissy fit," you're deluded about that, too. I'd say your response is far more of a hissy fit than mine to you. You have absolutely no idea of how many times and in how many ways I have been faced with all kinds of adversity, so if you think that one or two posters on PlanetSwans can faze me, you're deluded about that, too.
If you want to become "a better person" in this regard, there are countless avenues available to you -- objective, unbiased books, news programs, and political commentary. The problem is that you have not taken advantage of that material because you have limited yourself to the highly-biased media of the U.K. parroting the highly-biased media of the U.S. -- and steadfastly deny it.
To point out where you are wrong, I would have to start correcting every one of your mistaken conclusions about obama's presidency, examine the myriad flaws he has demonstrated that you are not even aware of, and teach you about the quality of every other U.S. president.
Fool's errands, all.
__________
p.s. I hope you will consider this generous on my part, to point you to a website that is both neutral and highly informative about U.S. political matter. It would be a good start for you.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ [Post edited 29 Apr 2016 16:34]
|
Thanks for the link Dav. I'll look into it.
Not that I really need it as I also get my news from a wide range of sources. One thing I do know is anyone who posts links from Breitbart or Fox News is not worth listening to. Because it's not news.
If you like sources like that, carry on. But don't get upset when people take the piss when you link to them.
As for teaching me the qualities of every other US president, could you start with GW Bush please? Could you tell me how Obama has done a worse job than him? |  | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 05:20 - Apr 30 with 1662 views | Humpty |
| Brexiters, why? on 12:43 - Apr 29 by A_Fans_Dad |
When you say categorically that "Because it tells the truth." you totally confirm that you are brainwashed by them and deluded to boot.
With all the publicity over Jimmy Saville I am amazed that you could say such a thing.
I suggest that you take the time to read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies
I can add a few more to that
Biased fixing of Question Time audiences.
Biased fixing of Sunday Morning Live audiences.
Totally false filming for Nature documentaries.
Biased reporting of Climate Change, Renewable Energy, Green Issues and the EU, who pay the BBC.
Using their website to "virtually" advertise products like Tesla Cars.
All of which are against the BBC's own Charter of fairness and no advertising.
I suggest that you also take a look at where the BBC invests it's Pension Fund. |
Ok. Thanks for confirming. Nutter.
Jimmy Saville. Yeah, shocking. A shame on the BBC. And his good friend Margaret Thatcher. Tory Prime Minister at the time, who used to invite him over to Chequers for tea and biscuits every Christmas. And Edwina Currie, Tory Health Minister at the time who thought a paedophilic rapist was just the man she needed to run Rampton. An institution with lots of mentally ill young girls. None of which has f*ck all to do with the quality of BBC news reporting.
Biased fixing of Question Time audiences. And what proof of that are you going to provide?
Biased fixing of Sunday Morning Live audiences. See above.
Totally false filming for Nature documentaries. Who gives a f*ck and how is it relevant to BBC news reporting?
Biased reporting of Climate Change, Renewable Energy, Green Issues and the EU, who pay the BBC. Would you like to expand on the biased reporting on climate change? Nutter.
Using their website to "virtually" advertise products like Tesla Cars. Like I said. Nutter. I like the use of the word "virtually" though. Which means they haven't but you sort of think they did. Nutter.
Honestly. You're just a nutter.
Serious question , what news sources do you think are better than the BBC? [Post edited 30 Apr 2016 5:38]
| | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 12:00 - Apr 30 with 1614 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Brexiters, why? on 05:20 - Apr 30 by Humpty |
Ok. Thanks for confirming. Nutter.
Jimmy Saville. Yeah, shocking. A shame on the BBC. And his good friend Margaret Thatcher. Tory Prime Minister at the time, who used to invite him over to Chequers for tea and biscuits every Christmas. And Edwina Currie, Tory Health Minister at the time who thought a paedophilic rapist was just the man she needed to run Rampton. An institution with lots of mentally ill young girls. None of which has f*ck all to do with the quality of BBC news reporting.
Biased fixing of Question Time audiences. And what proof of that are you going to provide?
Biased fixing of Sunday Morning Live audiences. See above.
Totally false filming for Nature documentaries. Who gives a f*ck and how is it relevant to BBC news reporting?
Biased reporting of Climate Change, Renewable Energy, Green Issues and the EU, who pay the BBC. Would you like to expand on the biased reporting on climate change? Nutter.
Using their website to "virtually" advertise products like Tesla Cars. Like I said. Nutter. I like the use of the word "virtually" though. Which means they haven't but you sort of think they did. Nutter.
Honestly. You're just a nutter.
Serious question , what news sources do you think are better than the BBC? [Post edited 30 Apr 2016 5:38]
|
I will not bother to respond to anything you say in future, whenever someone resorts to abuse and no sensible responses they have already lost the argument.
Bye. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 15:38 - Apr 30 with 1577 views | Davillin |
| Brexiters, why? on 04:54 - Apr 30 by Humpty |
Thanks for the link Dav. I'll look into it.
Not that I really need it as I also get my news from a wide range of sources. One thing I do know is anyone who posts links from Breitbart or Fox News is not worth listening to. Because it's not news.
If you like sources like that, carry on. But don't get upset when people take the piss when you link to them.
As for teaching me the qualities of every other US president, could you start with GW Bush please? Could you tell me how Obama has done a worse job than him? |
Your question: " Could you tell me how Obama has done a worse job than him [George W. Bush]? "
Honest to Heaven, I do not have the time or inclination. Just doing obama's horrible imitation of a president would wear me out.
The notion that George W. Bush was a bad president is pure propaganda used as the fundamental basis for obama's presidential campaigns. In his first campaign, a day did not go by that he did not blame something -- everything -- on Bush. And the media played all of it as if it were the truth. [Please remember that I was there through it all. Horror!]
Once you learn that obama lies consistently, you'll start to see it. Lies flow from his lips like bubbles in a stream -- pretty-sounding and innocent-looking, but lies nonetheless..
Your bias against Fox and dependence on the anti-GOP media will ever prevent you from seeing the truth about obama. I am not being insulting. Just objective. I genuinely wonder how often you have watched Fox on TV -- news, not "commentators." You and other British Fox-haters.
[p.s. Out of curiosity, I just checked the Fox website and found nothing to alarm me. A lot of silly space-fillers (as they all use), and a fairly even balance between a variety of viewpoints. Nothing untrue or shockingly biased.]
I have BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Telegraph on my Toolbar Bookmarks and check them virtually every day. I started reading The Guardian in the '60s, before there was an Internet, on that flimsy crackling toilet paper on that segmented wooden holder, in the library of the college where I was teaching. Between the four of them, I know what they're telling you about the U.S. It's usually inaccurate, and often insulting. | |
| |
| Brexiters, why? on 17:12 - Apr 30 with 1560 views | exiledclaseboy |
I'm still intrigued about the lack of a capital "O" in Obama.
Any help anyone? |  |
| |
| Brexiters, why? on 17:20 - Apr 30 with 1558 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Brexiters, why? on 17:12 - Apr 30 by exiledclaseboy |
I'm still intrigued about the lack of a capital "O" in Obama.
Any help anyone? |
It's a little protest to signify that the current President doesn't deserve respect.
At least it's marginally less childish than the recent use of oBUMa which was frankly worthy of Beavis and Butthead.
Almost as hilarious as when Davillin uses 'Shrillary' or similar' to talk about his next President :-)
Not that he's a republican though - no siree. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 17:23 - Apr 30 with 1555 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Brexiters, why? on 17:20 - Apr 30 by londonlisa2001 |
It's a little protest to signify that the current President doesn't deserve respect.
At least it's marginally less childish than the recent use of oBUMa which was frankly worthy of Beavis and Butthead.
Almost as hilarious as when Davillin uses 'Shrillary' or similar' to talk about his next President :-)
Not that he's a republican though - no siree. |
Is that all it is? Seems a bit juvenile. | |
| |
| Brexiters, why? on 17:24 - Apr 30 with 1555 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Brexiters, why? on 15:38 - Apr 30 by Davillin |
Your question: " Could you tell me how Obama has done a worse job than him [George W. Bush]? "
Honest to Heaven, I do not have the time or inclination. Just doing obama's horrible imitation of a president would wear me out.
The notion that George W. Bush was a bad president is pure propaganda used as the fundamental basis for obama's presidential campaigns. In his first campaign, a day did not go by that he did not blame something -- everything -- on Bush. And the media played all of it as if it were the truth. [Please remember that I was there through it all. Horror!]
Once you learn that obama lies consistently, you'll start to see it. Lies flow from his lips like bubbles in a stream -- pretty-sounding and innocent-looking, but lies nonetheless..
Your bias against Fox and dependence on the anti-GOP media will ever prevent you from seeing the truth about obama. I am not being insulting. Just objective. I genuinely wonder how often you have watched Fox on TV -- news, not "commentators." You and other British Fox-haters.
[p.s. Out of curiosity, I just checked the Fox website and found nothing to alarm me. A lot of silly space-fillers (as they all use), and a fairly even balance between a variety of viewpoints. Nothing untrue or shockingly biased.]
I have BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Telegraph on my Toolbar Bookmarks and check them virtually every day. I started reading The Guardian in the '60s, before there was an Internet, on that flimsy crackling toilet paper on that segmented wooden holder, in the library of the college where I was teaching. Between the four of them, I know what they're telling you about the U.S. It's usually inaccurate, and often insulting. |
Lol - the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian and Indie are inaccurate and biased and Fox News is 'an even balance between a variety of viewpoints'.
Be honest - you are trolling now aren't you? Brilliant. | | | |
| Brexiters, why? on 17:37 - Apr 30 with 1551 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Brexiters, why? on 20:38 - Apr 29 by Morfa_Same |
Indeed.
Wales is a net beneficiary from the EU. If we vote out we'd be effectively turning down money. What's more I think I'm right in saying EU money can't be syphoned off by Cardiff, which is not an objective one area.
European money goes to where it's needed most, unlike money from the UK Government/WAG which always goes to places like London and Cardiff. |
As it stands its a net beneficiary.
Going forward though when the likes of Turkey, Albania etc join, there will be far more areas which have lower standards of living and will be deemed as more "deserving" of the money than South Wales. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
